Court Opinion

ID: 9962246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 14:00:59.110085+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:09.320931
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 23-5058                                                    September Term, 2023
                                                                FILED ON: APRIL 23, 2024

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.,
                 APPELLEES

v.

STEVEN FRID, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES ELECTION
ASSISTANCE COMMISSION, ET AL.,
                     APPELLEES

EAGLE FORUM EDUCATION & LEGAL DEFENSE FUND,
                 INTERVENOR-APPELLANT

                           Appeal from the United States District Court
                                   for the District of Columbia
                                       (No. 1:16-cv-00236)

         Before: SRINIVASAN, Chief Judge, CHILDS, Circuit Judge, and RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit
Judge.
                                         JUDGMENT

        We considered this appeal on the record from the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia and on the briefs and oral arguments of the parties. The Court has afforded
the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See
D.C. Cir. R. 36(d). For the reasons stated below, it is hereby:
         ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s judgment be AFFIRMED.
                                           *      *      *
         In an earlier appeal, our Court ordered the district court to permit Eagle Forum to intervene
in this proceeding for the limited purpose of seeking to unseal certain records. League of Women
Voters of the U.S. v. Newby, 963 F.3d 130, 136 (D.C. Cir. 2020). Before us is Eagle Forum’s
appeal from three district court orders on remand: an order denying Eagle Forum’s motion to
examine the sealed materials for the purpose of preparing its motion to unseal; an order denying
its motion to unseal references to the deposition of Election Assistance Commissioner Christy A.
McCormick; and an order denying reconsideration.

                                                  1
        Eagle Forum initially moved to intervene for the limited purpose of seeking unsealing of
the sealed materials, but the district court denied the motion in large part because the materials
were not judicial records to which any right of access applied. Minute Order, League of Women
Voters of the U.S. v. Newby, No. 16-cv-236 (D.D.C. Mar. 28, 2019). This Court reversed and
remanded, holding that the sealed materials were judicial records and concluding that Eagle Forum
could intervene for the limited purpose of seeking the materials. League of Women Voters, 963
F.3d at 136. We noted that our decision did not guarantee that the materials would be unsealed
because the district court would still “need to determine whether countervailing interests, including
the government’s privilege claims, justify continued sealing.” Id.
         On remand, the district court denied Eagle Forum’s “request to access the sealed materials
in order to prepare further briefing on its . . . motion to unseal the record.” Minute Order (May 6,
2022). The district court then denied Eagle Forum’s motion to unseal the documents, in large part
because “the parties disclaimed the Court’s need to rely on [the sealed materials] to resolve the
case” and the court itself “did not rely” on the sealed materials in “resolving this matter on the
merits.” The court concluded that the government’s interest in protecting potentially privileged
materials outweighed any limited interest the public may have in accessing the materials. The
district court subsequently denied Eagle Forum’s motion to reconsider. Eagle Forum appealed.
        This Court reviews the denial of a motion to seal or unseal for abuse of discretion. See In
re L.A. Times Commc’ns LLC, 28 F.4th 292, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2022); Cable News Network, Inc. v.
FBI, 984 F.3d 114, 117 (D.C. Cir. 2021); In re Leopold to Unseal Certain Elec. Surveillance
Applications & Ords., 964 F.3d 1121, 1131 (D.C. Cir. 2020); Ameziane v. Obama, 699 F.3d 488,
494 (D.C. Cir. 2012). This Court similarly reviews denials of motions for reconsideration for
abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Hall v. CIA, 437 F.3d 94, 99 (D.C. Cir. 2006). The district court did
not abuse its discretion in denying Eagle Forum’s motion to unseal the records at issue and its
reconsideration motion. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in declining to give Eagle
Forum access to the sealed records for purposes of litigating its motion to unseal.
       Eagle Forum argues before our Court that the district court’s order declining to unseal the
materials violated the First Amendment. But Eagle Forum did not properly raise its First
Amendment argument at any point before this appeal, and thus the argument is not properly before
this Court. 1 See, e.g., Durant v. D.C. Gov’t, 875 F.3d 685, 695 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
        We therefore turn to Eagle Forum’s other claim concerning a common law right of access.
This Court has recognized a common law right of access to judicial records in civil litigation,
including sealed records. See League of Women Voters, 963 F.3d at 135–36. Although there is a
strong presumption of public access to judicial records, “that presumption may be outweighed in
certain cases by competing interests.” MetLife, Inc. v. Fin. Stability Oversight Council, 865 F.3d
661, 665 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

         1
           Eagle Forum concedes that it first raised a First Amendment argument in its motion requesting the district
court to reconsider its judgment. However, a motion to reconsider may “not be used to . . . raise arguments or present
evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” GSS Grp. Ltd. v. Nat’l Port. Auth., 680 F.3d 805,
812 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (quotation marks omitted).

                                                          2
        United States v. Hubbard, 650 F. 2d 293, 317–22 (D.C. Cir. 1980), described six factors to
be considered in evaluating a motion to unseal. The test is summarized in MetLife v. Financial
Stability Oversight Council:
        [W]hen a court is presented with a motion to seal or unseal, it should weigh (1) the
        need for public access to the documents at issue; (2) the extent of previous public
        access to the documents; (3) the fact that someone has objected to disclosure, and
        the identity of that person; (4) the strength of any property and privacy interests
        asserted; (5) the possibility of prejudice to those opposing disclosure; and (6) the
        purposes for which the documents were introduced during the judicial proceedings.
865 F.3d at 665 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). As this Court has noted, “the
Hubbard test has consistently served as our lodestar because it ensures that we fully account for
the various public and private interests at stake.” Id. at 666.
       The district court acted well within its discretion in concluding, after balancing the
Hubbard factors, that unsealing was not warranted. Eagle Forum makes several allegations about
government fraud in the Tenth Circuit litigation in Kobach v. U.S. Election Assistance Commission,
772 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2014), but as the district court noted, Eagle Forum’s arguments about
Kobach are “speculative claims of fraud irrelevant to the Court’s resolution of the merits of this
case.” Even if those claims could matter here, Eagle Forum has not shown the “clear evidence”
of bad faith needed to overcome the presumption of regularity and justify an inquiry into the
decisionmaking processes of government officials. Colindres v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 71 F.4th 1018,
1025 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Morgan, 313
U.S. 409, 422 (1941).
         The sixth Hubbard factor is “the ‘most important’ element cutting against disclosure” here,
Cable News Network, 984 F.3d at 120, since the records at issue were not relevant to the resolution
of the litigation: the district court stated that it “did not rely on” the sealed materials in “resolving
this matter on the merits.” For similar reasons, although the first Hubbard factor weighs in favor
of disclosure, it only “moderately” does so, as the district court determined. Interested members
of the public can readily understand the proceedings in this lawsuit without reviewing the sealed
records, which played no role in the district court’s judgment.

        The rest of the Hubbard factors are either neutral or against unsealing for the reasons given
by the district court. Because the public has not had access to these documents, the second factor
does not weigh in favor of unsealing. The third through fifth factors all weigh in favor of
nondisclosure. The sought-after materials—deposition testimony and exhibits reflecting
communications between the Department of Justice litigation counsel and an agency it is charged
with representing in court, including internal Commission memoranda—potentially implicate the
attorney-client, work-product, and deliberative process privileges. The government objected to
disclosure and asserted strong privacy interests. Moreover, there is a high possibility of prejudice
to the government: revelation of its internal communications could chill discussions among
government officials and between officials and their counsel.

                                                   3
         Eagle Forum also argues that the district court erred by declining to give it access to the
sealed materials in order to enable it to prepare its motion to unseal. The district court acted well
within its discretion in denying Eagle Forum’s request. As we have stressed, and as the district
court determined, these documents contain several types of potentially privileged materials that
the district court needed to carefully consider before unsealing. Contrary to Eagle Forum’s
assertions, the district court did not violate any mandate of this Court. This Court directed the
district court to allow Eagle Forum to “intervene for the limited purpose of seeking to unseal
references to the McCormick deposition” while “emphasiz[ing] that this does not mean that those
materials must be unsealed,” and without guaranteeing that Eagle Forum would have access to the
materials while preparing its unsealing motion. League of Women Voters, 963 F.3d at 136.

                                           *     *      *

        For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Pursuant to D.C.
Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance
of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or
rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. R. 41(a)(1).

                                           Per Curiam

                                                              FOR THE COURT:
                                                              Mark J. Langer, Clerk

                                                      BY:     /s/
                                                              Daniel J. Reidy
                                                              Deputy Clerk

                                                 4