Court Opinion

ID: 9404850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-26 16:01:05.423657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:17.322361
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-13269   Document: 20-1    Date Filed: 06/26/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                               No. 21-13269
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                    Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       DAVID CILLA,

                                                Defendant-Appellant.

                         ____________________

                Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
        D.C. Docket Nos. 0:12-cr-60262-KAM-1 and 0:15-cv-60498-KAM
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-13269      Document: 20-1     Date Filed: 06/26/2023     Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 21-13269

       Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is
       GRANTED in part. Defendant Cilla had requested that the district
       court direct Lexis/Nexis to remove from its site a particular deci-
       sion it had previously published. The district court declined to do
       so, noting that Lexis/Nexis is a private company and that the court
       had no authority to order a private company to remove infor-
       mation from its data base. [Case No. 12-cr-60262 at Doc. No. 129;
       Case No. 15-cv-60498 at Doc. No. 46].
               In his appellant’s brief to this Court, Cilla now acknowledges
       the correctness of the district court’s conclusion and no longer asks
       the district court to direct a private company to remove material
       from its data base. The Government has moved for summary af-
       firmance, and Cilla’s concession means that the Government’s mo-
       tion is clearly due to be granted as to this particular request origi-
       nally made by Cilla in his district court litigation. Accordingly, the
       Government’s motion for summary affirmance as to this part of
       Cilla’s appeal is GRANTED.
             In his appellant’s brief, however, Cilla also indicates that he
       continues to request that the district court seal a particular docu-
       ment in the district court’s own record of his case. The district
       court did not rule on this particular request. The court’s inaction
       is somewhat understandable given that the record in Cilla’s crimi-
       nal case, Case No. 12-cr-60262, does not even contain this
USCA11 Case: 21-13269         Document: 20-1        Date Filed: 06/26/2023         Page: 3 of 4

       21-13269                  Opinion of the Court                                3

       document. Another possible reason for the absence of a ruling is
       the failure of Cilla to denominate in the caption of his motion this
       specific relief he seeks on appeal, although the body of the motion
       does make a passing request that the district court remove this doc-
       ument from PACER, which, under all the circumstances here, can
       arguably be read as a request that the court seal the document.
               Were we dealing only with the docket for the criminal case,
       it would then be a simple matter to say that, although not ad-
       dressed by the district court, Cilla’s motion is due to be denied, as
       the document he wishes to be sealed is nowhere found in the
       docket for his criminal case. Yet, there is a second docket relating
       to Cilla’s criminal conviction, and that docket refers to Case Num-
       ber 0:15-cv-60498-KAM. This second docket includes pleadings re-
       lated to Cilla’s successful § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assis-
       tance by Cilla’s trial counsel based on the latter’s failure to file an
       appeal of the sentence imposed by the district court on Cilla. Cilla’s
       success on this motion enabled him to file what would ordinarily
       have been an untimely notice of appeal. 1 Of moment to the pre-
       sent litigation is the fact that the document that Cilla now asks to
       be sealed is found, unsealed, within this second docket. The district
       court’s ruling on Cilla’s motion to direct Lexis/Nexis to remove
       from its site a particular decision it had previously published is now
       found within this 2015 docket at Document Number 46, just as it
       is found in the 2012 docket. The underlying motions on which the

       1In its subsequent ruling on that appeal, this Court affirmed Cilla’s conviction
       and sentence.
USCA11 Case: 21-13269      Document: 20-1       Date Filed: 06/26/2023     Page: 4 of 4

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  21-13269

       court ruled, found at Document Numbers 43 and 44 in the 2015
       docket, are sealed.2 Cilla appealed the district court’s ruling filed in
       both the 2012 and the 2015 dockets.
               As the district court has not yet ruled on Cilla’s motion to
       seal the particular document at issue, we REMAND this case to the
       district court to rule on this matter in the first instance. The plead-
       ings presently under seal in the district court and this Court shall
       remain under seal pending the district court’ s ruling.
              AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED IN PART.

       2 Those same motions are labeled as Document Numbers 125 and 126 in the
       2012 criminal case docket. They are likewise sealed in that docket.