United States v. Erie County
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15800
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- The United States sued Erie County alleging Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations at two county jails; the parties reached a settlement implemented by a stipulated order of dismissal that preserved the district court’s jurisdiction to enforce the agreement.
- The settlement required two compliance consultants to file semiannual written reports with the district court assessing Erie County’s compliance (substantial, partial, or non-compliance); those reports could trigger enforcement or sua sponte court action.
- Erie County moved to file the consultants’ reports under seal; the district court granted sealing and authorized future sealed filings.
- The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) intervened and moved to unseal the compliance reports; the district court allowed intervention but denied the unsealing motion, treating the reports as not subject to First Amendment access and finding the common-law presumption of access overcome.
- The Second Circuit reviewed de novo whether a First Amendment right of access attached, held the reports are judicial documents, found First Amendment access applies, and reversed the district court, ordering the reports unsealed (while allowing narrowly tailored redactions).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (U.S.) | Defendant's Argument (Erie County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the compliance reports "judicial documents" subject to a public-access presumption? | Reports filed with the court and used to monitor/enforce the settlement are judicial documents. | Reports are settlement-related and not integral to the court’s Article III function. | Yes. Reports are relevant to the court’s supervisory/enforcement role and are judicial documents. |
| Does the First Amendment right of public access apply? | Yes — experience and logic support public access to monitoring reports in institutional-change litigation. | No — reports are akin to settlement negotiations and should remain confidential to preserve frank discussions. | Yes. Both experience (practice) and logic (public oversight of prisons and court supervision) support First Amendment access. |
| If First Amendment access applies, can sealing be justified? | N/A (United States supported unsealing) | Sealing necessary to preserve candid settlement-related discussions; confidentiality interests outweigh access. | No. County offered only settlement-based confidentiality arguments and no higher values (e.g., privacy, safety) that narrowly outweigh First Amendment interests. |
| Role of common law presumption of access? | Common-law presumption applies but First Amendment is the controlling (stronger) right here. | Common-law presumption is weak and overcome by settlement confidentiality concerns. | Common-law analysis unnecessary after First Amendment conclusion; in any event, common-law protection supports access. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 1995) (framework for when documents are judicial and subject to common-law access)
- United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995) (weight of common-law presumption tied to role in judicial function)
- Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (experience-and-logic test for First Amendment access and requirement for specific on-the-record findings to justify closure)
- Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2004) (First Amendment provides stronger protection than common law for access to judicial documents)
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (general public right to inspect judicial records and court supervisory power over files)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986) (public access serves monitoring of governmental processes)
- Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011) (use of public monitor reports in prison-conditions litigation)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (retention of jurisdiction to enforce settlement supports court authority)
- Newsday LLC v. County of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2013) (close appellate scrutiny when First Amendment access to judicial documents is implicated)