1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Gregg P. Leslie, Gregg.Leslie@asu.edu, Bar # 035040 *

Nancy Craig, Nancy.Craig@asu.edu **

Lila Mayson, Lila.Mayson@asu.edu **

Alexa Salari, Alexa.Salari@asu.edu **

Adi Soto, Adi.Soto@asu.edu **

First Amendment Clinic, Public Interest Law Firm

Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law

111 E. Taylor St., Mail Code 8820

Phoenix, AZ 85004

Telephone: (804) 727-7398

* Certified supervising attorney pursuant to L.R. Civ. 83.4(e)

** Certified limited practice student pursuant to L.R. Civ. 83.4(e)

David Bralow, seeking admission pro hac vice

david.bralow@theintercept.com

First Look Media Works, Inc.

114 5th Avenue, 18th Floor

New York, NY 10011

Telephone: (646) 784-3287

David J. Bodney, Bar # 006065

bodneyd@ballardspahr.com 

BALLARD SPAHR LLP 

1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555 

Telephone: (602) 798-5400 

Attorneys for First Look Media Works, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Scott Daniel Warren, 

Defendant.

CR-18-223-TUC-RCC(DTF)

MOTION TO INTERVENE BY 

FIRST LOOK MEDIA FOR THE 

LIMITED PURPOSE OF 

CHALLENGING SEALING OF 

RECORDS

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 195 Filed 04/29/19 Page 1 of 16
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

First Look Media Works, Inc., publisher of The Intercept (“TI”), respectfully moves 

to intervene for the limited purpose of protecting the public’s First Amendment and 

common law rights of access to judicial documents, specifically sealed exhibits, filed in 

connection with Defendant Scott Daniel Warren’s (1) Sealed Motion to Suppress Evidence 

Found as a Result of Illegal Search (the “Motion to Suppress”), Sealed Doc. No. 53, as 

described in Minute Order of April 19, 2018 (Doc. No. 83), and (2) Motion to Dismiss 

Indictment due to Selective Enforcement (the “Motion to Dismiss”), Doc. No. 186 (filed 

April 1, 2019) (exhibits not publicly available are 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 

18).

The public and the press have a presumed right of access to court proceedings and 

documents under the First Amendment. Oregonian Publishing Co. v. Dist. Ct., 920 F.2d 

1462, 1465 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Press–Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 

510 (1985) (“Press–Enterprise I”). See also Phoenix Newspapers v. United States Dist. 

Court, 156 F.3d 940, 949 (9th Cir. 1998). The Ninth Circuit has also specifically found a 

“strong presumption of public access” to exhibits attached to motions “more than 

tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 

809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). See also Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 

F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The Defendant’s substantive motions and their attached 

exhibits go to the heart of the government’s prosecution of the Defendant and relate to 

matters of great public concern, including allegations of governmental misconduct. 

In the present case, the Court must recognize two important failures: First, there has 

been a failure by the Court to engage in procedures necessary to seal court records – public 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 195 Filed 04/29/19 Page 2 of 16
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

notice and hearing – that protect the public’s constitutional and common law rights of 

access to such records. Phoenix Newspapers, 156 F.3d at 949. Second, the Court has made 

no on-the-record findings that demonstrate closure is necessary to protect a compelling 

interest, that closure is necessary to avoid harm to that interest, and that there are no 

alternatives to closure. Id.; Oregonian Pub. Co., 920 F. 3d at 1466. The “compelling 

reason” standard for sealing a court record is significantly higher than the “good cause” 

standard that justifies a protective order for unfiled discovery documents.

Therefore, TI respectfully requests that its Motion to Intervene be granted and that 

the exhibits attached to the Motion to Suppress and Motion to Dismiss be immediately 

unsealed. In the alternative, any continued sealing of the exhibits must be supported on the 

record through specific findings of facts as to why nondisclosure outweighs the public’s 

interest in access. Phoenix Newspapers, 156 F.3d at 949.

TI is also entering a similar motion in the related misdemeanor case involving the 

same Defendant. U.S. v. Warren, 4:17-mj-00341 (D. Ariz., initiated Dec. 6, 2017).

This Application is supported by the following memorandum. 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 195 Filed 04/29/19 Page 3 of 16
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Factual & Procedural Background

On February 14, 2018, the Defendant was indicted on three felony counts for 

allegedly harboring and transporting illegal aliens. Doc. No. 26. The events surrounding 

the Government’s allegations against the Defendant have become a topic of major public 

interest and concern. See Ryan Devereaux, Nine Humanitarian Activists Face Federal 

Charges After Leaving Water For Migrants in the Arizona Desert, The Intercept, (Jan. 23, 

2018, 6:39 PM), https://theintercept.com/2018/01/23/no-more-deaths-arizona-borderlittering-charges-immigration/ [https://perma.cc/Z28Y-QA84]; Daniella Silva, Volunteer 

arrested after giving food, water to undocumented immigrants in Arizona, nbcnews.com, 

(Jan. 23, 2018 5:32 PM), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/volunteer-Arrested-aftergiving-food-water-undocumented-immigrants-arizona-n840386 [https://perma.cc/53BL82VB]; Ryan Devereaux, “We’re Gonna Take Everyone – Border Patrol Targets 

Humanitarian Group as Criminal Organization,” The Intercept, (April 30, 2018 1:00 PM),

https://theintercept.com/2018/04/30/were-gonna-take-everyone-border-patrol-targetsprominent-humanitarian-group-as-criminal-organization/ [https://perma.cc/4JEWPGCM]; Catherine Reagor, ASU instructor, border aid volunteer going to trial for charges 

of illegally harboring people, azcentral.com, (Dec. 25, 2018 1:54 PM), 

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2018/12/25/asu-instructor-aid-groupvolunteer-scott-warren-go-trial-harboring-charges/2411795002/, [https://perma.cc/FE55-

GM64].

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 195 Filed 04/29/19 Page 4 of 16
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

On April 19, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence Found as a 

Result of Illegal Search (the “Motion to Suppress”). The Motion to Suppress does not 

appear on the Court’s docket of the case; the only public references to it in this felony case 

are in later responsive filings and minute orders, which identify the Motion to Suppress as 

Doc. No. 53. See Government’s Response, Doc. No. 63; Minute Entry, Doc. No. 83. 

Further information about this motion is found in a defense document in the related 

misdemeanor case against Defendant. See Response In Opposition To Government’s 

Motions For Protective Order And To Seal Exhibit, Doc. No. 52, pgs. 2-3, Case No. 4:17-

mj-00341 (D. Ariz., initiated Dec. 6, 2017).

Two exhibits attached to the Motion to Suppress also remain sealed and missing 

from the docket. The exhibits contain “a text message conversation among [Border Patrol] 

agents discussing their planned raid and arrests” and a “report of the lead officer and the 

affidavit the Border Patrol filed in court to obtain a subsequent search warrant.” See Id. at 

2. According to the Defendant, the Government’s request to seal the Defendant’s Motion 

to Suppress, along with its attached exhibits, “did not assert that making the documents 

public would create any sort of risk of public harm, or that they contained any information 

that was sensitive or confidential”; the Border Patrol agent’s report was redacted to remove 

the witnesses’ dates of birth, and none of the materials appeared to include anything other 

than the witnesses’ names, which were already included in the Complaint the Government 

filed to initiate its felony case against the Defendant. Id. at 3 (citing Doc. 1). Nonetheless, 

“The Court granted that request to seal [less] than two hours later, without affording the 

defense any chance to file a response, and without any explanation for why the documents 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 195 Filed 04/29/19 Page 5 of 16
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

could be properly sealed.” Id. The prosecutor’s request for a sealing order and the 

subsequent order are also not on the docket; presumably, these would be found at Doc. No. 

57 and 58, which are skipped on the docket. The Court has made no other on-the-record 

findings that would justify their sealing, has not shown it considered alternatives prior to 

sealing these exhibits, and has not provided the public notice or opportunity to be heard 

before sealing the exhibits.

On May 11, 2018, the District Court granted the Government’s Motion for a 

Protective Order, whereby the Court ordered that, with “good cause having been shown,” 

defense counsel (1) was, in relevant part, prohibited from disclosing discovery, except 

between Defendant and defense counsel’s agents, any material received by the government 

without further Court order and (2) was prohibited from attaching to a motion any 

disclosure from the Government as an exhibit “without an accompanying Motion to Seal 

said exhibit.” Doc. No. 69.

On March 14, 2019, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Indictment Due to 

Selective Enforcement. Doc. No. 186. The Motion to Dismiss references Exhibits 1 

through 18, and only six of those exhibits are included in the publicly available version of 

the docket. Doc. No. 186. The exhibits that are not publicly available are 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 

11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 18. Id. Based upon the references to these exhibits in the defense’s 

Motion to Dismiss, these sealed exhibits include: various text message conversations 

between U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officers and Border Patrol agents discussing the 

Defendant; text message conversations between Border Patrol agents concerning its 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 195 Filed 04/29/19 Page 6 of 16
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

investigation of the Defendant; and Border Patrol agents’ incident/police reports 

concerning the arrest of the Defendant. Id.

There is no docket notice concerning a motion or order sealing these missing 

exhibits. The documents have been presumably filed under seal, without meeting the 

substantive and procedural requirements for sealing. Phoenix Newspapers, 156 F.3d at 949. 

There was no notice to the public that a motion to seal was under consideration, no motion 

filed in the public docket to seal these documents, and no public, on-the-record findings 

made by the Court as to why the exhibits should be sealed. Id. Instead of notice, hearing, 

and public findings, it appears that defense counsel filed, under seal, the missing exhibits 

to the Motion to Dismiss based upon the language of the Court’s Protective Order, with its 

finding of “good cause having been shown.” Doc. No. 69. However, a much more 

substantial standard of a “compelling interest” or “compelling reason” is required before 

court documents attached to a Motion to Dismiss or Motion to Suppress can be sealed, as 

discussed below.

The parties’ actions in sealing the records may well have complied with the 

procedure for sealing under LRCrim 49.4. But that rule also requires a “clear statement of 

the facts and legal authority justifying the filing of the document under seal,” id. at (b), and 

does not address the substantive law governing the common law and constitutional right of 

access to court documents.

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 195 Filed 04/29/19 Page 7 of 16
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ARGUMENT

I. The Press Has a Right to Intervene for the Limited Purpose of Moving to 

Unseal Documents Related to Motions Concerning the Merits of the Case.

The press is routinely permitted to appear in criminal actions for the limited purpose 

of protecting the public’s constitutional and common law rights of access to judicial 

proceedings and records. See Globe-Newspapers v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 589-99 

(1982) (requesting access to preliminary hearings); Phoenix Newspapers, 156 F.3d at 943 

(requesting access to hearing transcripts).

The Ninth Circuit has also recognized “the press and other interested parties retain 

the right to intervene and request that particular documents be unsealed.” United States v. 

Gurolla, 333 F.3d 944, 953 (9th Cir. 2003). See also U.S. v. Kaczysnki, 154 F.3d 930, 931 

(9th Cir. 1998) (noting appeal from “order granting in part the motion of intervenorsappellees,” which were media parties seeking access to records).

A court in this district has also acknowledged:

To the extent [precedent] cases imply, or even recognize, a right on the part of the 

press to intervene in a case, they can be read, collectively, to support a limited right 

that only attaches when court proceedings, and materials that are either filed or 

lodged with the court, are at issue.

United States v. Loughner, 807 F. Supp. 2d 828, 831-32 (D. Ariz. 2011). Courts in this 

district have granted orders permitting Applications to Intervene for the Limited Purpose 

of Moving to Unseal Documents by the press as recently as 2015. See U.S. v. Kareem, 

2:15-cr-00707 (D. Ariz., Order of July 2, 2015 [Doc. No. 35]).

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 195 Filed 04/29/19 Page 8 of 16
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

TI has a strong and abiding interest in reporting news to the general public and has 

previously published news information on the events in this case in particular. Given TI’s 

interest in accessing judicial records for reporting news, TI should be allowed to intervene 

for the limited purpose described above.

II. The Public and Press Have a Right of Access to the Sealed Exhibits

A. The Public and Press Have a Right of Access Generally to Judicial 

Documents and Records.

The Ninth Circuit has long recognized that “the public and press have a first 

amendment right of access to pretrial documents in general.” Associated Press v. United 

States Dist. Court for Cent. Dis., 705 F.2d 1143, 1145 (9th Cir. 1983). The court also held 

that “[t]here is no reason to distinguish between pretrial proceedings and the documents 

filed in regard to them.” Id. at 1145. “Under the first amendment, the press and the public 

have a presumed right of access to court proceedings and documents. This presumed right 

can be overcome only by an overriding right or interest “based on findings that closure is 

essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.”” 

Oregonian Pub. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Oregon, 920 F.2d 1462, 1465 (1990) 

(internal citations omitted). Sealing is appropriate only if “(1) closure serves a compelling 

interest; (2) there is a substantial probability that, in the absence of closure, this compelling 

interest would be harmed; and (3) there are no alternatives to closure that would adequately 

protect the compelling interest.” Id. at 1466. See also Phoenix Newspapers v. United States 

Dist. Court, 156 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 1998) (recognizing a strong presumptive right to inspect 

judicial records). 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 195 Filed 04/29/19 Page 9 of 16
10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

This right is particularly crucial in the criminal context. See Globe Newspaper Co., 

457 U.S. at 606. The criminal process has historically been open to the press and the public, 

which allows the public to oversee and scrutinize government action. Id. at 605-6. “Public 

scrutiny of a criminal trial enhances the quality and safeguards the integrity of the fact 

finding process” and “in the broadest terms, public access to criminal trials permits the 

public to participate in and serve as a check upon the judicial process-an essential 

component in our structure of self-government. Id. at 606; see also Courthouse News Serv. 

v. Planet, 750 F.3d 776, 785 (9th Cir. 2014) (finding that the right of access to documents 

is “inextricably intertwined” with First Amendment right of free speech); Phoenix 

Newspapers, Inc., 156 F.3d at 946 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Press Enterprise II) (stating “[t]he 

value of openness lies in the fact that people not actually attending trials can have 

confidence that standards of fairness are being observed; the sure knowledge that anyone

is free to attend gives assurance that established procedures are being followed and that 

deviations will become known”).

Furthermore, the defense has alleged government misconduct and moved to dismiss 

for selective enforcement. See Doc. Nos. 53, 186. The public interest in access is at its 

greatest when there are such allegations. See Oregonian Pub. Co., 920 F.2d at 1465 

(“whether public access to the proceeding would serve as a curb on prosecutorial or judicial 

misconduct” is an important consideration); U.S. v. Smith, 123 F.3d 140, 150 (3rd Cir. 

1997) (“we agree with the newspapers that there is a significant public interest in gaining 

access to proceedings that investigate allegations of government misconduct”); Associated 

Press v. U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal., 705 F.3d 1143, 1145 (1983) (pretrial documents 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 195 Filed 04/29/19 Page 10 of 16
11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

“containing allegations . . . of government misconduct, are often important to a full 

understanding of the way in which ‘the judicial process and the government as a whole’ 

are functioning.”).

In the present case, the motion and judicial documents relate to the conduct of the 

law enforcement personnel and prosecutors who are accused of trying to criminalize 

providing water and other aid to border crossers. The Defendant has argued that “The 

Border Patrol has repeatedly demonstrated its hostility toward NMD and its members, 

particularly in connection with their abuse documentation work. Evidence shows BP was 

motivated in significant part by a desire to retaliate against NMD for its criticism of the 

agency, a core protected First Amendment activity.” Motion to Dismiss, Doc. No. 186, at 

10. Thus, the media’s interest in access is significant.

B. The Ninth Circuit has Long Recognized a Presumptive Right of Access 

to Exhibits Attached to Motions Related to the Merits of a Case.

The Ninth Circuit has established a presumptive right of public access to exhibits 

attached to pre-trial motions related to the merits of the case. 

We acknowledged explicitly ... that the strong presumption of access to judicial 

records applies fully to dispositive pleadings, including motions for summary 

judgment and related attachments. We adopted this principle of disclosure because 

the resolution of a dispute on the merits, whether by trial or summary judgment, is 

at the heart of the interest in ensuring the “public's understanding of the judicial 

process and of significant public events.” Thus, “compelling reasons” must be 

shown to seal judicial records attached to a dispositive motion.

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir., 2006) (internal 

citations omitted). The court more recently clarified that this standard applies to more than 

just “dispositive” motions: 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 195 Filed 04/29/19 Page 11 of 16
12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Consistent with our precedent, we make clear that public access to filed motions and 

their attachments does not merely depend on whether the motion is technically 

“dispositive.” Rather, public access will turn on whether the motion is more than 

tangentially related to the merits of a case. While many technically nondispositive 

motions will fail this test, some will pass. Our reading of the public access cases is 

consistent with our own case law, and more importantly, comports with the old 

tradition of ensuring public access which “antedates the Constitution and ... is now 

beyond dispute.”

Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016).

The Ninth Circuit has also established that the lesser standard that justifies a 

protective order is not sufficient to then seal dispositive court documents. “The ‘compelling 

reasons’ standard is invoked even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were 

previously filed under seal or protective order.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. “A ‘good 

cause’ showing will not, without more, satisfy a ‘compelling reasons’ test.” Id. at 1180. 

See also Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir., 2003) (The 

presumption of access is not rebutted where, as here, documents subject to a protective 

order are filed under seal as attachments to a dispositive motion.”)

The same “compelling reason” standard applies to documents in criminal trials, 

where there is “a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” United States v. 

Sleugh, 896 F.3d 1007, 1013 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Center for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 

1096). Only documents that “do not have a history of being available to the public; ... do 

not constitute evidence, and ... do not determine the merits of a criminal case” are exempt 

from the presumption of public access. Sleugh, 896 F.3d at 1017 (finding no right of access 

to a party’s subpoena requests).

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 195 Filed 04/29/19 Page 12 of 16
13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

III. Neither Party Can Meet its Burden Demonstrating that the Records Should 

Remain Sealed. 

If a court contemplates sealing a document, it must balance competing interests of 

the public against the interest asserted by the party seeking to seal the judicial records; then, 

it must articulate on the record facts that support that compelling interest. Kamakana, 447 

F.3d at 1181 (citing Hagestad, 49 3.Fd at 1435).; see also United States v. Bus. of Custer 

Battlefield Museum & Store Located at Interstate 90, Exit 514, S. of Billings, Mont., 658 

F.3d 1188, 1195 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that compelling reasons must outweigh the 

general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure). The factual findings 

articulated by the court cannot be based on hypothesis or conjecture. Kamakana, 447 F.3d 

at 1181. The factual basis must be “specific enough that a reviewing court can determine 

whether the closure order was properly entered.” Press Enterprise II, 487 U.S. at 9-10. See 

Phoenix Newspapers, 156 F.3d at 950 (finding a conclusory order denying access to 

hearing transcripts for generalized security concerns was not specific enough to justify 

closure.) In addition, as discussed above at II.A., the court must find “there is a substantial 

probability that, in the absence of closure, this compelling interest would be harmed; and 

. . . there are no alternatives to closure that would adequately protect the compelling 

interest.” Oregonian Pub. Co., 920 F. 3d at 1466.

The Court in this case has not articulated any justification for sealing the exhibits 

attached to the Defense’s Motion to Dismiss or Motion to Suppress on the public docket. 

Neither the Defendant nor the prosecution has put forth any facts that justifying 

sealing. The Defendant has quoted from some of the sealed material in the Motion to 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 195 Filed 04/29/19 Page 13 of 16
14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Dismiss, see Doc. No. 186, suggesting it may have sought the seal only due to the 

obligation to do so under the Court’s Protective Order. Doc. No. 69. Apparently, the 

Government asserts an interest in confidentiality based on nothing more substantial than a 

discovery non-disclosure order it required the Defendant to sign, found in the related 

misdemeanor case. U.S. v. Warren, 4:17-mj-00341 (D. Ariz.), Doc. No. 68-1. 

In this felony matter, the defense’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Suppress are

directly related to the merits of this case, and thus any party seeking to seal any exhibits 

attached to these motions must meet the compelling reason standard. Despite complying 

with the Court’s Protective Order, defense counsel has openly questioned the 

“appropriateness” of the order, raising concern as to the lack of compelling findings made 

by the Court as they relate to the previously mentioned First Amendment issues in this 

matter. Doc. No. 74 (pgs. 7-8). As stated above, the restrictions of a protective order can 

never justify sealing these types of judicial records. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136 (9th Cir. 2003); 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183. Assuming arguendo that they could, the Government’s 

Motion for a Protective Order only makes a cursory reference justifying nondisclosure of 

discovery based on the “nature of this case and the personal information contained within.” 

Doc No. 68. This generalized interest cited by the Government fails to meet the compelling 

reason standard required to seal court records. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1185 (“Simply 

invoking a blanket claim, such as privacy or law enforcement, will not, without more, 

suffice to exempt a document from the public's right of access.”)

Furthermore, no motions to seal are publicly available on the court record. While a 

previous motion to seal is referenced in the Government’s Motion for Protective Order, the 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 195 Filed 04/29/19 Page 14 of 16
15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

motion to seal is not available on the public docket, and therefore cannot be accessed by 

the public. Doc. No. 68. Thus, the public has no way of knowing if defense counsel or the 

Government has fulfilled its burden of providing a compelling interest to justify sealing

some of the exhibits.

With no finding or compelling interests or reasons on the record, the Court has 

obviously not met the requirements of consideration of the effectiveness of closure or more 

narrow alternatives to closure. Oregonian Pub. Co., 920 F. 3d at 1466.

In addition to these substantive requirements, a court is also required to satisfy the 

more procedural elements of notice and an opportunity to be heard. In this case, the public 

was not given notice about the sealing either before it occurred or since. Notice to the 

public about any motion to seal is an essential requirement before sealing:

To be sure, a court has the right to temporarily seal access to court records pending 

a hearing. . . . However, if a court contemplates sealing a document or transcript, it 

must provide sufficient notice to the public and press to afford them the opportunity 

to object or offer alternatives. If objections are made, a hearing on the objections 

must be held as soon as possible. 

Phoenix Newspapers, 156 F.3d at 949 (internal cites omitted). Furthermore, “providing the 

public notice and an opportunity to be heard ensures that the trial court will have a true 

opportunity to weigh the legitimate concerns of all those affected by a closure decision.” 

Id. at 951. Courts have held that providing notice on the public docket meets the notice 

requirement. See In re Hearst Newspapers, L.L.C., 641 F.3d 168 (5th Cir. 2011); United 

States v. Criden, 675 F.2d 550 (3rd Cir. 1982).

To enforce the First Amendment and common law rights of the public and the press, 

the Court should only allow for the sealing of the exhibits at issue if the parties demonstrate 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 195 Filed 04/29/19 Page 15 of 16
16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

a compelling interest, and only after it meets the substantive and procedural standards set 

forth above. Furthermore, the press and public must have notice and an opportunity to be 

heard in a timely manner, if the Court contemplates continued sealing of the exhibits. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant TI’s Motion to Intervene, and 

either disclose all sealed exhibits related to the Defendant’s motions or enter into the record 

particular facts as to why nondisclosure outweighs the public’s presumption of access, after 

considering objections and alternatives.

Respectfully submitted this 29th day of April, 2019.

/s/ Gregg P. Leslie

Gregg P. Leslie

Nancy Craig

Lila Mayson

Alexa Salari

Adi Soto

First Amendment Clinic, Public Interest Law Firm

Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor

 College of Law

111 E. Taylor St., Mail Code 8820

Phoenix, AZ 85004

David J. Bodney, Bar # 006065

BALLARD SPAHR LLP 

1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555 

David Bralow, seeking admission pro hac vice

First Look Media Works, Inc.

114 5th Avenue, 18th Floor

New York, NY 10011

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 195 Filed 04/29/19 Page 16 of 16