Opinion ID: 2641214
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: threshold jurisdictional questions

Text: As threshold matters, the United States argues that Defendants lack Article III standing to seek to have the DEA records unsealed and that that motion is, in any event, moot. We disagree. Standing “requires the litigant to prove that he has suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct, and is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2661 (2013). Mootness is standing in the context of time, requiring that “[t]he requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue throughout [the litigation’s] existence.” Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 68 n.22 (1997). Here, Defendants have alleged an actual injury: they cannot use the information in the sealed documents. And they want to use that information in a variety of ways.3 That 2 This court previously determined that Defendants do not need to obtain a certificate of appealability (“COA”), see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), in order to appeal the district court’s decision denying their motion to unseal because that motion is separate from any challenge to their convictions and sentences under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Pickard, Nos. 12-3142, 12-3143, Order (10th Cir. Oct. 2, 2012). 3 We have recently been advised that Pickard’s Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) litigation in the District of Arizona has been dismissed, but we do not know whether that 4 injury is traceable to the district court’s order sealing the DEA records during Defendants’ trial. And an order from the district court unsealing the documents will redress Defendants’ injury. This is sufficient to establish Defendants’ standing to seek to have the DEA documents unsealed. See United States v. Pickard, 676 F.3d 1214, 1218 n.2 (10th Cir. 2012) (holding, in mandamus action in these same proceedings, that “there is little doubt that Defendants have Article III standing to seek the unsealing of documents in the file because [Defendants] claim a First Amendment interest in communicating information that they already have”) (citing In re Special Grand Jury 89- 2, 450 F.3d 1159, 1172-73 (10th Cir. 2006)). The Government complains that Defendants do not intend to use the unsealed documents in any proceedings in their criminal case. Nevertheless, Defendants must seek redress for their injury—the inability to use this sealed information—through a motion to the court that sealed the documents, asking that court to unseal them. See United Nuclear Corp., 905 F.2d at 1427. The Government further contends that Defendants’ motion to unseal the DEA documents is moot because Defendants already have the sealed information. Even if that is correct, Defendants remain bound by the district court’s order sealing the documents and so they still cannot use that information until the court unseals the documents. Therefore, their motion to unseal the documents is not moot. See Ameziane v. Obama, dismissal is being appealed or the terms of the dismissal. In any event, Pickard and Apperson allege a variety of ways in which they desire to use these records, including a further attack on their convictions and future FOIA litigation. 5 620 F.3d 1, 4-5 (D.C. Cir. 2010). Because Defendants, thus, have standing to move the district court to unseal the DEA documents, and because their request is not moot, we turn to the district court’s denial of the motion to unseal.