Opinion ID: 199998
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis: the first petition

Text: 29 The first mandamus petition attacks both the District of Rhode Island's overall treatment of legal memoranda and the trial court's handling of those memoranda in the Cianci case. We address these points separately. First, however, we focus on the applicable standards of review.
30 Despite the common ancestry shared by the two rights of access, the standards of review referable to those rights differ. On the one hand, the denial of a claimed right of access under the common law engenders review for abuse of discretion. Id. at 13. A district court can abuse its discretion by ignoring a material factor that deserves significant weight, relying on an improper factor, or, even if it mulls only the proper mix of factors, by making a serious mistake in judgment. Siedle, 147 F.3d at 10. Since only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records that come within the scope of the common-law right of access, Standard Fin. Mgmt., 830 F.2d at 410 (citation omitted), this review is more rigorous than garden-variety abuse of discretion review. 31 On the other hand, constitutional access claims engender de novo review. In re State-Record Co., 917 F.2d 124, 127 (4th Cir.1990). In such cases, the presumption in favor of access can only be overcome by an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Super. Ct., 464 U.S. 501, 510, 104 S.Ct. 819, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 (1984) ( Press-Enterprise I ). This last requirement adds a new dimension and makes the First Amendment standard even more stringent than the common-law standard. Thus, courts have tended to employ the First Amendment standard in situations in which both rights of access are implicated. E.g., In re Wash. Post Co., 807 F.2d at 390. 32 Against this backdrop, we turn to the legal memoranda that parties are required to file in conjunction with motions submitted in the District of Rhode Island. The local rules specify that those memoranda must contain the critical elements of the parties' arguments. See D.R.I. R. 12(a)(1)-(2). It follows that those memoranda constitute materials on which a court is meant to rely in determining the parties' substantive rights. In a criminal case, therefore, they are subject to both common-law and First Amendment rights of access. Accordingly, we review the district court's treatment of them under the First Amendment's heightened standard of review.
33 The respondent notes, correctly, that legal memoranda in the Cianci case have been made available to the public so long as they do not contain restricted information. Building on that foundation, he argues that the District of Rhode Island's traditional method of treating memoranda is not properly before us. We do not agree. 34 The district court has made clear that its handling of legal memoranda in the Cianci case represents an ad hoc exception to the District of Rhode Island's standard practice. Absent mandamus review, the constitutional questions stemming from this standard practice — a practice that amounts to a blanket nonfiling policy — are likely to recur and to evade effective resolution. Moreover, an immediate adjudication of the matter will clarify matters for judges, litigants, lawyers, and journalists in a wide range of cases. 35 On suitable occasions, we have employed advisory mandamus to resolve issues which are both novel and of great public importance. In re Recticel Foam Corp., 859 F.2d 1000, 1005 n. 4 (1st Cir.1988). The considerations enumerated above lead us to conclude that the blanket nonfiling policy is a suitable candidate for advisory mandamus. E.g., Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 109-12, 85 S.Ct. 234, 13 L.Ed.2d 152 (1964); Horn, 29 F.3d at 769-70. 36 Having concluded that we have an institutional interest in oversight of the District of Rhode Island's standard practice vis-a-vis the handling of legal memoranda, we turn to the validity of that practice. Motions and objections filed in the District of Rhode Island typically become part of the case file (and, thus, available for public inspection) at the moment they are filed in the clerk's office. Legal memoranda submitted in conjunction with such motions are treated differently: those memoranda do not become part of the case file, but, rather, go directly to the judge to whom the case is assigned. This leaves the question of access solely in the discretion of the trial judge and places on persons desiring access the onus of initiating action. Whether viewed as a restriction on access or as a practical inconvenience, this protocol reverses the constitutional presumption of public access to documents submitted in conjunction with criminal proceedings. Cf. Pokaski, 868 F.2d at 507 (indicating that a statute that restricts public access to judicial records in criminal cases by plac[ing] on the public the burden of overcoming inertia is impermissible). 37 The respondent attempts to justify the blanket nonfiling policy on five bases. First, the legal memoranda are directed to the judge. Second, and relatedly, routing memoranda directly to the judge's chambers lessens the need for the judge to requisition the entire case file. Third, incorporating memoranda into the case files maintained in the clerk's office would needlessly burden ... already taxed storage facilities. Fourth, a blanket nonfiling policy serves to discourage overzealous counsel from attempting to gain an unfair tactical advantage by improperly influencing the public. Finally, memoranda submitted in connection with criminal proceedings might disclose grand jury testimony or refer to other matters prejudicial to a defendant's right to a fair trial. None of these reasons justify the constitutional intrusion that results from the District of Rhode Island's standard practice of treating legal memoranda as presumptively nonpublic. 38 The respondent's first asserted justification proves too much. Although legal memoranda are directed to the judge, so are virtually all the other papers filed in the case (including motions and objections). The second asserted justification is no justification at all: requiring legal memoranda to be filed in the clerk's office would not mean that the judge would have to haul the entire case file into chambers whenever he or she wished to check a particular point. Copying is a routine exercise in most clerks' offices, and at any rate the district court's local rules require counsel to file memoranda in duplicate. See D.R.I. R. 12(d). That would permit placing one copy in the case file and routing the other directly to the judge. 39 Nor does the third asserted justification withstand scrutiny. While storage limitations may well have prompted the adoption of the blanket nonfiling policy two decades ago, the recently-completed renovation of the Federal Courthouse in Providence, coupled with the court's acquisition of the adjacent Pastore Building, have eliminated any intractable problem in that regard. 40 We are equally unpersuaded that the court's policy of keeping all legal memoranda hidden from public view is warranted based upon hypothetical concerns about overzealous counsel behaving badly. Judges deal every day with the need to ensure that lawyers play fair and square, and we are unwilling to assume, without hard evidence, that lawyers who practice in the District of Rhode Island are so unruly that ordinary antidotes to fractiousness (e.g., sanctions, contempt, loss of the right to practice) will prove impuissant. 41 As to the district court's fifth concern, we acknowledge that specific cases may pose greater risks of prejudicial disclosures (and, thus, may warrant special treatment). But there is no need to discard the baby with the bath water. Safeguards against prejudice can be implemented on a case-specific basis. Where a particularized need for restricting public access to legal memoranda exists, that need can be addressed by the tailoring of appropriate relief. As contrasted with the District of Rhode Island's existing practice of treating all legal memoranda as presumptively nonpublic, this would be a considerably less restrictive, but equally effective, means for dealing with the specter of potential prejudice. Cf. Pokaski, 868 F.2d at 506-07 (rejecting blanket sealing rule on ground that case-by-case evaluation of defendants' sealing requests represented a viable less restrictive means). 42 We hold, therefore, that the District of Rhode Island's blanket nonfiling policy — its standard practice of refusing to place memoranda submitted in conjunction with motions on file in the clerk's office when tendered — violates the First Amendment. 5
43 In the Cianci case, the trial court deviated from the District of Rhode Island's blanket nonfiling policy. Thus, its methodology invites a separate analysis. 44 The constitutional right of public access is a qualified right that may be outweighed by competing interests in a given case. Press-Enterprise I, 464 U.S. at 511 n. 10, 104 S.Ct. 819; In re Globe Newspaper Co., 729 F.2d at 52. Certainly, in a case in which public attention is quite high, a court deliberating about whether to restrict broadly public access to materials submitted in connection with criminal proceedings ordinarily ought to afford interested parties an opportunity to be heard on the question of impoundment. See, e.g., United States v. Antar, 38 F.3d 1348, 1361 n. 18 (3d Cir.1994). The court would normally be expected to identify and balance the competing interests involved, and weigh reasonable alternatives to sealing, making findings where necessary. In re State-Record Co., 917 F.2d at 127-29; In re Wash. Post Co., 807 F.2d at 391. 45 Here, THE JOURNAL has not complained about a lack of notice, so we turn to the task of identifying and balancing the competing interests involved. The district court clearly registered its concern that the unrestrained disclosure of certain types of information about the Cianci case would create a substantial risk of prejudicing the parties' right to a fair trial. This disquietude impelled the court to implement, and then fine-tune, the non-dissemination order. An accused's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial plainly rises to the level of a compelling interest. See Press-Enterprise I, 464 U.S. at 508, 104 S.Ct. 819. When that right collides headon with the public's right of access to judicial records, the defendant's fair trial right takes precedence. In re Globe Newspaper Co., 729 F.2d at 53. 46 That does not mean, however, that the public's (and the media's) right to know can be frustrated by the mere invocation of a threat to the accused's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. A court faced with an impending collision between these rights must, on a case-specific basis, construct a balance. Press-Enterprise I, 464 U.S. at 510-11 & n. 10, 104 S.Ct. 819. That weighing must proceed on the assumption that restrictions on access to presumptively public judicial documents should be imposed only if a substantial likelihood exists that the accused's right to a fair trial will otherwise be prejudiced. Press-Enterprise II, 478 U.S. at 14, 106 S.Ct. 2735. We caution that this inquiry requires specific findings; the First Amendment right of public access is too precious to be foreclosed by conclusory assertions or unsupported speculation. United States v. Kirk ( In re Memphis Publ'g Co. ), 887 F.2d 646, 648-49 (6th Cir.1989); In re Wash. Post Co., 807 F.2d at 392-93 & n. 9; United States v. Martin, 746 F.2d 964, 972 (3d Cir.1984). 47 Political corruption cases tend to attract widespread media attention, and the Cianci case is a paradigmatic example. Here, moreover, the district court cited book and verse, cataloguing specific incidents that fueled its concerns that the defendants' ability to receive a fair trial was in danger of being substantively compromised by unrestrained disclosures. The court alluded specifically to leaks of information in violation of Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and misbehavior by the lead prosecutor. In view of the notoriety of the case and the incidents recounted by the district court, we are convinced that the court's perception of a threat to the defendants' fair trial rights was objectively reasonable. See Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 392-93, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 61 L.Ed.2d 608 (1979) (concluding that the trial court properly appraised legitimate concerns that open proceeding posed reasonable probability of prejudice to defendants' fair trial rights). 48 Having found that the defendants' fair trial rights represent a compelling interest, we next must decide whether the non-dissemination order is drawn as narrowly as practicable. The threshold question is whether a trial court, in a particular case, can adopt a procedure that reverses the presumption of public access and automatically seals all subsequent filings until the judge determines that a specific document poses no undue risk to the defendant's fair trial rights. 49 THE JOURNAL argues that the decision in Associated Press v. United States Dist. Ct., 705 F.2d 1143 (9th Cir.1983), requires that this question be answered in the negative. In that case, the district court, responding to extensive press coverage of a high-profile criminal matter, issued a sua sponte order directing the parties to submit all future filings under seal in order to permit the court to initially review them and to make a determination with regard to disclosure. Id. at 1144. The trial court subsequently imposed a 48-hour time limit within which it would rule upon the need for a given filing to remain sealed. Id. at 1145. The Ninth Circuit nonetheless struck down the procedure and directed the district court to vacate its order. Id. at 1147. 50 In our view, Associated Press is a horse of a different hue. There, the court of appeals concluded that the trial court had failed to make specific findings showing that access to pretrial documents will create a substantial probability of irreparable damage to defendants' fair trial rights. Id. at 1146. The presence of such findings here readily distinguishes this case. 51 We find more helpful the opinion in United States v. McVeigh, 119 F.3d 806 (10th Cir.1997). There, the court acknowledged that a high-profile criminal case may impose[ ] unique demands on the trial court, and require[ ] the court to establish procedures for dealing effectively, efficiently and fairly with recurring issues such as whether documents should be placed under seal or redacted. Id. at 813. This is exactly what transpired here. In response to a cognizable threat to the defendants' Sixth Amendment rights, the district court adopted a practical procedure that enabled it effectively and efficiently to safeguard those rights. Nothing in the case law prevents a court from establishing this sort of prophylaxis. And given the circumstances of this case, the district court's implementation of a general procedure to seal all memoranda temporarily appears narrowly tailored. 52 Turning our attention to the specifics of the non-dissemination order, we hold that the district court's insistence on reviewing each memorandum before deciding whether it should remain under seal did not constitute reversible error. Although we question the court's apparent reluctance to rely on counsel to separate wheat from chaff in accordance with the non-dissemination order — experience teaches that most lawyers will cooperate with the court and, in all events, will be loath to defy a court order — nothing precludes the district court from assuming that burden. 53 This does not mean that we regard the non-dissemination order as a textbook model. We have four specific concerns. First, where, as here, a court undertakes to screen documents before they are placed in the case file, the procedure should incorporate a specific timetable obligating the court to perform its self-imposed screening responsibilities promptly and to render a timely decision as to whether a particular document is fit for public disclosure. Second, and relatedly, the court below decided to refrain from reviewing each individual memorandum to decide whether it could be made available to the public until after the time had expired for the submission of any possible reply memorandum. This unnecessarily prolongs the process. Each individual memorandum either contains restricted information (in which case it is subject to redaction or sealing) or it does not (in which case it does not pose a threat to the defendants' Sixth Amendment rights). Third, the order contains no provision as to whether the court intends to unseal retained memoranda at some point after the trial has ended (and if so, when). 54 Finally, we think that the district court's refusal to consider redaction on a document-by-document basis is insupportable. Courts have an obligation to consider all reasonable alternatives to foreclosing the constitutional right of access. In re Globe Newspaper Co., 729 F.2d at 56. Redaction constitutes a time-tested means of minimizing any intrusion on that right. See United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 147 (2d Cir.1995) (stating that it is proper for a district court, after weighing competing interests, to edit and redact a judicial document in order to allow access to appropriate portions of the document); see also United States v. Biaggi ( In re N.Y. Times ), 828 F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir.1987) (rejecting wholesale sealing of papers partly because limited redaction [might] be appropriate). 55 Here, moreover, our ability to assess whether the district court was justified in refusing to redact the 11 documents that remain sealed is hampered by a lack of specific findings. See In re Globe Newspaper Co., 729 F.2d at 56 (requiring a trial court that rejects alternatives to sealing to make specific findings to facilitate appellate review). The court did say, generally, that in those rare cases where counsel find it necessary to refer to grand jury matters or other matters not properly disclosable, those references are almost invariably dispersed throughout the memoranda and inextricably intertwined with the references to applicable legal authority. D. Ct. Op. at 13. But the First Amendment requires consideration of the feasibility of redaction on a document-by-document basis, and the court's blanket characterization falls well short of this benchmark. 56 Having pointed out these defects in the non-dissemination order, we leave the matter of correction to the district court. Consistent with the core purpose of advisory mandamus, the principal value of our rulings is in terms of future cases. In respect to the Cianci case itself, the court is at the end of a lengthy trial; once the dust has settled, we are confident that the district court will set a reasonable timetable for determining whether previously submitted memoranda are to be placed on file in the clerk's office (with or without redaction); and, as to any memorandum withheld from filing, will enter specific findings as to the need for that restriction and the impracticality of redaction as an alternative to sealing. Within a reasonable time after the Cianci case and all related proceedings have ended — there is a severed defendant yet to be tried — we anticipate that the district court will consider the release of all documents and other materials then remaining under seal. Should the district court fail to act in a timely manner to effectuate the principles endorsed in this opinion—a contingency that we doubt will occur—THE JOURNAL is free to petition for ancillary relief.