FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT MAR 14, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 13058

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 0 0 5 7 5 - C V- B E - W- KO B J U A N A Q U A S R O M E R O , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s D R U M M O N D C O M P A N Y , I N C ., D R U M M O N D , L T D , G A R R Y N . D R U M M O N D , A U G U S T O J I M E N E Z , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s , S T E P H E N F L A N A G A N J A C K S O N , I n te rv e n o r - A p p e lla n t.

________________________ N o. 06- 13059

_________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 0 0 5 7 5 - C V- B E - W- KO B I N R E :Honora ble J eromeFa

rris, United States Circuit Judg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing by * designation. 2 D A N I E L M . K O V A L I K , T E R R E N C E P . C O L L I N G S W O R T H , D E R E K J . B A X T E R , R O B E R T G . K E R R I G A N , Int er es t ed-P art i es A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( M ar c h 14, 2007) B efo re C A RN E S , P R Y O R an d F A R R IS , C i rcu i tJu d g es. * P R Y O R , C i rc ui tJudg e: I n the s e c ons ol i da t e d appe a l s , s e ve r a l l a w y e r s c ha l l e nge as a nc t i on of c r im in a l c o n te m p t e n te r e d a f te rth e la w y e r s f

ile d am o tio n a n d tw o d e c la r a tio n s in op en court , and a j ou rnal i stse eks a cc es s t o the fi l i ng s, w hi ch have si nce been s e a l e d f ol l ow i ng m e di ar e por t s aboutthe i rc ont e nt s . T he unde r l y i ng c om pl a i nt cont ai ns sordi d al l egat i on s of i ntri gu e, corrup t i on , and ass as si nat i on i n C ol om bi a, “w h e r e th e a w f

u l is o r d in a ry .” S ilv av . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 4 4 8 F .3 d 1 2 2 9 , 1 2 4 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . A f

te rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t b y le tte ra s k e d th e U .S . D e p a r tm e n t o f S ta te w he the rthi s l i t i ga t i on w oul d a dve r s e l y a f f e c tthe c onduc tof

f or e i gn a f f a i r s , the3

pl a i nt i f f s tw i c e m ove d the di s tr i c tc our tt o i nf orm the D e pa r tm e ntaboutthe cont ent s of are ce ntdecl ar at i on of a f orm erC ol om bi an offi ci al . T he di stri ctcourt the n he l d the pl a i nt i f

f s ’ l a w y e r s i n c r i m i na l c ont e m pta nd s e a l e d the i rde c l a r a t i ons and thei r m ot i on t o rec on si der e ven tho ug h a m on th ear l i erthe di stri ctcourthad de c i de d tha tt oo m a ny f i l i ngs ha d be e n s e a l e d. T here ar e tw o i ss ues pre se nt ed. T he fi rs ti ss ue i s w hether aprot ec t i ve order forbi dd i ng l aw ye rs fr om m aki ng extra j ud i ci al com m ent s abo utthe expect ed t es t i m on y of aw i tness cl ea rl y prohi bi t ed the l aw ye rs fr om fi l i ng i n o pen cou rt d e c la r a tio n s o f

p o te n tia l w itn e s s e s a tta c h e d to am o tio n . T h e s e c o n d is s u e is w he the rthe publ i c ha s ac om m on l a w r i ghtof a c c e s s t o the de c l a r a t i ons a nd the m ot i on t o rec on si der provi di ng the decl ar at i on s t o the D epartm entof S t at e. D er ek B a xt e r , T e rr e nc e C ol l i ngs w or th, R obe r tK e rr i ga n, a nd D a ni e l K ova l i k, the att orneys for the pl ai nt i ff s, appeal the sa nct i on of cr i m i nal cont em pt , and S t ephen Ja ckson, a f

re e- l ance j ou rnal i stw ho i nt ervened i n the l i t i gat i on , appeal s the orders th at se aled th e m o ti o n to re co n sid eran d th e d ec lara ti o n s a n d d en ied Ja ck so n ’s m ot i on t o l i f

tthe s e a l . W e va c a t e the s a nc t i on of c ont e m pt , be c a us e the f i l i ngs w er e notcl ea rl y prohi bi t ed by the prot ec t i ve order, and w e r ever se , as un supp ort ed b y g o o d cau se, th e o rd ers th atseal ed th e m o t i o n an d d ecl arat i o n s. I . B AC KG RO UN D4

In 20 02 , a group of nam ed and u nn am ed pl ai nt i ff s, i ncl ud i ng un i on l ea ders a nd r e l a t i ve s of

de c e a s e d uni on m e m be r s , f i l e d ac om pl a i nta ga i ns tthe D rum m ond C om pa ny a nd s e ve r a l of i t s e xe c ut i ve s . T he c om pl a i nta l l e ge d tha tthe pr e s i de ntof D rum m ond L t d. , the C ol um bi a n s ubs i di a ry of D rum m ond, w i th the know l e dge of exec ut i ves i n the U ni t ed S t at es , hi re d C ol om bi an parami l i t ar i es t o k i l l and t orture un i on m em bers ata D rum m on d coal m i ne i n C ol om bi a. T he di stri ctcourtal l ow ed m a ny of the pl a i nt i f

f s t o pr oc e e d a nony m ous l yba s e d on the i ra l l e ge d c onc e rn f or thei r s af ety i n C ol om bi a. D rum m on d fi l ed a m ot i on t o d i sm i ss the com pl ai ntbase d o n, am on g o ther ar gu m ent s, the po l i t i ca l qu es t i on do ctri ne and i nt ernat i on al com i ty. T he di stri ct c our tde ni e d the m ot i on a nd s t a t e d tha tthe pol i t i c a l que s t i on doc tr i ne a nd i s s ue s of com i ty w er e f

ac t -i nt ensi ve and b ett eraddres se d o n a m ot i on for s um m ary ju d g m e n t. T h e p la in tif

f s ’ la w y e r s th e n , th r o u g h th e irw e b s ite , u r g e d th e p u b lic to c o n ta c t D ru m m o n d . T h e y a lle g e d ly r e p r e s e n te d th a t th e d e n ia l o f th e m o tio n to d is m is s e s tab lis h e d th e v a lid ity o f th e irc o m p la in t. O n the m ot i on of D rum m on d, the di stri ctcourtent er ed a prot ec t i ve order. In a ddi t i on t o r e qui r i ng c ouns e l t o r e m ove f r om the i rw e bs i t e a l l e ga t i ons aboutthe d en i al o f th e m o t i o n t o d i sm i ss, th e p ro t ect i v e o rd er p ro h i b i t ed “ al l p art i ci p an t s, i ncl ud i ng po t ent i al w i tness es . . . fr om m aki ng or autho ri zi ng extra j ud i ci al5

co m m en t s . . . t o th e m ed i a an d th e p u b l i c co n cern i n g . . . th e ch aract er, cred i b i l i ty, re pu t at i on or cr i m i nal re cord of a party or w i tness , and the expect ed t es t i m on y of a pa r ty orw i tne s s . ” T he pr ot e c t i ve or de ra l s o di r e c t e d “ c ouns e l f orthe pa r t i e s [ t o] a v o id c o m m e n tin g in c o u r t p ap e r s th a t a r e n o t f ile d u n d e rs e a l o n e v id e n c e th a t is i rr e l e va ntt o l e ga l m a tt e r s a ti s s ue the r e i n. ” J a c ks on i nt e rve ne d t o c ha l l e nge the prot ec t i ve order base d o n the F i rs tA m endm ent . A ft era s harp exchange betw ee n Ja ckson’ s c ou nsel and the court , the di stri ctcourtal l ow ed Ja ckson t o i nt ervene, a gr e e d t o w i thdr a w the or i gi na l pr ot e c t i ve or de r , a nd e nt e r e d ar e vi s e d pr ot e c t i ve order. T he re vi se d p rot ec t i ve order appl i ed on l y t o cou nsel of re cord and p rohi bi t ed the m f r om “ m a ki ng ora uthor i z i ng e xtr a j udi c i a l c om m e nt s , a nd di s s e m i na t i ng or a u th o r iz in g th e d is s e m in a tio n o f in f o rm a tio n to th e m e d iaa n d th e p u b lic concerni ng . . . the expect ed t es t i m on y of aparty or w i tness [or] [m ] att er s that c o u n s e l k n o w , o rr e a s o n ab ly s h o u ld k n o w , w ill b e in a d m is s ab le a t tr ia l, a n d w o u ld i f di sc l osed cr ea t e asubst ant i al ri sk of prej ud i ci ng an i m part i al tri al . ” T he order a l l ow e d a n a tt orne y t o s t a t e “ w i thoute l abor a t i on ora ny ki nd of c ha r a c t e r i z a t i on w h a ts o e v e r. . . [ a ]n a lle g a tio n o rd e f e n s e m a d e in th is c a s e , [ i]n f o rm a tio n p r o p e r ly c ont a i ne d i n the publ i c r e c or d of thi s c a s e ; [ s ] c he dul i ng i nf orm a t i on, or[ a ] ny de c i s i on m a de oror de ri s s ue d by the c our ttha ti s am a tt e rof publ i c r e c or d. ” T he6

r e vi s e d pr ot e c t i ve or de rdi d notde f i ne i t s t e rm s , r e qui r e tha ta ny f i l i ngs be m a de u n d er seal , o r l i m i treferen ces t o ev i d en ce i n co u rtfi l i n g s. U nb ekno w nstt o the pl ai nt i ff s a nd the di stri ctcourt , D rum m on d h ad been l ob byi ng the D epartm entof S t at e t o i nt ervene i n the l i t i gat i on , bu ti t s e ff ort s w er e h in d e r e d b e c a u s e it c o u ld n o t s h a r e s e a le d d o c u m e n ts w ith th e D e p a r tm e n t. W i thoutm a ki ng a ny f

i ndi ngs aboutthe ne e d t o f i l e doc um e nt s unde rs e a l , the d is tr ic t c o u r t h a d a llo w e d th e p a r tie s to f ile m o tio n s u n d e rs e a l a n d to d e s ig n a te d is c o v e r e d m a te r ia l a s c o n f id e n tia l. On De c e m b e r1 9 , 2 0 0 5 , Dru m m o n d m o v e d t o u n s e a l s e v e r a l d o c u m e n t s . On A pr i l 7, 2006, the di s tr i c tc our te xpr e s s e d i t s a gr e e m e ntw i th D rum m ond tha tt oo m an y d o cu m en t s w ere sealed: “ A tth e o u t set , v i rtu al l y ev eryth i n g fi l ed i n th i s case ha s be e n f

i l e d unde rs e a l . T he c our tnow que s t i ons the w i s dom a nd pr opr i e ty of s u c h ab la n k e t o r d e r .” T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t o r d e r e d th e p a r tie s to id e n tif y d o c u m e n ts tha tc oul d be uns e a l e d orr e da c t e d w i thoutj e opa r di z i ng the s a f e ty orpr i va c y of

a ny party or w i tness . T he di stri ctcourtal so “ j oi n[ed] i n the P l ai nt i ff

s’ expres se d c onc e rn aboutD e f

e nda nt s ’ uni l a t e r a l c ont a c tw i th the S t a t e D e pa r tm e nt ” a nd “d e e m [ e d ] it a d v is ab le th a t c e r ta in d o c u m e n ts in th is c a s e b e p r o v id e d d ir e c tly to the S t at e D epartm entfor i t s r evi ew and eval uat i on . . . by the court . ” T he di stri ct c o u r t in s tru c te d th e p a r tie s n o t to c o n ta c t th e S ta te D e p a r tm e n t ab o u t th e la w s u it7

a nd pr opos e d tha ti tw oul d pr e pa r e al e tt e rt o s ol i c i tthe a dvi s ory opi ni on of the S ta te D e p a r tm e n t o n w h e th e rth e litig a tio n m ig h t a f f e c t f o r e ig n r e la tio n s . O n A pr i l 26, 2006, the di s tr i c tc our the l d ahe a r i ng t o de t e rm i ne the f orm of th e le tte ra n d its a tta c h m e n ts a n d r e ite r a te d its c o n c e rn th a t to o m a n y d o c u m e n ts w e r e u n d e rs e a l. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o m p la in e d th a t “a s I lo o k e d b a c k o v e rth is ca se , prob abl y ni nety- ei gh tperc entof w hathas bee n fi l ed has been fi l ed un der s e a l . . . . I c a n’ tt e l l w ha t ’ s goi ng on by l ooki ng a tthe doc ke ts he e t . ” C om m e nt i ng on the i nqui ry t o the S t a t e D e pa r tm e nt , the di s tr i c tc our te xpl a i ne d tha ti tdi d not i nt e nd t o “ c om pl e t e l y pr e c l ud[ e the pa r t i e s ] f r om c ont a c t i ng [ the gove rnm e nt ] , but [the court ] w i l l ac tas the gat ekee per. ” O n M a y 1 5 , 2 0 0 6 , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t n o tif ie d th e p a rtie s th a t it h a d s e n t a l ett er t o th e S t at e D ep artm en tw i th co p i es o f th e p l ead i n g s. T h e d i stri ctco u rtal so form al l y order ed the part i es no tt o con t ac tei ther e xecut i ve offi ci al s of the U ni t ed S ta te s o ro f

f ic ia ls o f C o lo m b ia : N o p a r ty o rc o u n s e l o rr e p r e s e n ta tiv e o f a n y p a r ty o rc o u n s e l s h a ll m a ke a ny uni l a t e r a l , e x pa r t e c om m uni c a t i on w i th a ny one a tthe U n[ i ] t [ ] e d S t a t e s D e pa r tm e ntof S t a t e , U ni t e d S t a t e s D e pa r tm e ntof J u s tic e , o ra n y r e p r e s e n ta tiv e o f th e G o v e rn m e n t o f

C o l[ o ]m b ia r e g a r d in g a n y in f

o rm a tio n r e le v a n t to o ra n y m a tte ra t is s u e in th is ca se , or the op i ni on re qu es t ed of the D epartm entof S t at e. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e x p la in e d th a t it in te n d e d to a rr a n g e ate le p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e c a ll w i th ar e pr e s e nt a t i ve f

r om the S t a t e D e pa r tm e ntw i thi n am onth.8

O n M a y 16, 2006, the pl a i nt i f f s f i l e d a“ M ot i on T o S ubm i tP e r t i ne nt Inform at i on T o U . S . S t at e & Just i ce D epartm ent s” t o w hi ch they a tt ac hed decl ar at i on s of aform erpu bl i c off i ci al i ncar ce ra t ed i n C ol om bi a a nd D ani el K ova l i k, al a w y e rf

orthe pl a i nt i f

f s . T he f orm e rC ol om bi a n of

f i c i a l s t a t e d tha the w i tne s s e d the he a d of

the C ol om bi a n ope r a t i ons of D rum m ond ha nd abr i e f c a s e of ca sh to a p ar am il it ar y lea d erin ex ch an g e f o r k il li n g tw o u n io n lead er s. K o v alik ’s decl ar at i on expl ai ned thaton M ay13 , 20 06 , he fl ew t o C ol om bi a a nd i nt ervi ew ed the f orm e rof f i c i a l . O n M a y 17, 2006, D rum m ond m ove d, unde rs e a l , t o s e a l the m o t i o n an d d ecl arat i o n s. T h e d i stri ctco u rti m m ed i at el y seal ed th e d ecl arat i o n s, butnotthe m ot i on i t s e l f , a nd de ni e d the pl a i nt i f f s ’ m ot i on. O n M a y 18, the pl a i nt i f f s m ove d f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on of

the i rm ot i on. T he p la in tif f s a r g u e d th a t th e y h a d s u b m itte d th e e v id e n c e a s s o o n a s it w a s a v a ilab le and thatthe evi dence w as re l evantt o the i nq ui ry . T hey a l l eged thatthe di stri ct courthad al l ow ed D rum m on d t o sup pl em entthe i nq ui ryw i th add i t i on al cont ac t a ddr e s s e s a nd ar e que s tf orthe c r i m i na l r e c or ds of apl a i nt i f

f s ’ w i tne s s . T he pl ai nt i ff s obj ec t ed t o the deci si on of the di stri ctcourtt o sea l the decl ar at i on s a s contra ryt o p re vi ou s order s thatthe part i es confer t o u nsea l previ ou sl y s ea l ed doc um e nt s a nd obj e c t e d tha tthe y w e r e nota l l ow e d t o r e s pond t o the m ot i on of D rum m on d t o sea l the decl ar at i on s. T he pl ai nt i ff s a l so ar gu ed thatthe se al ed9

m ot i on of

D rum m ond t o s e a l the i rf i l i ngs w a s a n e x pa r t e c om m uni c a t i on w i th the d is tr ic t c o u r t b e c a u s e th e p la in tif f s n e v e rr e c e iv e d ac o p y . O n M ay 1 9 , D ru m m o n d m o v ed , ag ai n u n d er seal , t o seal th e p l ai n t i ffs’ m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on and n ot i fi ed the courtabou ta new s a rt i cl e pub l i shed tha tda y i n the M i a m i H e r a l d. T he M i a m i H e r a l d r e por t e d the a l l e ga t i ons of the f o rm e rC o lo m b ia n o f

f ic ia l: A f orm e rC ol om bi a n i nt e l l i ge nc e of f i c e rha s c l a i m e d tha the s a w the head of the C ol om bi an branch of a U . S . coal com pany hand ov era su i t case fu l l o f cash t o p ay fo r th e assassi n at i o n s o f tw o l ab o r l ead ers, a c c o r d in g to ad o c u m e n t f ile d in aU .S . c o u r t. T he s w orn s t a t e m e ntby R a f a e l G a r c i aw a s m a de t o U . S . l a w y e r s f or U . S . l abor - r i ght s gr oups w ho f i l e d ac i vi l s ui ti n 2002 a l l e gi ng the ki l l er s w er e “ ac t i ng as em pl oyee s or a gent s” of the A l abam a- base d D ru m m o n d C o m p a n y I n c . T h e tr ia l in B irm in g h a m is s c h e d u le d to begi n i n O ct ob er . T he di s tr i c tc our ts e a l e d the m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on a nd s uppor t i ng doc um e nt s , de ni e d the m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on, a nd s uas pont e or de r e d the pl a i nt i f f s ’ l a w y e r s t o s how c a us e w hy the y s houl d notbe he l d i n c ont e m ptf or vi ol a t i ng the r e vi s e d pr ot e c t i ve or de r . T he w r i tt e n or de rof the di s tr i c tc our ts t a t e d,

“ N o to n l y d i d co u n sel g ratu i t o u sl y p u b l i cl y fi l e an affi d av i to f a p o t en t i al w i tn ess, the c our tha s be f

or e i tc i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e tha ti ndi c a t e s c ouns e l m a y ha ve d ir e c tly o rin d ir e c tly p r o v id e d s u c h e x p e c te d te s tim o n y to ar e p o r te rf o rp u b lic d is s e m in a tio n .”10

J a c ks on m ove d t o uns e a l the de c l a r a t i ons , m ot i on t o r e c ons i de r , a nd the m ot i ons of

D rum m ond t o s e a l . J a c ks on a r gue d tha tthe s e a l vi ol a t e d the c om m on l a w r i ghtof

a c c e s s t o c our tr e c or ds . T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d the m ot i on. T he di s tr i c tc our t , c i t i ng C hi c a go T r i bune v. B r i dge s t one / F i r e s t one , 263 F . 3d 1304 ( 11 th i r . 2001) , de t e rm i ne d tha tthe publ i c ha d no c om m on l a w r i ghtt o a c c e s s the do cum ent s bec ause they w er e not“ fi l ed i n con nect i on w i th p re tri al m ot i on s that re qu i re j ud i ci al re sol ut i on of the m er i t s. ” T he courtre as on ed thatthe equi t i es w e i ghe d a ga i ns tope ni ng the de c l a r a t i ons t o the pr e s s be c a us e the de c l a r a t i ons w e r e i nc r e di bl e , appe a r e d t o be a n a tt e m ptt o c i r c um ve ntthe r e vi s e d pr ot e c t i ve o r d e r , a n d w o u ld lik e ly ta in t th e ju ry p o o l a n d p r e ju d ic e th e r ig h t o f

D ru m m o n d to a f ai r tri al . T he di stri ctcourtal so expl ai ned thati tse al ed the m ot i on t o rec on si der be c a us e i t“ out l i ne d m uc h of the [ othe r ] s e a l e d m a t e r i a l . ” T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d not p r o v id e a n y r e a s o n s f

o rits d e c is io n n o t to u n s e a l th e m o tio n s f ile d b y D ru m m o n d . J a c ks on appe a l e d the or de r s s e a l i ng the de c l a r a t i ons a nd the m ot i on f or r e c o n s id e r a tio n a n d th e o r d e rd e n y in g h is m o tio n to u n s e a l. T he di s tr i c tc our the l d ac ont e m pthe a r i ng w i thoutr e f e rr i ng the m a tt e rt o the U ni t ed S t at es A tt orney or app oi nt i ng a prose cut or. T he pl ai nt i ff s’ l aw ye rs ar gu ed th a t th e r e v is e d p r o te c tiv e o r d e rw a s u n c le a ra n d te s tif ie d th a t th e y h o n e s tly tho ug htthatthe S t at e D epartm entshou l d k no w thatthei r c om pl ai ntw as supp ort ed11

by evi dence. F or fe arof expo si ng att orney w ork p rodu ct , the pl ai nt i ff s’ l aw ye rs re qu es t ed t o exp l ai n i n cam er a thei r i nv ol vem entw i th the M i am i H er al d report er a nd how the y a tt a i ne d the de c l a r a t i on. T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d the i rr e que s t , a nd, i n add i t i on t o d i sc ussi ng pri vi l eged w ork p rodu ct , the pl ai nt i ff’ s l aw ye rs adm i tt ed th a t th e y s p o k e w ith th e r e p o r te r , te s tif ie d th a t th e y d id n o t te ll th e M ia m i H e r a ld abou tthe decl ar at i on , and ass ert ed that , t o the bestof thei r kno w l edge, the re po rt er le a rn e d o f

th e d e c la r a tio n in d e p e n d e n tly . U pon r e turni ng t o the c our tr oom , the di s tr i c tc our tc onc l ude d tha tthe pl ai nt i ff s’ l aw ye rs ei ther had been ov er ze al ou s i n thei r a dv ocac y or had in te n tio n a lly p lo tte d to e v a d e th e r e v is e d p r o te c tiv e o r d e r . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t h e ld the pl ai nt i ff

s’ l aw ye rs i n con t em ptand fi ned them $5 00 . T he di stri ctcourtre l ea se d the D rum m on d att orneys fr om the stri ctures of the re vi se d p rot ec t i ve order s o that the a tt orne y s c oul d c om m e nton the a l l e ga t i ons i n the de c l a r a t i on. T he pl a i nt i f

f s ’ l a w y e r s appe a l e d a nd m ove d t o s t a y the f i ne dur i ng the appe a l . T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d the r e que s tf oras t a y butw r ot e a tl e ngth about i t s r ea sons for f

i nd i ng thatthe pl ai nt i ff

s’ l aw ye rs com m i tt ed cont em pt . T he court no t ed that“ [f

] rom the begi nn i ng of thi s c as e, coun se l have dem on stra t ed ei ther a l a c k of know l e dge of

, orat e nde nc y t o i gnor e orf l a untthe R ul e s of

P r oc e dur e a nd th e R u le s o f

P r o f e s s io n a l C o n d u c t.” T h e c o u r t n o te d th a t th e b a ro n “e x tr a ju d ic ia l”12

c om m e nt s i n the r e vi s e d pr ot e c t i ve or de ri nc orpor a t e d the A l aba m aR ul e s of P r of e s s i ona l C onduc ta nd tha tthe or i gi na l pr ot e c t i ve or de r , w i th e m pha s i s a dde d, ha d de f i ne d “ e xtr a

j udi c i a l ” a s “ notf

orm i ng ava l i d pa r tof

ope n l e ga l pr oc e e di ngs in th is c a s e .” I I . STA N D A R D S O F R EVI EW T w o s t a nda r ds of

r e vi e w appl y t o thi s appe a l . F i r s t , “ [ i ] n r e vi e w i ng the su ffi ci en cy o f th e ev i d en ce i n su p p o rto f a fi n d i n g o f cri m i n al co n t em p t , w e m u st de t e rm i ne w he the rthe e vi de nc e , c ons true d i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the gove rnm e nt , w oul d pe rm i tthe tr i e rof f a c tt o f i nd the de f

e nda ntgui l ty be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubt . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a y na r d, 933 F . 2d 918, 920 ( 11th C i r . 1991) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T urne r , 812 F . 2d 15 52 , 15 63 (11th C i r. 19 87 ). S ec on d, w e r evi ew for abu se of di sc re t i on the re fusa l of adi s tr i c tc our tt o uns e a l c our tdoc um e nt s . S e e C hi . T r i bune C o. v. B ri dg es t on e/F i re st on e, Inc. , 26 3 F . 3d 13 04 , 13 09 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). I I I . DI S CUS S I ON B e f or e w e a ddr e s s the m e r i t s of the appe a l s , w e br i e f

l y a ddr e s s our j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the orders of the di stri ctcourt . F i rs t , the pl ai nt i ff s’ l aw ye rs a r gue tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by hol di ng the m i n c ont e m ptof c our ta nd i m p o si n g a $ 5 0 0 fi n e. B ecau se th e d i stri ctco u rtassessed a p u n i t i v e fi n e ag ai n st13

th e p la in tif

f s ’ la w y e r s , th e c o n te m p t o r d e ris c r im in a l in n a tu r e . U n ite d S ta te s v . K S & W O f

f s hor e E ng’ g, I nc . , 932 F . 2d 906, 908 ( 11th C i r . 1991) ( “ [ T ] he i m po si t i on of a penal ty a gai nstatt orneys for apu ni t i ve pu rpose [ i ] s acr i m i nal co n t em p tsan ct i o n . ”). U n l i k e ci v i l co n t em p t , an o rd er o f cri m i n al co n t em p ti s a f i na l de c i s i on tha ti s i m m e di a t e l y appe a l abl e . M a rr e s e v. A m . A c a d. of O r thopa e di c S ur ge ons , 470 U . S . 373, 379, 105 S . C t . 1327, 1331 ( 1985) . S e c ond, J a c k s o n h a s ap p e a le d b o th th e o r d e r s o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t th a t s e a le d th e d o c u m e n ts and the order thatdeni ed Ja ckson’ s m ot i on t o u nsea l the do cum ent s. T hese orders a r e ap p e a lab le a s c o lla te r a l to th e u n d e r ly in g a c tio n b e c a u s e th e y c o n c lu s iv e ly d e te rm in e ad is p u te d q u e s tio n , r e s o lv e a n im p o r ta n t is s u e , a n d a r e e f f e c tiv e ly u n rev i ew ab l e o n ap p eal fro m a fi n al j u d g m en t . S ee C o h en v . B en efi ci al In d u s. L oan C orp. , 33 7 U . S . 54 1, 54 6, 69 S . C t . 12 21 , 12 25 (194 9). O u r d i scu ssi o n o f th e m eri t s o f th ese ap p eal s i s i n tw o p art s. W e fi rst addres s the chal l enge of the pl ai nt i ff s’ l aw ye rs t o thei r c on vi ct i on for c ri m i nal c o n te m p t. W e th e n a d d r e s s w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n w h e n it s e a l e d a nd l a t e rr e f

us e d t o uns e a l the de c l a r a t i ons , the pl a i nt i f f s ’ m ot i on, a nd the m o tio n s o f

D ru m m o n d to s e a l. A . T he E v i de nc e W

as N ot Suf f i c i e nt to Suppor t

a C onv i c t i on f

orCr i m i nal C o n te m p t.14

C o n te m p t o f

c o u r t m a y b e p u n is h e d a s ac r im in a l o f f e n s e . 1 8 U .S .C . § 4 0 2 . T h e th r e e e le m e n ts o f

c r im in a l c o n te m p t a r e ( 1 ) ala w f u l a n d r e a s o n ab ly s p e c if ic order that(2) the defendanthas vi ol at ed (3) w i l l ful l y. U ni t ed S t at es v. B ernadi ne, 23 7 F . 3d 12 79 , 12 82 (11th C i r. 20 01 ); se e 18 U . S . C . § 4 01 (3). A fe dera l court m aypu ni sh cont em ptuo us cond uctthatoccurs ou t si de i t s pre se nce onl y a ft er g iv in g n o tic e o f

“th e e s s e n tia l f

a c ts c o n s titu tin g th e c h a r g e d c r im in a l c o n te m p t,” “r e q u e s t[ in g ] th a t th e c o n te m p t b e p r o s e c u te d b y a n a tto rn e y f o rth e g o v e rn m e n t,” and affordi ng other procedural prot ec t i on s. F ed. R . C ri m . P . 42 ; se e a l so U ni t ed S t at es v. B al dw i n, 77 0 F . 2d 15 50 , 15 53 -57 (11 th C i r. 19 85 ) ( di sc ussi ng di ff er ence in p r o c e d u r e r e q u ir e d f

o rd ir e c t a n d in d ir e c t c r im in a l c o n te m p t) . T h e d e f e n d a n t “is n o t o n ly e n title d to b e in f o rm e d o f th e n a tu r e o f

th e c h a r g e a g a in s t h im , b u t to know tha ti ti s ac ha r ge , a nd nota[ c i vi l ] s ui t . ” G om pe r s v. B uc k’ s S t ove & R a nge C o. , 221 U . S . 418, 446, 31 S . C t . 492, 500 ( 1911) ; s e e a l s o L a m a rF i n. C orp. v. A dam s, 91 8 F . 2d 56 4, 56 7 (5th C i r. 19 90 ) ( vaca t i ng cont em ptsa nct i on w hen d ef en d an t n o t g iv en sp ec ific n o ti ce th at h ea rin g w as cr im in al in n atu re ). “[I]n pr oc e e di ngs f

orc r i m i na l c ont e m ptthe de f e nda nti s pr e s um e d t o be i nnoc e nt , he m u s t b e p r o v e d to b e g u ilty b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t, a n d c a n n o t b e c o m p e lle d to te s tif y a g a in s t h im s e lf

.” G o m p e r s , 2 2 1 U .S . a t 4 4 4 , 3 1 S . C t. a t 4 9 9 . E v e n w h e n th e s e p r o c e d u r e s a r e f o llo w e d , th e c o n te m p t p o w e ris s u b je c t to15

abus e . A s the S upr e m e C our tha s obs e rve d, thos e “ w ho m a ke the i rw a y t o the bench som et i m es exhi bi tvani ty, i ra sc i bi l i ty, narr ow ness , arrogance, and o ther w e a kne s s e s t o w hi c h hum a n f l e s h i s he i r . ” S a c he rv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 343 U . S . 1, 12, 72 S . C t . 451, 456- 57 ( 1952) . A pr oc e e di ng r e ga r di ng c r i m i na l c ont e m ptde m a nds

“ del i bera t enes s and caut i on . ” T urner, 81 2 F . 2d at15 68 . “ M ostj ud ges, ho w ever , r e c o g n iz e a n d r e s p e c t c o u r a g e o u s , f o r th r ig h t la w y e r ly c o n d u c t. T h e y r a r e ly m i s t a ke ove r z e a l orhe a t e d w or ds of a[ l a w y e r ] f

i r e d w i th ade s i r e t o w i n, f orthe cont em ptuo us cond uctw hi ch defi es rul i ng s a nd dese rves pu ni shm ent . ” S ac her, 343 U . S . a t12, 72 S . C t . a t457. T h e r e a s o n th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h e ld th e p la in tif f s ’ la w y e r s in c o n te m p t is no tcl ea r f

rom the re cord, bu tD rum m on d d ef ends the sa nct i on on the grou nd s that the pl a i nt i f

f s ’ l a w y e r s vi ol a t e d the r e vi s e d pr ot e c t i ve or de rboth by m a ki ng e xtr a j udi c i a l c om m e nt s t o the M i a m i H e r a l d a nd by f i l i ng the de c l a r a t i ons . T he pl a i nt i f f s ’ l a w y e r s r e s pond tha tthe e vi de nc e w a s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o s uppor taf

i ndi ng tha tthe y t ol d a ny thi ng t o the r e por t e rtha tvi ol a t e d the r e vi s e d pr ot e c t i ve or de r , the r e vi s e d pr ot e c t i ve or de rw a s notr e a s onabl y s pe c i f i c i f r e a d t o pr ohi bi tf

i l i ng the de c l a r a t i ons a tt a c he d t o am ot i on, a nd unde re i the rthe ory the e vi de nc e w a s not s u f f ic ie n t to f

in d th a t th e y v io la te d th e o r d e rw illf u lly . T he i s s ue be f

or e us i s l i m i t e d t o the s uf f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e . T he16

pl a i nt i f f s ’ l a w y e r s do notpr e s e nta n a r gum e ntaboute i the rthe s um m a ry he a r i ng or the no t i ce of the charges agai nstthem . W e a gree w i th the pl ai nt i ff s’ l aw ye rs that the e vi de nc e doe s nots uppor tthe i rc onvi c t i on. 1. T he E vi de nc e W a s I ns uf f i c i e ntf oraR e a s onabl e F i nde rof F a c tt o H a ve F ound tha tthe P l a i nt i f

f s ’ L a w y e r s W i l l f

ul l y V i ol a t e d the R e vi s e d P r ot e c t i ve O r de rby M aki ng U nautho ri ze d S t at em ent s t o a R eport er . T he pl ai nt i ff

s’ l aw ye rs pers uasi vel y a rgue thatno re as on abl e f i nd erof fa ct c o u ld h a v e f

o u n d b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t th a t th e y w illf u lly m a d e c o m m e n ts to th e M ia m i H e r a ld r e p o r te rth a t v io la te d th e r e v is e d p r o te c tiv e o r d e r . A t th e in c a m e r apor t i on of

the s how c a us e he a r i ng, the pl a i nt i f f s ’ l a w y e r s de ni e d t e l l i ng the M ia m i H e r a ld r e p o r te rab o u t th e d e c la r a tio n a n d te s tif ie d th a t th e r e p o r te rp r o b ab ly obt a i ne d the de c l a r a t i on f r om the w i tne s s orby obs e rvi ng the publ i c f i l i ngs i n the case. T h e reco rd co n t ai n s n o ev i d en ce t o th e co n trary an d , as D ru m m o n d ad m i t s, “[ t]h e r e is n o a d m is s ib le e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d a s to h o w th e r e p o r te ra c tu a lly l ea rned of the decl ar at i on . ” E ve n i f w e w e r e t o a s s um e tha tthe pl a i nt i f f s ’ l a w y e r s ’ s e xpl a na t i ons i n the i n cam er a hea ri ng w er e f al se , there i s s t i l l no evi dence thatthe pl ai nt i ff s’ l aw ye rs e ve rm a de as t a t e m e nttha tvi ol a t e d the r e vi s e d pr ot e c t i ve or de r . T he i nf orm a t i on in th e M ia m i H e r a ld a r tic le is th e k in d th a t th e r e v is e d p r o te c tiv e o r d e re x p lic itly al l o w ed th e att o rn eys t o d i scl o se t o th e p ress: “ al l eg at i o n [s] . . . m ad e i n th [e] case17

[ a n d ] [ i]n f

o rm a tio n p r o p e r ly c o n ta in e d in th e p u b lic r e c o r d .” T h e M ia m i H e r a ld a r tic le n e ith e rq u o te d th e p la in tif f s ’ la w y e r s n o rc o n ta in e d in f o rm a tio n th a t w o u ld notha ve be e n a va i l abl e t o a ny one obs e rvi ng publ i c f i l i ngs i n the c a s e . I f

the di s tr i c tc our tba s e d i t s f i ndi ng of c ont e m pton the c i r c um s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e of the e xi s t e nc e of

the a r t i c l e , tha te vi de nc e w a s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o pr ove aw i l l f

ul vi ol a t i on b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t. 2. T he R e vi s e d P r ot e c t i ve O r de rD i d N otF orbi d w i th R e a s onabl e S pe c i f i c i ty the F i l i n g o f th e D ecl arat i o n s. T he pl a i nt i f

f s ’ l a w y e r s a r gue tha tthe r e vi s e d pr ot e c t i ve or de rdi d not proh i bi tthe fi l i ng of the decl ar at i on s or, i f s om ehow re ad t o p rohi bi tthe fi l i ng , w as n o t r e a s o n ab ly s p e c if

ic . A g a in , w e a g r e e . “A n o r d e rm e e ts th e r e a s o n ab le spec i fi ci ty r equi re m enton l y i f i ti s acl ea r, defi ni t e, and u nam bi gu ou s order req u i ri n g [o r p ro h i b i t i n g ] th e act i o n i n q u est i o n . ” In re E . I. D u P o n td e N em o u rs & C o. –B e nl a t e L i t i g. , 99 F . 3d 363, 370 ( 11th C i r . 1996) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks om i tt ed). “ T he re as on abl enes s of the spec i fi ci ty of a n o rder. . . m ustbe eval uat ed i n the cont exti n w hi ch i ti s e nt er ed and the audi ence t o w hi ch i ti s a dd re ss ed. ” T u rn e r , 8 1 2 F .2 d a t 1 5 6 5 . T he re vi se d p rot ec t i ve order prohibi t ed “ m aki ng or autho ri zi ng extra j ud i ci al c o m m e n ts , a n dd is s e m in a tin g . . . in f o rm a tio n to th e m e d iaa n d th e p u b lic18

concerni ng . . . the expect ed t es t i m on y of aparty or w i tness ; and [m ] att er s that c o u n s e l k n o w , o rr e a s o n ab ly s h o u ld k n o w , w ill b e in a d m is s ab le a t tr ia l, a n d w o u ld i f di s c l os e d c r e a t e as ubs t a nt i a l r i s k of pr e j udi c i ng a n i m pa r t i a l tr i a l . ” U nl i ke the ori gi nal prot ec t i ve order, the re vi se d p rot ec t i ve order di d n otaddres s w hat e vi de nc e the a tt orne y s c oul d r e f e r e nc e i n publ i c f

i l i ngs . T he r e vi s e d pr ot e c t i ve order al so di d n otaddres s w hatm ot i on s s ho ul d b e f i l ed un der s ea l , w hat supp ort i ng do cum ent s s ho ul d b e f i l ed un der s ea l , or w hatdo cum ent s the di stri ct c o u r t m ig h t s u b m it to th e S ta te D e p a r tm e n t. W he n the r e vi s e d pr ot e c t i ve or de ri s r e a d i n c ont e xtw i th othe rpa r t s of the r e c or d, i ti s unc l e a rtha tthe r e vi s e d pr ot e c t i ve or de rpr ohi bi t e d f i l i ng the decl ar at i on s a s partof the pu bl i c r ec ord. T he re vi se d p rot ec t i ve order al l ow ed att o rn eys t o m ak e u n em b el l i sh ed st at em en t s ab o u tal l eg at i o n s an d p u b l i c fi l i n g s, such as the al l egat i on s i n the decl ar at i on s, and the di stri ctcourtbo th h ad ordered the pa r t i e s t o uns e a l orr e da c tm os tpr e vi ous f i l i ngs a nd w a rne d the pa r t i e s t o s t op r o u tin e ly r e q u e s tin g th a t d o c u m e n ts b e f ile d u n d e rs e a l. T h e le tte rto th e S ta te D e p a r tm e n t a n d th e o r d e rp r o h ib itin g th e p a r tie s f r o m c o n ta c tin g th e S ta te D epartm ental so w er e f i l ed i n the pu bl i c r ec ord. T o the ext entthe re vi se d pr ot e c t i ve or de rc a n be i nt e rpr e t e d t o c ur t a i l publ i c f i l i ngs a ta l l , i t s i m por ti n the co n t ex to f th e o th er ru l i n g s o f th e d i stri ctco u rti s am b i g u o u s.19

D rum m ond a r gue s , a nd the di s tr i c tc our ts t a t e d i n i t s l a t e ror de rgr a nt i ng a s t a y of the f i ne pe ndi ng appe a l , tha tthe r e vi s e d pr ot e c t i ve or de ri nc orpor a t e d the d e f in itio n o f “e x tr a ju d ic ia l c o m m e n ts ” in th e p r e v io u s p r o te c tiv e o r d e r . D rum m ond c ont e nds tha tthe r e vi s e d pr ot e c t i ve or de rpr ohi bi t e d a ny f i l i ng d eter m in ed n o t t o b e a “v alidp ar t o f o p en leg al p ro ce ed in g s,” w ith D ru m m o n d ’s e m pha s i s a dde d. D rum m ond a r gue s tha tthe s e de c l a r a t i ons w e r e not“ va l i d” but o f f e r s n o g u id a n c e ab o u t d e f in in g th e te rm “v a lid .” T he a r gum e ntof

D rum m ond i s ba s e d on as tr a i ne d i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the re vi se d p rot ec t i ve order, w hi ch do es no tdefi ne “ extra j ud i ci al com m ent s” and d oes notr e f e r e nc e the a m bi guous de f i ni t i on i n the or i gi na l pr ot e c t i ve or de r . B a s e d on o u rr e v ie w , th e r e v is e d p r o te c tiv e o r d e rw a s in te n d e d to r e p la c e , n o t s u p p le m e n t, the or i gi na l pr ot e c t i ve or de r . I ti s a l s o f a rf r om c l e a rtha tthe a m bi guous de f i ni t i on in th e o r ig in a l o r d e ris th e m o s t ap t d e f in itio n o f “e x tr a ju d ic ia l.” T h e m o s t w id e ly us e d l e ga l di c t i ona ry , f

ore xa m pl e , de f

i ne s “ e xtr a

j udi c i a l ” a s “ out s i de the fu n ctio n in g o f th e c o u rt sy stem ” o r “an y u tt er an ce m ad e o u tsid e o f c o u rt.” B lack ’s L aw D i ct i on ary 497 (8th ed. 20 05 ). E ve n i f w e w e r e t o a s s um e tha tthe de f i ni t i on of “ e xtr a j udi c i a l ” pr of

f e r e d by D ru m m o n d is c o rr e c t, th a t d e f in itio n s till w o u ld n o t h a v e p r o h ib ite d w ith re as on abl e s peci fi ci ty the pl ai nt i ff s f rom fi l i ng the decl ar at i on s. U nt i l the di stri ct20

courthel d the pl ai nt i ff

s’ l aw ye rs i n con t em pt , no order of the di stri ctcourthad i de nt i f i e d f i l i ng a ny uns e a l e d m ot i on ore vi de nc e a s “ [ i n] va l i d. ” W he n the pl a i nt i f f s ’ l a w y e r s f

i l e d the f i r s tm ot i on a nd a tt a c he d de c l a r a t i ons , ne i the rthe di s tr i c tc our tnorD rum m ond s ugge s t e d tha tthe f i l i ng w a s c ont e m ptuous . T ha ts ua spon t e s ug gest i on of the di stri ctcourtca m e onl y a ft erthe pl ai nt i ff s’ l aw ye rs fi l ed the i rm ot i on f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on. T he di s tr i c tc our tappa r e nt l y e xpe c t e d the p l a i n t i f f s ’ l a w y e r s t o ap p l y a n a mb i g u o u s o r d e rb y i mp o r t i n g ad e f i n i t i o n f r o m a p r e v io u s o r d e rth a t its e lf is a m b ig u o u s . N o “r e a s o n ab le f in d e ro f f a c t c o u ld . . . c onc l ude tha t[ the ] a tt orne y s w e r e c l e ve re nough t o f i gur e out ” tha tthe ba rof e xtr a j udi c i a l c om m e nt s i n the r e vi s e d pr ot e c t i ve or de rc l e a r l y pr ohi bi t e d f i l i ng the s e de c l a r a t i ons , e s pe c i a l l y i n the l i ghtof the w a rni ng of

the di s tr i c tc our ttha tthe p a r tie s n o t r o u tin e ly r e q u e s t th a t d o c u m e n ts b e f ile d u n d e rs e a l. I n r e B e n la te L i t i g. , 99 F . 3d a t372. B . T he D is tr i c t

C our t A bus e d I

t s D is c r e t i on i n R e

f us i ng to U

ns e al the Mot i ons and D ecla ra t i o n s.

“ T he op er at i on s of the court s a nd the j ud i ci al cond uctof j ud ges a re m att er s of utm os tpubl i c c onc e rn, ” L a ndm a rk C om m c ’ ns , I nc . v. V i r gi ni a , 435 U . S . 829, 8 3 9 , 9 8 S . C t. 1 5 3 5 , 1 5 4 1 ( 1 9 7 8 ) , a n d “[ t]h e c o m m o n - la w r ig h t o f a c c e s s to ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s , a n e s s e n tia l c o m p o n e n t o f o u rs y s te m o f

ju s tic e , is i nstrum ent al i n sec uri ng the i nt egri ty of the process , ” C hi . T ri bu ne, 26 3 F . 3d at21

1311. T hi s r i ght“ i nc l ude s the r i ghtt o i ns pe c ta nd c opy publ i c r e c or ds a nd d o c u m e n ts .” I d . ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . T h is r ig h t o f a c c e s s is n o t ab s o lu te , h o w e v e r . T he r i ghtof

a c c e s s doe s notappl y t o di s c ove ry a nd, w he r e i tdoe s appl y , m a y be ov er com e by ashow i ng of go od cause. B e c a u s e “[ t]h e p r o s p e c t o f a ll d is c o v e ry m a te r ia l b e in g p r e s u m p tiv e ly s u b je c t to th e r ig h t o f

a c c e s s w o u ld lik e ly le a d to a n in c r e a s e d r e s is ta n c e to d is c o v e ry r e q u e s ts ,” w e h a v e r e c o g n iz e d a n e x c e p tio n to th e p u b lic r ig h t o f a c c e s s . Id. at13 12 n. 10 . “ [D ] ocum ent s f i l ed i n con nect i on w i th m ot i on s t o com pel di s c ove ry a r e nots ubj e c tt o the c om m on- l a w r i ghtof a c c e s s , ” i d. a t1312- 13, but

“ m a t e r i a l f

i l e d i n c onne c t i on w i th pr e tr i a l m ot i ons tha tr e qui r e j udi c i a l r e s ol ut i on of the m er i t s i s s ubj ec tt o the com m on -l aw ri gh t , ” i d. at13 12 . W e have expl ai ned th a t th e n e e d f

o rp u b lic a c c e s s to d is c o v e ry is lo w b e c a u s e d is c o v e ry is “e s s e n tia lly a pri vat e proces s . . . the sol e purpo se [of w hi ch] i s t o ass i sttri al prepara t i on . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . A n d e r s o n , 7 9 9 F .2 d 1 4 3 8 , 1 4 4 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) . T he di stri ctcourterroneou sl y c on cl ud ed thatthe se al ed do cum ent s “ w er e nots ubj e c tt o the c om m on l a w r i ghtof publ i c a c c e s s ” be c a us e “ no di s pos i t i ve m ot i on w a s be f

or e the c our t . ” M a t e r i a l f i l e d i n c onne c t i on w i th a ny s ubs t a nt i ve pr e tr i a l m ot i on, unr e l a t e d t o di s c ove ry , i s s ubj e c tt o the c om m on l a w r i ghtof a c c e s s . C h i. T r ib u n e , 2 6 3 F .3 d a t 1 3 1 2 ( d if f e r e n c e b e tw e e n “m a te r ia l f ile d w ith22

di s c ove ry m ot i ons a nd m a t e r i a l f i l e d i n c onne c t i on w i th m or e s ubs t a nt i ve m ot i ons ” ) ; s e e a l s o L e uc a di a , I nc . v. A ppl i e d E xtrus i on T e c hs . , I nc . , 998 F . 2d 157, 16 4 (3d C i r. 19 93 ) ( “ [T ] here i s apres um pt i ve ri gh tof pu bl i c a cc es s t o p re tri al m ot i ons of

anondi s c ove ry na tur e , w he the rpr e l i m i na ry ordi s pos i t i ve , a nd the m at er i al fi l ed i n con nect i on there w i th. ”) . A m ot i on thati s “ pres ent ed t o the court t o i nv ok e i t s pow er s or a ff ec ti t s dec i si on s, ” w hether or notchar ac t er i ze d as di s pos i t i ve , i s s ubj e c tt o the publ i c r i ghtof a c c e s s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A m ode o, 71 F . 3d 10 44 , 10 50 (2d C i r. 19 95 ); se e a l so L euca di a, 99 8 F . 2d at16 4 (com m on l aw ri gh tappl i es t o m ot i on t o app rove se tt l em entagre em ent ); In re C on t ’ l Il l . S ec . L itig ., 7 3 2 F .2 d 1 3 0 2 , 1 3 0 9 ( 7 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) ( r ig h t o f a c c e s s ap p lie s to m o tio n to te rm in a te d e r iv a tiv e c la im ) . O r d in a r ily , th e p la in tif

f s w o u ld h a v e b e e n f

r e e to p e titio n th e S ta te D e pa r tm e ntnott o i nt e rve ne i n the i rc a s e w i th w ha t e ve rm a t e r i a l s the y c hos e , but a n or de rof

the di s tr i c tc our t , f

orr e a s ons tha ta r e notappa r e nt , m a de tha tpr i vi l e ge c ont i nge nton a n e xe r c i s e of j udi c i a l pow e r . T he obj e c tof the m ot i on t o pr ovi de th e d ecl arat i o n s t o th e S t at e D ep artm en tw as n o td i sco v ery. B ecau se th e p l ai n t i ffs’ m ot i on a s ke d the c our tt o va ry f r om i t s pr e vi ous publ i c or de ra nd di d noti nvol ve th e d is c lo s u r e o f

d is c o v e ry m a te r ia ls , th e c o m m o n la w p r e s u m p tio n o f p u b lic a c c e s s a tt a c he d.23

T he c om m on l a w r i ghtof a c c e s s m a y be ove r c om e by as how i ng of good cause, w hi ch re qu i re s “ bal anc[ i ng ] the as se rt ed ri gh tof ac ce ss agai nstthe other party’ s i nt er es ti n k ee pi ng the i nform at i on confi dent i al . ” C hi . T ri bu ne, 26 3 F . 3d at 13 09 . “ [W ] hether goo d cause exi st s . . . i s . . . deci ded b y the nature a nd char ac t er o f th e in f o rm a tio n in q u e s tio n .” I d . a t 1 3 1 5 . I n b a la n c in g th e p u b lic in te r e s t in a c c e s s i ng c our tdoc um e nt s a ga i ns tapa r ty ’ s i nt e r e s ti n ke e pi ng the i nf orm a t i on c o n f id e n tia l, c o u r ts c o n s id e r , a m o n g o th e rf a c to r s , w h e th e ra llo w in g a c c e s s w o u ld i m pa i rc our tf

unc t i ons orha rm l e gi t i m a t e pr i va c y i nt e r e s t s , the de gr e e of a nd l i kel i ho od of i nj ury i f m ade pub l i c, the re l i abi l i ty of the i nform at i on , w hether there w i l l be a n oppor tuni ty t o r e s pond t o the i nf orm a t i on, w he the rthe i nf orm a t i on c onc e rns publ i c of

f i c i a l s orpubl i c c onc e rns , a nd the a va i l abi l i ty of al e s s one r ous a l t e rna t i ve t o s e a l i ng the doc um e nt s . S e e I n r e A l e xa nde rG r a nt& C o. L i t i g. , 820 F . 2d 35 2, 35 6 (11 th C i r. 19 87 ); S hi ng ar a v. S ki l es , 42 0 F . 3d 30 1, 30 5-06 (3d C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ; A m o d e o , 7 1 F .3 d a t 1 0 5 0 - 5 1 . A p a r ty ’s p r iv a c y o rp r o p r ie ta ry in te r e s t in i nf orm a t i on s om e t i m e s ove r c om e s the i nt e r e s tof the publ i c i n a c c e s s i ng the in f o rm a tio n . S e e N ix o n v . W a rn e rC o m m c ’n s , I n c ., 4 3 5 U .S . 5 8 9 , 5 9 8 , 9 8 S . C t. 1 3 0 6 , 1 3 1 2 ( 1 9 7 8 ) ; A r th u rR . M ille r , C o n f id e n tia lity , P r o te c tiv e O r d e r s , a n d P u b lic A cc es s t o the C ou rt s, 10 5 H arv. L . R ev. 42 7, 46 4-74 (199 1). A l tho ug h “ [d] ec i si on s l es s c entra l t o m er i t s r es ol ut i on s i m pl i ca t e l es se r24

ri gh t -t o-ac ce ss consi dera t i on s, ” 8 C harl es A l an W ri gh t , A rthu r R . M i l l er& R i c ha r d L . M a r c us , F e de r a l P r a c t i c e a nd P r oc e dur e § 2035 ( 2d e d. 1994) , the pl a i nt i f f s ’ m ot i on f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on w a s r e l a t e d both t o the m e r i t s of the unde r l y i ng c ontr ove r s y a nd the c onduc tof the c our t . T he m ot i on c onc e rne d the a dvi s ory opi ni on s oughtby the di s tr i c tc our t , w hi c h i n turn i nvol ve d a n a f f i rm a t i ve d e f e n s e o f D ru m m o n d . A s p a r t o f its d e c is io n to s e e k th e o p in io n o f th e S ta te D epartm ent , the di stri ctcourtas sum ed the rol e of gat ekee per betw ee n the part i es a n d th e e x e c u tiv e b r a n c h o f th e f e d e r a l g o v e rn m e n t. T h e s e a le d d o c u m e n ts i nvol ve publ i c c onc e rns tha ta r e a tthe he a r tof the i nt e r e s tpr ot e c t e d by the r i ghtof a c c e s s : “th e c itiz e n ’s d e s ir e to k e e p aw a tc h f u l e y e o n th e w o rk in g s o f p u b lic a g e n c ie s . . . [ a n d ] th e o p e r a tio n o f g o v e rn m e n t.” N ix o n , 4 3 5 U .S . a t 5 9 8 , 9 8 S . C t. a t 1 3 1 2 . D rum m on d argues thati thas “ enorm ou s” i nt er es t s i n k ee pi ng the se al ed de c l a r a t i ons c onf

i de nt i a l , butw e di s a gr e e . D rum m ond di d notpr oduc e the decl ar at i on of the C ol om bi an offi ci al du ri ng di sc ov ery a nd has nei ther apri vacy norapr opr i e t a ry i nt e r e s ti n i t . C f . S e a tt l e T i m e s C o. v. R hi ne ha r t , 467 U . S . 20, 34, 104 S . C t . 2199, 2208 ( 1984) ( a f f i rm i ng a n or de rpr ohi bi t i ng the di s s e m i na t i on of i nform at i on gai ned b y di sc ov ery s o l on g as the part i es coul d d i ss em i nat e “ i dent i ca l in f o rm a tio n . . . g a in e d th r o u g h m e a n s in d e p e n d e n t o f th e c o u r t’s p r o c e s s e s ” ) .25

A l though c our tf

i l e s tha ti ns t i ga t e publ i c s c a nda l orl i be l m a y be s e a l e d, the de c l a r a t i ons i n que s t i on s uppor tthe a l r e a dy - publ i c c om pl a i nta ga i ns tD rum m ond a n d its e x e c u tiv e s . A lth o u g h D ru m m o n d d e n ie s th e a lle g a tio n s o f th a t c o m p la in t, i t s deni al i s nota l egi t i m at e bas i s f or se al i ng the evi dence. T he di s tr i c tc our tpr ovi de d thr e e r e a s ons f ors e a l i ng the de c l a r a t i ons a nd m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on: the doc um e nt s w oul d pr e j udi c e the r i ghtof

D rum m ond t o af a i rtr i a l by c r e a t i ng a“ f

i r e s t orm ” i n the m e di a ; the pl a i nt i f f s ’ l a w y e r s f

i l e d the doc um e nt s w i th the ba d f a i th i nt e nt i on of

c i r c um ve nt i ng the r e vi s e d pr ot e c t i ve or de r ; a nd the m ot i on a nd de c l a r a t i ons w e r e i rr e l e va nt . T he s e a r e “ s t e r e oty pe d a nd c o n c lu s o ry s ta te m e n ts ” th a t d o n o t e s tab lis h g o o d c a u s e . U n ite d S ta te s v . G a rr e tt, 571 F . 2d 1323, 1326 n. 3 ( 5th C i r . 1978) ; s e e a l s o P r e s s - E nt e rpr i s e C o. v. S upe r i or C our t , 478 U . S . 1, 15, 106 S . C t . 2735, 2743 ( 1986) ( “ r i ghtof a c c e s s c a nnotbe ove r c om e by . . . c onc l us ory a s s e r t i on” ) ; W r i ght , M i l l e r& M a r c us , s upr a , § 2035 ( s a m e ) . W e a d d r e s s e a c h in tu rn . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t s p e c u la te d th a t r e p o r tin g o n th e d o c u m e n ts w o u ld p r e ju d ic e th e ju ry p o o l, b u t th e r e a r e a t le a s t th r e e p r o b le m s w ith th is r a tio n a le . F i rs t , the re cord do es no tcont ai n any evi dence t o sup po rtthi s f i nd i ng , and “ pretri al publ i c i ty , e ve n i f

pe rva s i ve a nd c onc e ntr a t e d, c a nnotbe r e ga r de d a s l e a di ng a ut om a t i c a l l y . . . t o a n unf a i rtr i a l . ” N e b. P r e s s A s s ’ n v. S tua r t , 427 U . S . 539, 565,26

96 S . C t . 27 91 , 28 05 (197 6). S ec on d, because the subst ance of the C ol om bi an o ffi ci al ’ s d ecl arat i o n h ad al read y b een rep o rt ed b y th e M i am i H eral d , seal i n g th ese do cum ent s c ou l d n otre m edy a ny of the hi gh l y unl i kel y harm s thatcoul d b e c ause d b y p r e tr ia l p u b lic ity . T h ir d , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f a ile d to e x p la in w h y its d e c is io n to a l l ow the D rum m ond a tt orne y s t o c om m e ntaboutthe de c l a r a t i on of the go vernm entoffi ci al w as i nsuffi ci entt o cou nt er ac tany purpo rt ed prej ud i ce . “ If the r e be t i m e t o e xpos e thr ough di s c us s i on the f a l s e hood a nd f

a l l a c i e s , t o a ve r tthe e vi l by the pr oc e s s e s of e duc a t i on, the r e m e dy t o be appl i e d i s m or e s pe e c h, not e nf or c e d s i l e nc e . ” W hi tne y v. C a l i f orni a , 274 U . S . 357, 377, 47 S . C t . 641, 649 ( 1 9 2 7 ) ( B r a n d e is , J ., c o n c u rr in g ) ; s e e a ls o R o b e r t D . R ic h a r d s & C la y C a lv e r t, C ount e r s pe e c h 2000: A N e w L ook a tthe O l d R e m e dy f or“ B a d” S pe e c h, 2000 B Y U L . R e v. 553. T he di s tr i c tc our ta l s o f a i l e d t o s ubs t a nt i a t e i t s f i ndi ng tha ta l l ow i ng the p u b l i c access to th e d o cu m en t s w o u l d v i n d i cat e i m p ro p er m o t i v es o f th e p l ai n t i ffs’ l a w y e r s . A s w e e xpl a i ne d i n the pr e vi ous s e c t i on, the pl a i nt i f f s ’ l a w y e r s di d not vi ol at e a ny cl ea r di re ct i ve of the re vi se d p rot ec t i ve order, so the do cum ent s w er e no tprop er l y s ea l ed i nci dentt o enforci ng thatorder. E ven i f the pl ai nt i ff s’ l aw ye rs shou l d h ave been pun i shed, the sa nct i on shou l d n othave been t o cl ose j ud i ci al pr oc e e di ngs t o the publ i c . C f . B r ow n v. A dva nt a ge E ng’ g, I nc . , 960 F . 2d 1013,27

1 0 1 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) ( th a t b o th p a r tie s w a n t to s e a l c o u r t d o c u m e n ts “is i m m at er i al ” t o p ub l i c r i gh tof ac ce ss ). T he r e m a i ni ng r e a s on of the di s tr i c tc our t

— tha tthe m ot i on a nd de c l a r a t i ons w er e i rr el evantt o the proceedi ng s— al so fa i l s. B ec ause the di stri ctcourtordered th e p a r tie s n o t to c o n ta c t th e S ta te D e p a r tm e n t w ith o u t its p e rm is s io n , it is d if f ic u lt t o c om pr e he nd how am ot i on t o s e nd m or e i nf orm a t i on t o the S t a t e D e pa r tm e nt

“ f a re xc e e de d the s c ope of the [ i nqui ry t o the S t a t e D e pa r tm e nt ] , ” e ve n i f the re qu es tw as ul t i m at el y deni ed. Ital so do es no tfol l ow fr om the deni al of that m ot i on thatthe m ot i on re qu es t i ng re consi dera t i on w as so i rr el evantor i m prop eras t o be s e a l e d. W i thoutam or e s pe c i f i c s how i ng tha tthe de c l a r a t i ons a nd the m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on w e r e abus i ve ori m pr ope r , good c a us e f ors e a l i ng the doc um e nt s w a s note s t abl i s he d. F i na l l y , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notof f e ra ny e xpl a na t i on f

ors e a l i ng or r e f u s in g to u n s e a l th e m o tio n s o f D ru m m o n d to s e a l th e p la in tif f s ’ f ilin g s . D ru m m o n d al so o ffers n o arg u m en to n ap p eal th atth ere i s g o o d cau se fo r th ese d o c u m e n ts to r e m a in s e a le d . H a v in g r e v ie w e d th e s e m o tio n s , w e a r e u n ab le to di s c e rn a ny r e a s on t o ke e p the m s e a l e d. T he publ i c ha s ar i ghtt o a c c e s s the s e doc um e nt s tha ti s m or e tha n pow e r f ul e n o u g h to o v e r c o m e th e n e g lig ib le in te r e s t o f D ru m m o n d in p r e v e n tin g p u b lic28

ac ce ss . T he re as on s gi ven for se al i ng the do cum ent s by the di stri ctcourtw er e concl usory a nd spec ul at i ve, and sea l i ng these do cum ent s w as an exaggerat ed r e m e d y f o rth e h a rm s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t id e n tif ie d . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n in s e a lin g th e s e d o c u m e n ts . I V . CONCL US I ON T h e o r d e ro f

th e d is tr ic t c o u r t th a t h e ld th e p la in tif f s ’ la w y e r s in c o n te m p t is VA C A TED . T he or de rof the di s tr i c tc our ttha ts e a l e d the e vi de nc e a tt a c he d t o the m ot i on t o s ubm i ta ddi t i ona l i nf orm a t i on t o the S t a t e D e pa r tm e nt , the or de rof the di stri ctcourtthatse al ed the m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on , and the order of the di stri ct courtthatdeni ed Ja ckson’ s r equestt o u nsea l ar e R EVER SED . V AC AT E D i n pa r ta nd R EVER SED in p a r t.