United States v. Lightner, 8:24-cr-00021

The Government sought to seal an eighty-eight-page document (the "Mass Casualty Guide") allegedly seized from Alexander Lightner during a search related to charges for transmitting interstate threats and possessing an unregistered firearm silencer.
Lightner had made several allegedly threatening posts on Telegram, prompting FBI investigation and a search warrant executed on January 5, 2024.
During the search, agents seized firearms, ammunition, Mein Kampf, and the document in question, which contained references to white supremacist violence and fictional stories.
The Government cited and quoted extensively from the Document in opposition to Lightner’s motion to dismiss and motion to sever the counts.
The Court requested the Government file the Document as an exhibit; the Government moved to seal it, arguing the content was inflammatory and could cause societal harm. Lightner opposed sealing, seeking public access.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the First Amendment right of access applies to the Document attached to a substantive pretrial motion	Government argued the Document's racist/inflammatory content risks societal harm, meriting sealing	Lightner argued for public access, stating the Document does not pose a concrete threat and is cited in substantive motions	Right of access applies to the Document because it was filed with a substantive pretrial motion
Whether the Government overcame the presumption of openness by demonstrating a compelling need for secrecy	Disclosure should be restricted due to potential risk to public safety	Sealing unnecessary; content is fictional, not an actual operational guide, and Lightner consents to disclosure	Government failed to demonstrate a specific, compelling interest; risk asserted is speculative and conclusory; sealing denied

United States v. Ochoa-Vasquez, 428 F.3d 1015 (11th Cir. 2005) (establishes qualified First Amendment right of access to criminal trial proceedings and standard for overcoming presumption of openness)
Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2007) (material filed in connection with substantive pretrial motions is subject to public right of access)
Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001) (public’s right of access applies to documents filed with substantive pretrial motions)
United States v. Valenti, 987 F.2d 708 (11th Cir. 1993) (court must articulate specific findings and interests supporting sealing)
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., Riverside Cnty., 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (closure must be supported by overriding interest, narrowly tailored, and with specific findings)
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., Riverside Cnty., 478 U.S. 1 (1986) (public’s First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings; speculative risks not enough to overcome presumption)