New England Internet Café, LLC v. Clerk of the Superior Court for Criminal Business, 462 Mass. 76

Commonwealth sought to unseal affidavits underlying seven warrants in a statewide online gambling probe; materials were sealed/impounded when warrants issued and targets had not been indicted.
Movants sought access to impounded warrant materials; initial failure to follow Republican Co. procedure led to dismissal without prejudice, then civil action was filed.
Trial judge in civil action granted emergency relief to modify/terminate impoundment, balancing Fourth/Federal and state due process interests.
Appeals Court stayed the June 23 order pending appellate resolution; the judge unsealed affidavits in part and invited redactions, with further proceedings to follow.
Commonwealth argued plaintiffs had no Fourth Amendment right to access preindictment warrant materials; court weighed good cause under impoundment doctrine rather than separate Fourth Amendment analysis.
Indictments were filed against the plaintiffs while the appeal was pending, affecting ongoing impoundment considerations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the good cause standard suffices for unsealing in preindictment context	Plaintiffs rely on Fourth Amendment access rights	Commonwealth contends no right of access exists	Good cause analysis governs; no separate Fourth Amendment right required
Whether the trial court abused discretion in weighing interests	Plaintiffs' privacy/ownership interests outweigh government secrecy	Commonwealth's interest in secrecy supports impoundment	No abuse; balancing supported unsealing with redactions possible
Whether the May 13 order foreclosed timely merits review	Order dismissed motion without prejudice; allowed later civil action	May 13 finding of good cause bound plaintiffs	No error; impoundment review proper under procedural framework
Whether due process or First/Sixth Amendment concerns invalidated decision	Targets have due process/First Amendment concerns	These interests do not necessitate preindictment access or separate analyses	No reversible error; due process/First Amendment considerations were appropriately contextualized
Whether procedural posture violated uniform rules on impoundment	Procedural requirements for merit-focused relief were unmet	Court could act on accelerated timeline with limited notice	Procedural approach appropriate; no reversible defect

Republican Co. v. Appeals Court, 442 Mass. 218 (Mass. 2004) (impoundment requires good cause; procedural route governs access)
Boston Herald, Inc. v. Sharpe, 432 Mass. 593 (Mass. 2000) (publicity presumption for judicial records; balancing allowed)
Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539 (Mass. 1977) (impoundment framework; flexible procedure in balancing)
Newspapers of New England, Inc. v. Clerk-Magistrate of the Ware Div. of the Dist. Court Dep’t, 403 Mass. 628 (Mass. 1988) (public access vs. impoundment; precedent on records)
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 461 Mass. 113 (Mass. 2011) (public access and First Amendment considerations in impoundment)