568 F. App'x 68
2d Cir.2014Background
- Movants seek unsealing documents about Felix Safer (John Doe) cooperation in criminal cases.
- This matter previously reviewed in Roe v. United States (2011).
- District Court drafted two orders after hearings on sealing; one sealed, one unsealed.
- Judge Glasser held hearings with government and Safer’s counsel only; considered which documents stay sealed.
- District Court provided tables listing documents to remain sealed and narrow redactions where possible.
- Court affirms District Court orders and retains jurisdiction for further appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is continued sealing of documents justified? | Movants: sealing unsupported by public right. | Government: sensitive cooperation requires continued sealing. | Yes; sealing supported by compelling interests and narrowly tailored. |
| Did movants have right to attend sealing hearings? | Movants: had right as parties to intervene. | Proceedings closed; on-record findings needed. | Argument rejected; hearings proper with written submissions allowed. |
| Are the district court's on-the-record findings adequate and narrowly tailored? | Findings insufficient to justify broad closure. | Findings detailed per document; narrowly tailored. | Findings sufficient; sealing justified given cooperation and interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1980) (First Amendment open proceedings framework)
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1978) (Common-law right of access to judicial records)
- United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2008) (on-record findings required for sealing; narrowly tailored)
- New York Times Co. v. United States, 828 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1987) (general sealing findings insufficient; must be narrowly tailored)