Securities & Exchange Commission v. American International Group
404 U.S. App. D.C. 286
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- Consent decree required AIG to hire an independent consultant to review policies and completed transactions, producing IC reports.
- Consent decree was silent on disclosure; district court later ordered confidentiality and limited disclosure to specified entities upon good cause.
- In 2011, Reisinger sought access to IC reports citing common law and First Amendment rights; district court ordered disclosure of redacted reports.
- AIG appealed; this court reverses, holding IC reports are not judicial or public records and thus not subject to the common law or First Amendment access rights.
- The IC reports had no formal role in the adjudicatory process, the consultant lacked judicial authority, and the court did not file or rely on the reports in its decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are IC reports judicial records subject to common law access? | Reisinger argues they are judicial records due to court oversight. | AIG/SEC argue no, as reports were not part of judicial decisions. | No; IC reports are not judicial records. |
| Are IC reports public records subject to disclosure? | Reisinger contends these are public records because created for oversight. | AIG/SEC argue no, they are confidential materials under the decree. | No; not public records. |
| Do First Amendment access rights attach to the IC reports? | First Amendment access applies to court proceedings and related records. | Even if applied, IC reports are not proceedings or records subject to monitoring. | First Amendment right does not attach. |
| Does FOIA or public interest compel disclosure of IC reports? | FOIA/public interest supports disclosure for executive oversight. | FOIA stance not controlling here; district court erred in holding access.v | Not resolved in favor of disclosure; court reverses on access grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wash. Legal Found. v. U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, 89 F.3d 897 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (public records and common law right to inspect)
- El-Sayegh v. United States, 131 F.3d 158 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (judicial records doctrine; role in adjudicatory process)
- Frew ex rel. Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431 (U.S. 2004) (consent decrees and federal interests)
- EEOC v. National Children’s Ctr., Inc., 98 F.3d 1406 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (FOIA/public records considerations in disclosures)
- United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 1995) (court officer; judicial records concept)
- Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola, Inc., 165 F. App’x 878 (2d Cir. 2005) (non-decisive but on analogous issues (summary order))
- Ctr. for Nat’l Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 331 F.3d 828 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (FOIA/records transparency; government secrecy)
- Washington Post v. Robinson, 935 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (First Amendment access and public records)