Opinion ID: 1010540
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Moussaoui’s Pleadings

Text: Since the beginning of the proceedings against him in the district court, Moussaoui has filed numerous pro se pleadings in this court, none of which has been classified. Our practice with respect to a pleading by Moussaoui is as follows. See generally United States v. Moussaoui, No. 03-4162 (4th Cir. Apr. 18, 2003) (order designating court security officer). The pleading is initially filed under seal to provide the Government an opportunity to submit proposed redactions.6 The pleading and motion to redact are then submitted to the panel assigned to this case, which rules on the pleading and on the motion. The redacted pleading is then placed in the public file. Intervenors do not contest the adequacy of this procedure, and we decline to alter it. Redaction of Moussaoui’s pleadings is necessary to omit irrelevant and inflammatory material that for this reason, sealing is no longer required. This court has previously rejected such an argument, noting that “[i]t is one thing for a reporter or author to speculate or guess that a thing may be so or even, quoting undisclosed sources, to say that it is so; it is quite another thing for one in a position to know of it officially to say that it is so.” Alfred A Knopf, Inc. v. Colby, 509 F.2d 1362, 1370 (4th Cir. 1975); see Pelton, 696 F. Supp. at 158 (“[T]here is a difference between speculation and confirmation.”). 6 The motion to redact is placed in the public file, but the proposed redactions are kept under seal. 9 and to prevent Moussaoui from attempting to communicate certain information to others, see Special Administrative Measures for Zacarias Moussaoui, § 1(c), news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/moussaoui/ usmouss41702gsam.pdf (last visited May 3, 2003). The interest of the public in the flow of information is protected by our exercising independent judgment concerning redactions. See United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 147 (2d Cir. 1995) (cautioning that a court may not delegate task of redacting documents); Pelton, 696 F. Supp. at 159 n.2 (noting that court would “carefully compare the redacted version [of a transcript] to the unredacted version for accuracy and to determine whether all the proposed deletions are necessary”).