CLERK'S OFFICEU'S.DIST.GOURT AT ROANOKE,VA FILED IN TH E UN ITED STATE S D ISTRICT CO U RT FO R TH E W E STE RN D IST RICT O F W RG IN TA JUL 23 2213 R OAN OIG D IW SION BY J: ULA ( -C.DUDLEMCLERK Dip CLERK IIC 1t1:: ) ) VOLUNTARY DISCLOSUM S ) By:H on.M ichaelF.Urbansld IN FIFTY-FIVE CLOSED CASES ) ChiefUited StatesDistrictludge ) M E M O RAN D U M O PIN IO N BeforethecourtarenonpartyCraigFrye'sM odon to SealExllibit's(sicjAttached to I-lisReplyin SupportofI'IisModon to IntewenerfModon to SealExllibits'),ECF No.44,1 andM otiontoSealFrye'sReplyitaSupportofModontoIntervenettheffMotiontoSeal Replyj''and collecévelyw1t. 1'1theM oéonsto SealExhibits,theffM otionsto SeaP),ECF No. 47,and nonpartyBH M ediaGroup,lnc.'s(<)at2,UnitedStatesv.Farrell,7:12-cr-00058-MFU (W .D.Va. June15,2018),ECF No.72;seeReplyExs.1-19.3Moreover,Frye'stwenty-eightpageReply cited extensively from theExllibits. W hen filing the Reply and Exllibits,Frye did notfollow LocalRule 9,which governs thesealing ofdocumentson thedocket.LocalRule9(b)requiresthatanypartyseekingto obtnin asealing orderTTm ustflle an unsealed written m otion containing':ageneric descdpdon ofthedocum entto besealed,the basesfotsealing the docum ent,and the 3AfterFryeftledtheReplyontheExhibitsinUnitedStatesv.Kee an,7:14-cr-00029-MF' UW . D.Va.),thecouu ordered Fryeto ftletheReply brief- butnottheExhibits- on tlze docketofthe rem qining Iifty-fouz cases.O rder,ECF N o.46,at2. duraéonforsealing.W .D.Va.Gen.R.9q$(2).Additionally,ffthemovingpartymustalso 2 tenderto the court,in cam eza,the docum entpzoposed to be sealed.''Id. lnstead,FryefiledtlaeReplyand theExlnibitsditectlyon tlaedocket,rathezthanLq cam era* t.11the court.Frye contem poraneously flled tlae M otion to SealExllibits.Because Fryeproceeded itïtllism anner,hisReply and theExlébitsrem ained unsealed on the docket, w here the publiccould view them .ln them ozning,approxim ately eighthoutsafterFrye . publicly flled theReply,tlaeExhibits,and theM otion to SealExllibits,thecotzrtentered an ordeztem porarily sealing the Exhibitsunti ltheM oéon to SealExhibitscould be addressed. O rder,ECF N o.45. On thatsamem orning,Fryeflled theV otion to SealReply,askingthecourtto seal the Replyitself.Frye'sM ot.SealFrye'sReply Supp.M ot.lntervene,E CF N o.47.At argum enton M ay 16,2018,Frye to alarge degreebacked offthism otion.Fryerepresented to the courtthatifitw anted to unsealthe Reply,Fryethinksthatw oùld be satisfactory. W hile the courtindicated atargum entthatitwould unsealtheReply,theReply rem ains sealed on thedocket. I1. BH M edia'sM otion to Intezvene W léle the cotutdenied Frye'sm odon to intervene,= lntetvenéon O rder 3,BH Meclia'sMotiop to lntervenefindsitselfon farstrongetlegalfootinp Atthethteshol),Local Rule9 allowsTfgajnyperson orentity,whetherapartyornot,Fojobjectto am odontoseala docurflent.''W .D.Va.Gen.R.94$/).LocalRule9 thusallowsBH Mediato opposeFrye's M odonsto Seal,irzespectiyeofBH M edia'sstatusasaparty ornonpartyit' lthese cases.  M oreovet,m edia outletsffunquestionably have stancling to challengeaccessto cotzrt documents.''United Statesv.James,663F.Supp.2d 1018,1020 (W.D.W ash.2009)9seealso Doev.Pub.Citizen,749F.3d246,262(4thCir.2014)tffTllisCotzrthaspreviouslypermited new sozganizadonsto intervenein acdonsin which they werenototherwisepartiesto challengeadisttictcoutt'ssealingorder,'').Tlnisisbecausefflpqublicaccesstojudicial proceedingsisconsistentwit.h the T irstAm endm entand tlae com m on-law ttadition that courtproceedingsazeprestunptively open to public scrutinp'''U nited Statesv.A dam s,788 F.3d 115,116(4th Cir.2015)(quodngDoe,749F.3d at265). W ith ln0t.h LocalRule 9 and the case1aw in m ind,the cotutholdtthatBH M ediahas standing to opposeFrye'sM otionsto Seal.A ccordingly,the courtwillgzantBH M edia's M odon to lntervene. 111. Frye's Standing to File the M odonsto Seal TheFederalPublicDefenderttheTKFPD'')raisesatluesholdargument:Becausethe cotuthasalready denied Frye'sm otion to intervene,theFPD arguesthatFrye Tfdoesnot have standing to seek to controlorinfluence the presum ptively publicdocketin these 55 cases.''FPD 'SO pp.Frye'sM ot.Seal,ECF N o.59,at1. Superhcially,LocalRule 9 pzovidessom e supportfortheFPD 'Sarplm ent.Local Rule 9 stbtes: eigh the publicinterestsit' laccess.':Rushford v.New YorkerMa azine,846F.2d 249,253(4th Cit. 1988).ffl' hepartyseçking toovezcomethepresplmpdon bearstheburden ofshowing some signifk antinterestthatoutweighsthe presum ption.''ld.U nlikethe com m on law,ffthe First Amendmentprovidesarightofaccessonlyto ardcularjudicialrecordsanddocuments,and tlnisrightyieldsonlyintheexistenceofaKcompellinggovernmentalintetest...gthatis1 narzowly tailored to selve thatintezest.7'In reA lication ofU .S.foran OrderPursuantto 18U.S.C.Secéon2713@ ),707F.3d283,290(4thCit.2013)(alterationsinoriginal) (quoéngVa.De 'tofStatePolicev.W ash.Post,386F.3d 567,575(4th Cir.200$).ln eithercase,Frye,asthe patty seeking to ovezcom ethepzem'm ption thattheReply and Exhibitsshould beaccessible to thepublic,bearsthe, btztden ofshowing som e significant interestthatoutv eighsthe presum péon.''Rushford,846 F.2d at253. A. JudicialDocum entorRecord Atthe thteshold,the courtm ustdecideiftlaeReply and ExhibitsconstM te a fjudicialdoctunentorrecord.''TheFourth Circuithasheldthatçfdocumentsflled witlathe courtarejudicialrecords'iftheytplayaroleintheadjuclicativeprocess,oradjudicate substantive rights.''In reA licadon,707 F.3d at290.Underthisdefinition,itisclearthat theReplyand kxllibitsconsétutepattofthejudicialrecord.TheReplyisadocumentftled ff with theobjectiveofobtniningjudicialaction'' namely,in supportofhismotion to inteweneinthefifty-fivecases.C?.idaat291Solclingthatffderivativej2703$)motionsare judicialrecords'becausetheywereflledwithtlleobjectiveofobtniningjudicialactionor reliefpertainingtoj2703$)otdéts').Similatly,theExhibitswereftledinfutthersupportof Frye'sReply. The court'sconclusion issupported by theThitd Circuit'sdecision in U nited Statesv. W echt,484 F.3d 194" date_filed="2007-04-12" court="3rd Cir." case_name="United States v. Wecht">484 F.3d 194 (3dCir.2007).lnW echt,thedistrictcout'tinitially allowedthe governm entto ftle certnin BCC-U d -- y and Gi lio m atezialsunderseal,but,afterm ecliaoutlets .- - intervened,latezunsealed the m aterials.Id.at207.Thegoveznm entappealed,arguing that the BLAd .---yandGilio materialswerenotajudicialdocumentorrecotd.4In partictllat,the goveznm entargued thattheB ta-y d and GQ- li -Q.matetialswereçfdiscoverymatetialsthat - - .- cannotbesubjectto thecommon law rightofaccess.''1d.at208. - -c 4Thegovernm entconceded that,iftheB a-d -yandGiliomaterialswereajudicialdocllmentorrecord,thegovernment . rfhasfailedtojusdfyprecludingtlzecourtfrom disclositzgtheinformadon.''Wecht484F.3dat208. 6  TheThirdCirclzitrejectedthegovetnment'sposiéon.WhiletheTfgovernmentgwasj coêrectthatBCa -U .-d -- ymaterialsarelikediscoverp''wlnichisgenerallynotsubjecttoacommon 1aw rightofaccess,ffobligaépnsunderBrg. # - -. aregovernednotbyzulesofpzocedutebutby theConsétution.''Ldaat209.W ith thisin tnind,theThird Circuitheld thattheB .-ZR-J d!and Giliomatezialswezejuclicialdocumentsozzecozds,ttiggezingacommonlaw rightofaccess to thosem aterials. TheThitd Citctlitidentihed hvereasonssupporting itsholding'thatthepublichad a com m on 1aw rightofaccessto theBIJg-I -Iy and G. .-- .. .tglLqmaterials.First,the> . andG --Y- liQ m aterialsw ereftled with am odon fozin cam era review ,ffwhich çclearly establishes'them as judicialrecords.''Id.(quotingGoldsteinv.Forbes(InredendantCom .),260F.3d183,192 (3d.Cir.2001)).Second,thedistrictcourtdetermined thattheB .-IA- d- yand Giliomatedals Tfmustbedisclosed to thedefenseaspossibleimpeachmentevidence,':and fflplublicaccess to judicialdetet-minationsTprovidles)thepublicw1t.11amorecompleteunderstanclingofthe judicialsystem,'andTpromotesthepublicpezceptionoffaitness.r'Id.at209-10qast altetadoninoriginal)(quotingUnitedStatesv.Cdden,675F.2d550,556(3dCit.1982)). Thitd>fftlle processby which thegovernm entinvestigatesand prosecutesitscitizensisan importantmatterofpubhcconcezn.''1d.at210.Fol't-fh,becauseffltjherecotdsconcezn the conductofan FBlofficialw ho played aprom inentrole in ahighly publicized invesdgadoh ofawell-known defendant,':the doctzm entsatissueTTareofsignifkantinterestto tlae public.'?Id.Fifth,the recordsw eze relevantto the defendant'ssuppression m oéon.Id. The courtfm dsW echt'sreasoning to bepezsuasive.A ccordingly,the courtholdsthat theReplyandExllibitsarejudicialdocumentsandtecotds. 7  B. A RightofAccessExists The Foutth Citcuitnextrequizesthecourtto ffdeternlinethe source ofthe rightof accessw1t. 1,1respectto each docum ent,because onlythen can itaccr atelyw eigh the competinginterestsatstake.''Doe,749F.3dat266(quotingVa.De 'tofStatePolice,386 F.3d at576).To determineiftheFirstAmendmentrightofaccessapplies,thecouttmust ffemploytheTexpezienceandlogic'test,asking:(1)whethertheplaceandprocesshave histodcallybeen open to tlaepzessand generalpublic,and (2)whetherpublicaccessplaysa signihcantpositive zolein tlae functioning ofthepardcularprocessin question.''In ze A lication,707F.3dat283 (internalquotationsonnitted)(quodngBalt.Sun Co.v.Goetz, 886F.2d 60,64 (4th Cir.1989)).Both prongsmustbesatisfied fortheFitstAmenclmentto govern thepublicright'sofaccess.Seeids Thevariousparéesdisagtee overwhetherthe Reply and Exhibitssatisfy the expedence and logictest.Frye assum es- withoutany argtmaent- thatonly the com m on law rightofaccessapplies.SeeFryeBr.Supp.Mot.Seal1(citingthePublicCitizenstandardfor rebutting thecommon1aw presumption).Thegovernmentagrees,arguingthatTfcriminal discoveryisnotan area llistorically open to the publicand press.''sGov'tsBt.O pp.M ot. SealExhibits,ECF N o.60,at4 n.1.N onetheles7,the governm entrecognized thatthe court cotzld hold thattheReply and ExhibitsTfshould be construed prim azily only asdocmnents necessatyfottheadjudicadon ofFrye'sjM otion to lntezvene,''wllichwotlld ttiggetaFirst Am endm entrightofaccess.Id.at5n.1. 5'I'he courtnotesthatwhilecrim inalcliscoverym ightnotbe an area historically open to the publicand the press,that bzoad tazbdc changeswhen acouztdeterminesthatrecordsffmustbe disclosed to thedefenseaspossibleim peacbment evidence.''W echt,484 F.3d at209.  BH M edia disagrees.BH M edia ftrstcontends Tfm otionsto itatervene are the preferred proceduralm echanism fornon-partiesto vindicate the public'srightofaccess.'' BH M edia M ot.lntervene6.M oreover,pubzcTfaccessto m otionsto intervenehelpsthe publicunderstand thereviewing court'stn'ling and ...helpslegitim ize the decision.''Id.at7. BFIMecliacontendsthatTfgtqlaispositivezoleofaccessisallthemoresigtlihcantintlniscase, whetea third-pazty clnim shisparticipation isnecessary to cutb alleged governm entalabuses ofpowetthatcould havefar-reacllingconsequencesthatdizectlyaffectthepublic.'?J.dx TheFedetalPublk DefenderttheTKFPD7) also arguesthattheFirstAmendment applies,buton differentgrounds.TheFPD tiestheFirstAm enclm entrightofaccessin with <