United States v. Lorenzana-Cordon
197 F. Supp. 3d 1
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Defendant Waldemar Lorenzana‑Cordon moved to unseal the Third Superseding Indictment and restore the names of 13 co‑defendants redacted on the public docket.
- Defense argued a complete public indictment is needed for post‑trial Rule 29 and Rule 33 briefing and noted defense counsel had received an unredacted copy via Guatemalan extradition materials.
- The Government opposed, invoking Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(4), arguing unsealing could tip off fugitives, jeopardize captures, allow evidence destruction or witness retaliation, and that sound policy supports continued redaction.
- The Government submitted sealed ex parte materials and proposed a compromise: provide the defendant a partially unsealed indictment (names of certain co‑defendants disclosed) under the existing Protective Order, while keeping fugitives’ names sealed.
- The Court reviewed public and ex parte submissions, found continued sealing justified under Rule 6(e)(4), and ordered the Government to provide a partially unsealed indictment with nine co‑defendants’ names (Nos. 1–6, 8, 10, 13) subject to the Protective Order; five co‑defendants (Nos. 7, 9, 12, 14, 15) remain redacted.
- The Court set an expedited briefing schedule for any Rule 29 (judgment of acquittal) and Rule 33 (new trial) motions, noting defense counsel already had access to an unredacted copy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Lorenzana‑Cordon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complete indictment should be unsealed on the public docket | Sealing justified by Rule 6(e)(4) to protect ongoing law‑enforcement interests and prevent tipping off defendants/co‑conspirators | Complete public unsealing is needed for transparent record and post‑trial briefing; delay no longer justified because indictment is old | Denied — complete unsealing unwarranted under Rule 6(e)(4) |
| Whether names of fugitive co‑defendants should remain sealed | Release could jeopardize capture operations and enable evasion/retaliation; legitimate prosecutorial need to keep sealed | Argued some names already known; but did not show prejudice from sealing | Upheld — names of fugitives remain redacted to protect operations |
| Whether disclosure of some co‑defendants’ names is appropriate | Offer to provide partially unsealed indictment (names of those who testified, served sentences, or are deceased) under Protective Order | Not opposed substantively; counsel already has unredacted copy but prefers public unsealing to avoid sealed filings | Adopted — Court ordered partial disclosure of nine named co‑defendants under Protective Order |
| Whether Defendant is prejudiced by limited disclosure | Protective‑order limited disclosure suffices; Defendant has access to unredacted copy via extradition materials | Claimed public unsealing eases post‑trial and appellate process; otherwise could file sealed motions | Found no prejudice — partial disclosure adequate for Defendant’s post‑trial motions |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Muse, 633 F.2d 1041 (2d Cir. 1980) (Rule 6(e)(4) may justify sealing indictments to avoid alerting defendants and to aid capture)
- United States v. Southland Corp., 760 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1985) (indictments may remain sealed for sound reasons of policy)
- United States v. Edwards, 777 F.2d 644 (11th Cir. 1985) (upholding sealing where public disclosure would harm prosecutorial interests)
- United States v. Michael, 180 F.2d 55 (3d Cir. 1949) (historical precedent supporting sealing indictments for public‑interest reasons)