Opinion ID: 367206
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Authority to Seal Affidavits

Text: 4 In finding that the federal courts do not have the authority to seal affidavits, the district court concentrated on Rule 41(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, concluding that nowhere in Rule 41(c) is the power of a judge or magistrate to seal such an affidavit even suggested. We believe that the district court erred in narrowly focusing on Rule 41(c) for the courts have inherent power, as an incident of their constitutional function, to control papers filed with the courts within certain constitutional and other limitations. See Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978); Shea v. Gabriel, 520 F.2d 879 (1st Cir. 1975); Note, Protective Orders Against the Press and the Inherent Powers of the Courts, 87 Yale L.J. 342, 350 (1977). 5 Because the district court improperly concluded that the federal courts Per se lack the authority to seal affidavits, it did not consider whether the sealing of the affidavit in this case would be consistent with the limits on the court's power. Since such a determination will involve factual matters not yet considered by the district court, 3 we remand to the district court. To protect the jurisdiction of the district court and the Court of Appeals, the affidavit shall remain sealed at least until the district court has completed its proceedings on remand and for seven days thereafter. 6 It is noted that on remand, if the district court should conclude that the sealed matter should be opened, then there is a question as to whether all or part of the sealed matter should be unsealed. 7 There are questions as to mootness in the record, most of which have arisen since the district court acted in the case. The district court is authorized to consider the mootness issues. 8 Remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.