IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

v. ) CRIMINAL NO. 15-0300-WS

 )

JOSHUA BLAKE WISE, )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the Government’s Motion to Seal Indictment and 

All Pleadings (doc. 21). Via this Motion, the Government seeks to have this entire case file be 

sealed on the grounds that the matter is still under investigation, the defendant is cooperating, 

and “[p]ublic access to this case could seriously jeopardize the investigation.”

This request is unusual. Certainly, it is not uncommon in criminal cases for specific 

sensitive documents (i.e., plea agreements, motions for downward departure based on 

cooperation, and the like) to be placed under seal; however, it is rare, at least in this District 

Court, for entire case files to be sealed. There are sound explanations for the infrequency of such 

a practice. After all, the Local Rules specify that “[n]o case may be sealed in its entirety except 

by order of the Court obtained in accordance with this Rule and applicable law.” General L.R. 

5.2(b)(7).

With regard to applicable law, it is well-settled that “[t]he common-law right of access to 

judicial proceedings ... is instrumental in securing the integrity of the process” and 

unquestionably “includes the right to inspect and copy public records and documents.” Chicago 

Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001). Indeed, 

“[o]pen criminal proceedings have been an indispensable attribute of an Anglo-American trial 

for centuries.” United States v. Ochoa-Vasquez, 428 F.3d 1015, 1028-29 (11th Cir. 2005) 

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “Public trials and judicial proceedings are 

rooted in the principle that justice cannot survive behind walls of silence.” Id. at 1029 (citations 

and internal quotation marks omitted). Simply put, “[w]hat transpires in the court room is public 

property,” and “[a]ny step that withdraws an element of the judicial process from public view ... 

Case 1:15-cr-00300-WS-N Document 22 Filed 06/22/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

requires rigorous justification.” Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 717 F.3d 1224, 1235 (11th

Cir. 2013) (citations omitted).

Furthermore, the Eleventh Circuit has held that “public docket sheets are essential to 

provide ‘meaningful access’ to criminal proceedings” and that the press and the public have a 

qualified First Amendment right to access criminal docket sheets. Ochoa-Vasquez, 428 F.3d at 

1029 & n.15 (recognizing that “[t]he docket sheet forms an integral part of a criminal 

proceeding”). To overcome this presumption of openness of criminal proceedings (including the 

docket sheet), a party must show “an overriding interest based on findings that closure is 

essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Id. at 1030 

(citation omitted).

Against this legal backdrop, the Local Rules set forth a specific procedure that must be 

followed before materials are sealed. Most notably, the motion to seal must set forth “[t]he basis 

upon which the party seeks the order, including the reasons why alternatives to sealing are 

inadequate” and “[t]he duration for which sealing is requested.” General L.R. 5.2(b)(2)(B) & 

(C).

The Government’s Motion to Seal falls short of both the legal and the procedural 

requirements described above. The Motion does not identify with particularity why sealing the 

entire case (as opposed to some subset of filings, such as documents 2, 6 and 19 which have 

already been placed under seal) is essential to preserve higher values, why the proposed remedy 

is narrowly tailored to serve that interest, and why alternatives to the “seal-everything” proposal 

are inadequate. Nor does the Motion explain why the Government waited nearly six months 

from the filing of the Indictment on December 30, 2015 to request that the entire court file be 

placed under seal, or why (in light of this prolonged period of public access) sealing the file now 

would be vital to preserve the integrity of an ongoing investigation. Accordingly, the 

Government is ordered to file a supplement to its Motion to Seal on or before June 29, 2016, 

supplying additional information and providing the necessary justifications for the extraordinary 

relief it seeks. That supplement may be filed under seal, if appropriate, to safeguard any 

sensitive information contained therein.

DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 2016.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cr-00300-WS-N Document 22 Filed 06/22/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>