United States v. Damion Sleugh
896 F.3d 1007
| 9th Cir. | 2018Background
- Damion Sleugh and Shawndale Boyd were co-defendants in a federal prosecution involving drug, robbery, and firearm charges; Boyd pleaded guilty and cooperated, testifying against Sleugh at trial.
- Before Boyd pled, Boyd’s counsel filed Rule 17(c) subpoena applications and supporting affidavits ex parte and under seal seeking cell‑phone records and surveillance video; the subpoenas themselves were later unsealed, but the supporting applications/affidavits remained sealed.
- Sleugh sought access to Boyd’s sealed Rule 17(c) applications and affidavits on appeal, arguing they might contain impeachment material or show inconsistent statements by Boyd useful to Sleugh’s appellate work.
- The magistrate judge denied unsealing; the district court affirmed; Sleugh appealed that denial. Boyd intervened to defend the sealing.
- The Ninth Circuit considered whether a presumptive public right of access (First Amendment or common law) attaches to Rule 17(c) subpoena applications and, if not, whether Sleugh demonstrated the “special need” required to unseal them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sleugh) | Defendant's Argument (Boyd) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a presumptive public right of access attach to Rule 17(c) subpoena applications and supporting affidavits? | Rule 17(c) materials filed with the court are judicial records and presumptively accessible under the First Amendment or common law. | Rule 17(c) applications are discovery‑type, tangential to merits; no tradition or logic supports presumptive access. | No presumptive First Amendment or common‑law right of access; access only on a showing of special need. |
| If no presumptive right, did Sleugh show a "special need" to unseal Boyd’s Rule 17(c) applications and affidavits? | Sleugh asserted appellate counsel needed the materials to identify issues and because Boyd’s trial testimony might contradict counsel’s earlier assertions in the sealed affidavits. | Boyd argued disclosure would reveal defense strategies and could prejudice future prosecutions; no plausible basis shown that affidavits contradict Boyd’s testimony. | Sleugh failed to demonstrate special need; speculation about inconsistencies is insufficient. |
| Should the materials remain sealed now that Boyd pleaded and was sentenced? | Sleugh argued the danger of prejudice has passed and materials should be unsealed. | Boyd argued the risk remains (state murder prosecution could be refiled; federal consequences if plea breached) and confidentiality of defense strategy still warrants sealing. | Court held a continued need to seal exists given potential future state/federal exposure. |
| Did the court need to resolve work‑product or waiver issues or attribute counsel statements to the client? | Sleugh suggested sealed filings could be used for impeachment or appellate purposes. | Boyd and court emphasized protection and declined to reach waiver/attribution issues because special‑need failure disposes of motion. | Court did not resolve work‑product or attribution questions; unnecessary after rejecting special‑need showing. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (Sup. Ct.) (standards for Rule 17(c) subpoenas: relevancy, admissibility, specificity)
- Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (Sup. Ct.) (criminal defendants’ right to compulsory process and access to evidence for defense)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct.) (experience-and-logic test for First Amendment right of access)
- Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. United States Dist. Court, 156 F.3d 940 (9th Cir.) (presumption of public access to certain judicial records; release when prejudice passes)
- United States v. Kravetz, 706 F.3d 47 (1st Cir.) (no presumptive First Amendment or common-law access to Rule 17(c) materials; access only on special need)
- Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir.) (distinguishing when discovery‑related filings implicate compelling‑reasons standard vs. good‑cause standard)