United States v. Morris
7:11-cr-00003 | W.D. Va. | Jul 23, 2018
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
<