UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-81294-CIV-CANNON

DONALD J. TRUMP,

Plaintiff,

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant. 

_________________________________/

THE NEWS MEDIA’S JOINT MOTION TO INTERVENE FOR THE 

LIMITED PURPOSE OF OBTAINING ACCESS TO COURT RECORDS AND 

TO UNSEAL SAME, WITH SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.; the Associated Press; Bloomberg LP; Cable 

News Network, Inc. (“CNN”); CBS Broadcasting Inc.; Dow Jones & Company, Inc., publisher 

of The Wall Street Journal; the E.W. Scripps Company; The Palm Beach Post, a newspaper 

owned and operated by Gannett Co., Inc.; Gray Media Group, Inc., d/b/a WCJB-TV, WJHG-TV, 

and WWSB-TV; NBCUniversal Media, LLC; The New York Times Company; Times 

Publishing Company, publisher of the Tampa Bay Times; and WP Company LLC d/b/a The 

Washington Post (collectively, the “News Media”), hereby move to intervene in this matter for 

the limited purpose of seeking to unseal and obtain access to all judicial documents filed under 

seal with this Court pursuant to its August 27, 2022, Preliminary Order on Motion for Judicial 

Oversight and Additional Relief (ECF No. 29).1 

1 The News Media also seek intervention for the purpose of opposing any future sealings in this 

matter. 

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 1 of 16
2

As a result of the search warrant executed on Monday, August 8, 2022, at the Mar-a-Lago 

club and residence in Palm Beach, Florida, former President Donald J. Trump has asked this Court 

to: (1) appoint a “special master” to oversee review of the items seized at Mar-a-Lago on August 

8, 2022; (2) enjoin the Government from conducting any further review of those same materials; 

(3) order the Government to provide a “more detailed account of the materials seized” on August 

8, 2022; and (4) return any seized property that lies beyond the scope of the executed search 

warrant. See ECF No. 28, Movant’s Supplemental Filing in Support of Motion for Judicial 

Oversight and Additional Relief, Aug. 26, 2022, at p. 4. In ordering preliminary relief, this Court 

has directed the Government to, in conjunction with filing a public response to former President 

Trump’s Motion (ECF No. 1), file certain documents under seal. See ECF No. 29, Preliminary 

Order on Motion for Judicial Oversight and Additional Relief, Aug. 27, 2022, at ¶ 3(b). 

Specifically, this Court has ordered the Government to file under seal:

1) “A more detailed Receipt for Property specifying all property seized pursuant to the 

search warrant executed on August 8, 2022”; and 

2) “A particularized notice including the status of Defendant’s review of the seized 

property, including any filter review conducted by the privilege review team and any 

dissemination of materials beyond the privilege review team.”

Id. 

On August 30, 2022, the Government appears to have filed such records under seal. See

ECF Nos. 39, 40. As to the “more detailed Receipt for Property,” the Government has informed 

the Court that document should be unsealed. The Government’s August 30, 2022, Response To 

Motion For Judicial Oversight And Additional Relief states that it “is prepared, given the 

extraordinary circumstances, to unseal the more detailed receipt and provide it immediately to 

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 2 of 16
3

Plaintiff.” See ECF No. 48, at p. 2 n.1. The Court therefore should unseal that document right 

away. As to the notice of the Government’s “review of the seized property,” the Government’s 

Response also reports that its privilege review team has “completed its work” and otherwise 

detailed the status of that review. See id. at p. 14. Thus, any continued seal over records related 

to that process is also unnecessary and they should also be unsealed now. Finally, the 

Government’s response also argues that should this Court appoint a special master “any documents 

that reflect the special master’s rulings, including orders, privilege logs, or other records, should

be preserved and filed under seal with the Court but made available to both parties.” See id. at p. 

34. Any such sealing of those judicial records would also have to comport with the public access 

legal standards discussed in this memorandum. 

The judicial records identified herein are central to the public’s further understanding of 

what occurred at Mar-a-Lago on August 8, 2022, and this unusual civil proceeding, and will also 

shine greater light on actions of government in executing the search. The Court should only 

maintain the seal as to any portion of the judicial records that the Government establishes, through 

record evidence, would harm a compelling Government interest if revealed. The Court should 

unseal any portions for which the Government has not met its burden. 

Thus, for the specific reasons set forth in the below memorandum of law, the proposed 

News Media intervenors request that this Court enter an Order: granting them leave to intervene; 

requiring the Government to file a public, redacted version of these documents; and requiring the 

Government to file a sealed version that only conceals from the public those portions for which 

the Government has met its burden. 

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 3 of 16
4

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

I. Relevant Background.

As has been widely reported worldwide, on Monday, August 8, 2022, Federal Bureau of 

Investigation agents, acting pursuant to a search warrant issued and approved by United States 

Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart, searched former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property, 

seizing numerous boxes of records. The search and its aftermath have been the subject of intense 

public interest and ongoing news media coverage. The News Media have reported and continue 

to report on the matter.

In the immediate wake of the search, news media organizations intervened in the 

underlying search warrant matter, seeking access to all sealed records related to the search warrant 

including the warrant itself, the application, any motions/orders regarding sealing search warrant 

records, the inventory/property returns and any supporting affidavits. See ECF Nos. 8, 20, 22, 23, 

31-33, 49, In Re Sealed Search Warrant, No. 22-mj-8332-BER (S.D. Fla.). Within two days of 

the motion to intervene, Magistrate Judge Reinhart ordered the unsealing of the search warrant 

itself and a redacted version of the property inventory of seized items.2 See id. at ECF No. 41. 

Days later, the motion to seal the search warrant, along with the Court’s order granting the seal, 

were also made public. See id. at ECF Nos. 2, 3, 57. 

As to the affidavit in support of the search warrant, the Government resisted any disclosure, 

even in redacted form. See id. at ECF No. 59. The Court, recognizing the legal principles requiring 

2 Recognizing the “public’s clear and powerful interest in understanding what occurred” at Mara-Lago “weigh[ed] heavily in favor of unsealing,” the Government itself moved to unseal them in 

lightly redacted form. See ECF No. 18, at p. 4, United States’ Motion To Unseal Limited Warrant 

Materials, In Re Sealed Search Warrant, No. 22-mj-8332-BER. A copy of the unsealed inventory 

of seized items, the “Receipt for Property,” is attached to former President Trump’s Motion in this 

matter. See ECF No. 1, at Exhibit 1. 

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 4 of 16
5

transparency for judicial records, ultimately rejected the Government’s position that wholesale 

withholding was proper and ordered a redacted version of the affidavit (which included proposed 

Government redactions) be made public. See id. at ECF No. 94. The redacted affidavit was made 

public on August 26, 2022. 

As the Court in the underlying search warrant matter noted, the “unprecedented” Mar-aLago search is of “intense public and historical interest.” Id. at ECF No. 94, p. 13. This matter 

was filed as a civil action on August 22, 2022. Also recognizing the need for public disclosure, 

this Court ordered the Government to file its response publicly. See ECF No. 29, at ¶ 3(a). But 

the Court preliminarily ordered that certain Government documents be filed completely under seal. 

The public interest in the instant case—where the legal issues related to the search will now 

continue—is no less compelling than in the warrant matter itself. Maximum transparency is again 

critical to public understanding of events of extraordinary significance. 

II. The News Media Have Standing to Intervene.

The Eleventh Circuit has recognized the news media’s right to intervene in matters to 

challenge the denial of access to court records. See, e.g., Comm’r, Ala. Dep’t of Corr. v. Advance 

Local Media, LLC, 918 F.3d 1161, 1170 (11th Cir. 2019); United States v. Ellis, 90 F.3d 447, 449 

(11th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1118 (1997); Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796, 800 

(11th Cir. 1983); see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Super. Ct., 457 U.S. 596, 609 n.25 (1982) (“the 

press and general public ‘must be given an opportunity to be heard on the question of their 

exclusion.’” (citation omitted)). Only through intervention can the public’s right to open courts 

and records be vindicated. See Newman, 696 F.2d at 800.

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 5 of 16
6

There is no question that the proposed News Media intervenors have standing to intervene. 

They have reported and continue to report on these matters, including the instant matter.3 Just as 

3 See, e.g., Jill Colvin & Nomaan Merchant, Takeaways from the Unsealed Mar-a-Lago Search 

Affidavit, Assoc. Press, Aug. 27, 2022, https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-mar-a-lagoclassified-information-government-and-politics-e3556fa781c30ba2fbaf4bb082e2385c; Eric 

Tucker, US: Review of Possibly Privileged Trump Papers Already Over, Assoc. Press, Aug. 29, 

2022, https://apnews.com/article/florida-donald-trump-mar-a-lago-government-and-politics92eadcf7c102d1f64b8603caa816e796; Erik Larson, Trump Search Affidavit Details Timeline of 

FBI Records Probe, Aug. 27, 2022, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-

27/trump-search-affidavit-details-timeline-of-fbi-s-records-probe; Unsealed affidavit sheds light 

on why FBI searched Mar-A-Lago, CBS News, Aug. 26, 2022, 

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/video/unsealed-affidavit-sheds-light-on-why-fbi-searchedmar-a-lago; Emily Mae Czachor, Former acting CIA director Morell says affidavit indicates 

“sloppiness” in the way classified documents were handled at Trump White House, CBS News 

(Aug. 28, 2022), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-morell-donald-trump-affidavit-mar-alago-sloppiness-classified-documents; Tierney Sneed & Marshall Cohen, Takeaways from the 

Mar-a-Lago Search Warrant Affidavit, CNN, Aug. 26, 2022, 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/26/politics/takeaways-fbi-affidavit/index.html; Katelyn Polantz et 

al., Trump’s Legal Team Asks for ‘Special Master’ to Go Through Mar-a-Lago Evidence and 

Determine if Some Should be Returned, CNN, Aug. 22, 2022, 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/22/politics/donald-trump-special-master-request/index.html; 

Rebecca Shabad et al., FBI Found 184 Classified Documents in Boxes Returned by Trump, 

Redacted Affidavit Says, Prompting Search, NBC News, Aug. 26, 2022, 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/redacted-fbi-affidavit-used-justify-search-marlago-released-rcna44959; Mark Caputo, Judge Signals Support for Special Master to Review Some 

Trump Records FBI Seized, NBC News, Aug. 27, 2022, 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/judge-signals-support-special-master-reviewtrump-records-fbi-seized-rcna45131; Charlie Savage, The Affidavit for the Search of Trump’s 

Home, Annotated, N.Y. Times, Aug. 26, 2022, 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/08/26/us/trump-search-affidavit-release.html; Alan 

Feuer & Maggie Haberman, Judge Signals Intent to Appoint Special Master in Mar-a-Lago 

Search, N.Y. Times, Aug. 27, 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/27/us/politics/trumpspecial-master-judge-cannon.html; Amber Phillips, Takeaways from the Redacted Affidavit Used 

for the Mar-a-Lago Search, Wash. Post, Aug. 26, 2022, 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/26/takeaways-redacted-affidavit-trumpsearch/; David Nakamura & Amy B. Wang, Naming of Special Master Could Complicate Mar-aLago Documents Case, Wash. Post, Aug. 28, 2022, 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/28/trump-special-master-fbi/; Aruna 

Viswanatha, Mar-a-Lago Search Turned Up Potentially Privileged Documents, DOJ Says, Wall 

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 6 of 16
7

intervention was permitted in the underlying search warrant matter, intervention is proper here too. 

See also ECF No. 78, In Re Sealed Search Warrant, No. 22-mj-8332-BER (S.D. Fla.) (Rosenberg, 

J.) (“the parties who have been permitted intervention in this matter—various outlets of the 

national news media—have thoughtfully and professionally litigated their position”).

III. This Court Should Unseal All Sealed Records In This Matter.

A. A Presumptive Right Of Access Attaches To Court Records, Including Records 

Regarding Search Warrants.

The public’s and the news media’s long-established First Amendment and common law 

rights to attend criminal trials, see Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 575, 580 

(1980), have been extended both to criminal trial proceedings and court records. See, e.g., PressEnterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, 478 U.S. 1, 10, 13 (1986) (“Press-Enterprise II”) 

(right of access to preliminary hearings); Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, 

464 U.S. 501 (1984) (right of access to voir dire); Associated Press v. United States District Court, 

705 F.2d 1143, 1145 (9th Cir. 1983) (right of access to court records and transcripts). 

In civil actions as well,4the Eleventh Circuit applies the heightened “compelling 

governmental interest” standard to request to seal judicial records. Wilson v. Am. Motors Corp., 

759 F.2d 1568, 1569 (11th Cir. 1985) (sealing of court records in a civil action must be 

“necessitated by a compelling governmental interest” and “narrowly tailored to that interest.”); 

Advantage Eng’g, 960 F.2d at 1016 (same). Under the heightened standard, as applied by district 

Street Journal, Aug. 29, 2022, https://www.wsj.com/articles/some-attorney-client-protecteddocuments-found-in-mar-a-lago-search-justice-department-says-11661788066.

4 The underlying proceeding regarding the Mar-a-Lago warrant are, of course, governed by the 

Federal Criminal Rules. The Court in this action has invoked the Federal Civil Rules. See ECF 

No. 29, at ¶ 1] (relying on “Rule 53(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s 

inherent authority”). 

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 7 of 16
8

courts in the Eleventh Circuit, the Court may “disregard the presumption of openness” to a 

“judicial record” only when “there is a compelling governmental interest, and may only do so in a 

manner that is narrowly tailored to protect that interest.” Bright v. Mental Health Res. Ctr., Inc., 

No. 3:10-cv-427-J-37TEM, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33929, at *11-12 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 14, 2012).

The constitutional right attaches to records that have been historically available to the 

public and whose disclosure advances the functioning of the judicial system. Press-Enterprise II, 

487 U.S. at 8-9. Under that analysis, the First Amendment right has been found to attach to search 

warrant materials. See In re Search Warrant for Secretarial Area Outside Office of Gunn, 855 

F.2d 569, 573 (8th Cir. 1988) (finding a First Amendment right of access applies to search warrant 

records); United States v. Shenberg, 791 F. Supp. 292, 293 (S.D. Fla. 1991) (same). The First 

Amendment-based access right has also been found to apply in the civil setting, attaching to both 

proceedings and records. See, e.g., Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253-54 

(4th Cir. 1988); Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1061 (3d Cir. 1984); In the Matter 

of Continental Ill. Sec. Litig., 732 F.2d 1302, 1308 (7th Cir. 1984); Brown & Williamson Tobacco

Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1177 (6th Cir. 1983); In re Iowa Freedom of Info. Council, 724 F.2d 

658, 661 (8th Cir. 1983). 

A common law right to access judicial records has also been recognized by the Supreme 

Court. See Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 597-98 (1978).5 That right has also been 

recognized as applying to search warrant materials. See In re Search of Office Suites for World 

5 As the Court in the underlying search warrant matter recognized, as a “practical matter” whether 

one proceeds under the First Amendment right or the common law right, the analysis is “materially 

the same.” See ECF No. 80, at 5, Order On Motions To Unseal, In Re Sealed Search Warrant, 

No. 22-mj-8332-BER (S.D. Fla.). Under either approach: (1) the party seeking to uphold sealing 

must articulate an interest in secrecy that outweighs the public’s interest in access; and (2) and no 

less restrictive alternatives to sealing are available. See id.

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 8 of 16
9

and Islam Studies Enter., 925 F. Supp. 738, 742 (M.D. Fla. 1996) (finding common law right of 

access applies to search warrant records); see also United States v. Peterson, 627 F. Supp. 2d 1359, 

1374 (M.D. Ga. 2008); United States v. Vives, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92973, at *2-3 (S.D. Fla. 

Dec. 21, 2006); In re Four Search Warrants, 945 F. Supp. 1563, 1567 (N.D. Ga. 1996). The 

presumptive right can be overcome only if the government demonstrates an overriding interest to 

justify sealing and such sealing is no more restrictive than required to protect that interest. See id. 

More broadly, the Eleventh Circuit recognizes common law access rights apply to judicial 

records—like here—that are filed in civil proceedings. See Newman, 696 F.2d at 803; see also

Brown v. Advantage Eng’g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1015-16 (11th Cir. 1992). Brown reiterated its 

adherence to a tradition of open records: “[o]nce a matter is brought before a court for resolution, 

it is no longer solely the parties’ case, but also the public’s case.” Id. at 1016. 

Indeed, in considering if and how to unseal the Mar-a-Lago search warrant records already 

made public, the Court recognized the rights of access under both the First Amendment and the 

common law, noting that “[i]t is a foundational principle American law that judicial proceedings 

should be open to the public.” See ECF No. 80, at p. 4, Order On Motions To Unseal, No. 22-mj8332-BER.

Both the First Amendment and the common law rights of access are grounded in the value 

afforded to public monitoring of judicial proceedings and in the right of the public to know what 

its government is up to. See, e.g., Globe Newspaper Co., 457 U.S. at 604 (recognizing that 

underlying the right of access “is the common understanding that ‘a major purpose of that 

Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs’” (citation omitted). “[The]

right to inspect and copy judicial records...like the right to attend judicial proceedings, is important 

if the public is to appreciate fully the often significant events at issue in public litigation and the 

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 9 of 16
10

workings of the legal system.” Newman, 696 F.2d at 803. Just as with open court proceedings, 

broad public access to filed court records helps ensure “that the proceedings [are being] conducted 

fairly,” while discouraging “perjury, the misconduct of participants, and decisions based on secret 

bias or partiality.” Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 569; see also Associated Press, 705 F.2d 

at 1145 (“there is no reason to distinguish between pretrial proceedings and the documents filed in 

regard to them”). Public access further promotes the “public acceptance of both the [judicial] 

process and its results,” an “awareness that society’s responses to criminal conduct are underway,” 

and the “prophylactic aspects of . . . community catharsis.” Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 

571; Press-Enterprise, 478 U.S. at 9. For these reasons, “[a] presumption of access must be 

indulged to the fullest extent not incompatible with the reasons for closure.” Newman, 696 F.2d 

at 802. See also United States v. Rosenthal, 763 F.2d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 2007) (recognizing 

“presumptive common law right to inspect and copy judicial records.”)

Those policy considerations certainly apply to the judicial records presently under seal. 

The Rules require the judicial officer to deliver warrants and “all other related papers” to the Clerk 

of the Court. Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(i). Courts recognize that judicial records relating to search 

warrants are of inherent public interest. “[P]ublic access to documents filed in support of search 

warrants is important to the public’s understanding of the function and operation of the judicial 

process and the criminal justice system and may operate as a curb on prosecutorial and judicial 

misconduct.” In re Search Warrant for Secretarial Area, 855 F.2d at 573. That same rationale 

applies here, where issues related to the Mar-a-Lago search warrant have also become a civil 

concern.

Moreover, even though a search warrant is not part of the criminal trial itself, like 

voir dire, a search warrant is certainly an integral part of a criminal prosecution. 

Search warrants are at the center of pre-trial suppression hearings, and suppression

issues often determine the outcome of criminal prosecutions.

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 10 of 16
11

Id. 

B. The Government Bears The Burden Of Overcoming Public Access Rights.

It is the Government’s burden to overcome the presumption of access to these judicial 

records. For warrant records to remain under seal a court must determine, in clearly articulated 

findings, that the Government established a specific, compelling interest justifying an ongoing seal 

that is no broader than necessary to serve that interest. See In re Search of Office Suites, 925 F. 

Supp. at 742; Brown, 960 F.2d at 1015-16; Wilson v. Am. Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568, 1570-71

(11th Cir. 1985). Naked assertions of some interest justifying secrecy, devoid of particulars, will 

not justify closure. Rather, for each record the Government claims sealing remains necessary, it 

must “describe in considerable detail the nature, scope and direction of the government’s 

investigation and the individuals and specific projects involved.” In re Search Warrant for 

Secretarial Area, 855 F.2d at 574; United States v. Peterson, 627 F. Supp. 2d 1359, 1373-74 (M.D. 

Ga. 2008) (applying common law access right to find that government failed to meet its burden to 

show disclosure of search warrant records would cause harm and recognizing value of news media 

interest in informing public of “historically significant” events). At bottom, “conclusory assertions

are insufficient to allow review; specificity is required.” In re The Baltimore Sun Co., 886 F.2d 

60, 66 (4th Cir. 1989). 

The Court conducts this analysis on a record-by-record basis, considering whether the 

disclosure of each individual record would compromise the government’s asserted interest. See, 

e.g., Wellcare Health Plans, Inc., No. 8:07-MJ-1466-TGW, 2007 WL 4240740, at *1 (M.D. Fla. 

Nov. 28, 2007) (assessing each warrant-related document individually and finding warrant, 

exhibits, return, motion to seal and sealing order all public). Just like the Wellcare court 

determined, the presumption of access is particularly difficult to overcome for records like the 

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 11 of 16
12

warrant itself, any motion to seal, and any resulting sealing order. Additionally, records whose 

contents have already been acknowledged—such as in this case where the Property Search is 

already public—can no longer present a disclosure risk. See Peterson, 627 F.2d at 1373.

(recognizing that “whether the press has already been permitted substantial access to the contents 

of the records” must be considered in determining whether to allow access to judicial records). 

Even if the government were to establish a compelling reason to justify a continued seal, 

the Court considers the proper scope of that seal and whether alternatives to total closure exist. 

See In re Search of Office Suites, 925 F. Supp. at 429. For example, this Court should consider 

whether the redaction of limited information would serve to protect any established compelling 

interest. See, e.g., Shenberg, 791 F. Supp. at 294 (requiring redaction of certain sensitive 

information contained within search warrant affidavit before making it public). 

Access to search warrant materials has typically occurred at the conclusion of an 

investigation or proceeding. See, e.g., In re Four Search Warrants, 945 F. Supp. 1563, 1568 (N.D. 

Ga. 1996) (recognizing that investigation into Olympic bombing suspect had concluded as 

significant factor in common law access balance regarding access to search warrant records). But 

this not the typical case, and the course of proceedings thus far establish that the typical sealing 

processes that Court’s apply to search warrant materials do not apply. 

Former President Trump himself has called for greater transparency. See, e.g., ECF No. 1, 

at pp. 2-3 (noting personal desire for more openness). The Government has stated likewise. See, 

e.g., ECF No. 1, at pp. 9-10 (detailing Attorney General Merrick Garland’s statements on why the 

Government sought to unseal certain search warrant records); see also ECF No. 48, at p. 2 n.1 

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 12 of 16
13

(noting that the Government is “prepared . . . to unseal the more detailed receipt”).

6 For all these 

reasons, the right of access clearly applies to the civil records in this case.

C. The Public Interest In Current And Former Government Officials’ Actions Is 

Particularly High And Favors Access.

Investigations regarding the conduct of public officials are of the utmost public interest. 

Naturally, courts have recognized that interest while assessing public access rights, and that 

consideration weighs heavily in any balance between competing access rights and secrecy 

concerns. See, e.g., Romero v. Drummond Co., Inc., 480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007) (“[i]n 

balancing the public interest in accessing court documents against a party's interest in keeping the 

information confidential, courts consider...whether the information concerns public officials or 

public concerns....”); United States v. Beckham, 789 F.2d 401, 413 (6th Cir. 1986) (“[W]hen the 

conduct of public officials is at issue, the public's interest in the operation of government adds 

weight in the balance toward allowing permission to copy judicial records.”); United States v. 

Edwards, 672 F.2d 1289, 1294 n.11 (7th Cir. 1982) (“there is a strong presumption in support of 

the common law right to inspect and copy judicial records,” particularly where “the trial bore upon 

the conduct of a public official”). 

There can be no doubt that an assertion that a former President may have mishandled

government records that were classified, top-secret, or otherwise sensitive, that U.S. Department

of Justice officials decided the information they gathered constituted probable cause for a search, 

and that a Magistrate Judge agreed and signed the warrant, is of core public concern. Of equal 

importance is how the Court now addresses arguments from the subject of the search warrant, the 

6 Citing U.S. Department of Justice press release, “Attorney General Merrick Garland Delivers 

Remarks, Aug. 11, 2022), available at: https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-generalmerrick-garland-delivers-remarks. 

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 13 of 16
14

former President Trump, about the appropriateness of the continued processing of those records 

and what, if any, order this Court makes addressing those arguments.

IV. Conclusion.

For the foregoing reasons, the proposed News Media intervenors respectfully request this 

Court to enter an Order granting them leave to intervene; requiring the Government to file a public, 

redacted version of these documents; and requiring the Government to file a sealed version that 

only conceals from the public those portions for which the Government has met its burden. 

REQUEST FOR HEARING

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b)(2), the proposed News Media Intervenors request a hearing 

be set on this motion, and in particular request to be heard in conjunction with the hearing presently 

set in the matter on September 1, 2022, at 1:00 p.m. Oral argument will aid this Court in assessing 

any further basis to continue to keep these extremely newsworthy records secret and allow this 

Court to directly inquire into any government justification for doing so. The News Media estimate 

the time required for argument to be sixty (60) minutes. 

LOCAL RULE 7.1(a)(3) CERTIFICATE OF GOOD-FAITH CONFERENCE

Undersigned counsel certifies that on August 30, 2022, a good-faith conference was had 

between Juan Antonio Gonzalez and Mark Caramanica (counsel for The New York Times 

Company, CBS Broadcasting Inc., and Times Publishing Company). Mr. Gonzalez stated that the 

United States does not oppose the News Media’s intervention in this matter and that it intends to 

follow the procedures set forth in this Court’s August 27, 2022, Order (ECF No. 29) as to the filing 

of any documents addressed therein. 

On August 30, 2022, Dana McElroy (counsel for The New York Times Company, CBS 

Broadcasting Inc., and Times Publishing Company) conferred by telephone with counsel for 

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 14 of 16
15

former President Trump, James Trusty, about the relief sought in this motion. Mr. Trusty later 

advised by email that former President Trump takes no position on the motion. 

Dated: August 31, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

THOMAS AND LOCICERO PL BALLARD SPAHR LLP

By: /s/ Carol Jean LoCicero By: /s/ Charles D. Tobin

Carol Jean LoCicero (FBN 603030)

Mark R. Caramanica (FBN 110581)

601 South Boulevard

Tampa, FL 33606

Telephone: 813.984.3060

clocicero@tlolawfirm.com

mcaramanica@tlolawfirm.com

Dana J. McElroy (FBN 845906)

915 Middle River Drive, Suite 309

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304

Telephone: 954.703.3418

dmcelroy@tlolawfirm.com

Attorneys for Proposed Intervenors CBS 

Broadcasting Inc., The New York Times 

Company, and Times Publishing Company

Charles D. Tobin (FBN 816345)

1909 K Street NW, 12th Floor

Washington, DC 20006

Telephone: 202.661.2218

tobinc@ballardspahr.com

Elizabeth Seidlin-Bernstein (pro hac vice

forthcoming)

1735 Market Street, 51st Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599

Telephone: 215.665.8500

seidline@ballardspahr.com

Attorneys for Proposed Intervenors the 

Associated Press, Bloomberg LP, Cable News 

Network, Inc., the E.W. Scripps Company, Gray 

Media Group, Inc., NBCUniversal Media, LLC, 

and WP Company LLC

SHULLMAN FUGATE PLLC ATHERTON GALARDI MULLEN & REEDER

PLLC

By: /s/ Rachel E. Fugate By: /s/ Martin Reeder.

Rachel E. Fugate (FBN 144029)

Deanna K. Shullman (FBN 514462)

Minch Minchin (FBN 1015950)

2101 Vista Parkway, Suite 4006

West Palm Beach, FL 33411

Telephone: 813.935.5098

rfugate@shullmanfugate.com

dshullman@shullmanfugate.com

mminchin@shulmanfugate.com

Attorneys for Proposed Intervenors Dow Jones 

& Company, Inc. and American Broadcasting 

Companies, Inc.

L. Martin Reeder, Jr. (FBN 308684)

1641 Worthington Road, Suite 33409

West Palm Beach, FL 33458

Telephone: 561.293.2530 ext. 1007

martin@athertonlg.com

 tracey@athertonlg.com

 e-service@athertonlg.com

Attorneys for Proposed Intervenor The Palm 

Beach Post

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 15 of 16
16

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 31st, 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

document is being electronically filed and will be furnished via CM/ECF to the following:

Juan Antonio Gonzalez

U.S. Attorney’s Office

Southern District of Florida

99 NE 4th Street, Floor 8

Miami, FL 33132

 juan.antonio.gonzalez@usdoj.gov

 Jay I. Bratt

 Chief, Counterintelligence and Export Control Section

 National Security Division

 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

 Washington, DC 20530

 jay.bratt2@usdoj.gov

 Lindsey Halligan 

Florida Bar No. 109481 

511 SE 5th Avenue 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 

lindseyhalligan@outlook.com

James M. Trusty 

Ifrah Law PLLC

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 650 

Washington, DC 20006 

jtrusty@ifrahlaw.com

M. Evan Corcoran 

Silverman Thompson Slutkin White, LLC

400 East Pratt Street, Suite 900 

Baltimore, MD 21202 

ecorcoran@silvermanthompson.com

 

/s/ Carol Jean LoCicero

Carol Jean LoCicero

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 16 of 16