United States v. Index Newspapers LLC
766 F.3d 1072
9th Cir.2014Background
- This case involves balancing the public's First Amendment right of access against grand jury secrecy under Rule 6(e) in ancillary contempt proceedings.
- The Stranger sought unsealing of transcripts and filings related to a grand jury witness, Matthew Duran, and his co-witness K.O., including contempt and confinement records.
- District court sealed all grand jury-related records under local rule; public access to non-grand-jury materials remained contested.
- The district court held there is no public right to grand jury materials, but acknowledged some public access to open portions of contempt hearings and related filings.
- The Stranger sought unsealing of multiple categories of documents, including motions to quash subpoenas, contempt hearings, and related filings; the district court partially granted and partially denied these motions.
- This court ultimately dismissed mandamus and issued a decision affirming in part, reverse in part, and remanding for unsealing with possible redactions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper avenue for review of unseal order | The Stranger sought mandamus and believed review was proper here. | The district court order was final and appealable; mandamus not required. | Direct appeal proper; mandamus denied. |
| First Amendment right to access contempt-related filings while grand jury ongoing | Public has a right to access filings and transcripts under First Amendment. | 6(e) secrecy and ongoing grand jury interests override access to many materials. | No First Amendment right to most filings; some categories granted access after balancing. |
| Scope of public access to motions to quash grand jury subpoenas | Motions and related filings should be unsealed to inform the public. | Secrecy governs motions relating to grand jury subpoenas during ongoing investigations. | No First Amendment public right to these filings during the ongoing grand jury; district court affirmed sealing. |
| Public access to contempt order and confinement proceedings | The order of contempt and confinement should be publicly accessible. | Some secrecy may remain if necessary to protect grand jury integrity. | Presumptive First Amendment right to the contempt order and related confinement materials; redaction and remand used to protect secrecy where needed. |
| Remand duties to unseal docket and filings | Public should access docket and related transcripts with minimal redaction. | Redaction or sealing may be necessary to protect secrets. | Remand to unseal docket and related filings with redactions as appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1986) (two-part experience-and-logic test for public access to documents)
- Press-Enterprise II, 464 U.S. 501 (Supreme Court 1984) (extends openness to preliminary hearings and judicial documents)
- Times Mirror Co. v. United States, 873 F.2d 1212 (9th Cir. 1989) (no First Amendment right to access to certain pre-indictment materials)
- In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (Supreme Court 1948) (public trials and contempt hearings underlying grand jury secrecy)
- Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610 (Supreme Court 1960) (due process concerns in contempt proceedings and openness)
- Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211 (Supreme Court 1979) (grand jury secrecy justified to protect investigation integrity)
- Copley Press, Inc. v. United States, 518 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2008) (experience and logic test; redaction as alternative to closure)
- In re Newark Morning Ledger Co., 260 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2001) (precedent on access to contempt-related filings in grand jury contexts)
- United States v. Bus. of Custer Battlefield Museum & Store, 658 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2011) (grand jury materials and secrecy limitations in common-law access)