United States v. Appelbaum
707 F.3d 283
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Case concerns public access to § 2703(d) orders and related documents during the pre-grand jury phase of an ongoing criminal investigation under the Stored Communications Act.
- Government sought records and their orders for Twitter users in the Manning/WikiLeaks investigation; the district court sealed the Twitter Order and application due to investigation secrecy.
- Magistrate judge later unsealed some pleadings but denied unsealing the Twitter Application and Other § 2703(d) Orders; sealing of these materials was challenged by Subscribers.
- District court reviewed magistrate decisions under de novo review for sealing/docketing and affirmed sealing decisions, while creating an EC docket for § 2703(d) matters.
- Subscribers petitioned for mandamus, arguing rights of access under First Amendment and common law; court denied relief, upholding no First Amendment right and outweighed common law presumption by government interests.
- Concurrence by Wilson rejects a presumption of a standalone common law right of access to § 2703(d) orders, arguing it conflicts with the statutory framework of the Stored Communications Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there a First Amendment or common law right to access § 2703(d) orders? | Subscribers contend public access should be available under First Amendment and common law. | Government argues secrecy is essential; common law and First Amendment rights are outweighed by investigation needs. | No First Amendment right; common law right outweighed by government interests. |
| Did the district court apply the correct standard of review to magistrate decisions on sealing/docketing? | Subscribers argue error in standard of review. | Court correctly applied de novo review for sealing/docketing under the magistrate act. | Correct de novo standard applied; decisions affirmed. |
| Must § 2703(d) proceedings and related documents be publicly docketed? | Subscribers seek public docketing of all § 2703(d) matters. | No automatic public docketing mandated for pre-indictment § 2703(d) matters. | No requirement to publicly docket every § 2703(d) matter. |
Key Cases Cited
- Va. Dep’t of State Police v. Wash. Post, 386 F.3d 567 (4th Cir. 2004) (common law right of access balancing against countervailing interests)
- Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, 846 F.2d 249 (4th Cir. 1988) (common law presumption of access; burden on outweighing interests)
- In re Knight Publ’g Co., 743 F.2d 231 (4th Cir. 1984) (presumption of access; weighing of public vs. private interests)
- United States v. Moussaoui, 65 F. App’x 881 (4th Cir. 2003) (application of access principles to investigative materials (unpublished appx.))
- Goetz v. Doe, 886 F.2d 60 (4th Cir. 1989) (magistrate’s sealing/docketing decisions reviewed de novo)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1986) (experience and logic prongs for public access)
- In re Sealed Case, 199 F.3d 522 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (investigative secrecy and access limitations in grand jury-like contexts)
- Media Gen. Operations, Inc. v. Buchanan, 417 F.3d 424 (4th Cir. 2005) (procedural requirements for sealing: alternatives and public notice)