United States v. Kravetz
706 F.3d 47
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Edwards, a journalist, sought unsealing of sealed sentencing materials in Kravetz/Levitin criminal case; district court denied; he appealed and moved to intervene; court remanded for further proceedings.
- The sealed materials include Rule 17(c) subpoenas and related documents, sentencing memoranda, and sentencing letters; district court found them predominantly personal to Kravetz and denied access.
- Sentencing memoranda are deemed judicial documents subject to public access; sentencing letters attached to or referenced by memoranda are presumptively accessible.
- Rule 17(c) materials lack a First Amendment/common-law presumption of access and may be disclosed only upon a showing of special need.
- The district court failed to provide sufficiently specific reasons for sealing; this requires remand for articulated findings and a proper balancing of interests.
- The court discusses privacy and business interests as possible justifications for sealing, to be weighed on remand and possibly redacted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 17(c) materials have a public-access presumption | Edwards argues there is public access to Rule 17(c) materials | Kravetz/Levitin contend no presumption; privacy and confidentiality prevail | Rule 17(c) materials have no presumption; access requires special-need showing |
| Whether sentencing memoranda are judicial records with presumptive public access | Edwards contends they are judicial records | Kravetz/Levitin argue less access due to privacy | Yes; sentencing memoranda are judicial documents with a common-law presumption of access |
| Whether sentencing letters attached to memoranda are judicial documents with presumptive access | Letters are part of sentencing materials and should be open | Likely privacy concerns may override access | Yes; sentencing letters presumptively accessible as attached to judicial documents |
| Whether district court failed to provide particularized findings to seal documents | Sealing decisions require explicit, case-specific findings | Procedural posture acceptable with some inference from motions | Remand for more specific findings and proper balancing of interests |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Providence Journal, 293 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (public access to judicial records enhances trust in courts)
- In re Boston Herald, Inc., 321 F.3d 174 (1st Cir. 2003) (distinguishes when materials are judicial records; supports presumption for some materials)
- Standard Fin. Mgmt. Corp., 830 F.2d 404 (1st Cir. 1987) (principles for evaluating access to judicial records; need for substantial justification)
- Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, 435 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1978) (public access balancing; records not absolute; compelling reasons required for non-disclosure)
- Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (U.S. 1984) (pretrial civil discovery procedures generally not public)
- In re Globe Newspaper Co., 920 F.2d 88 (1st Cir. 1990) (absence of specific findings may require disclosure; context-dependent)