Court Opinion

ID: 9394555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-15 20:01:00.153038+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:00.969480
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

  v.                                                          Case No. 1:20-cr-194-RCL n

  NABIL MADZARAC,                                                                        � ,1,�rs
                                                              *BIL--ED-uNDE-R-SE-Aft<__,,__.-

          Defendant.

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION

         Pending before the Court is an application submitted by Nabil Madzarac, the defendant in

 this criminal case, to redact portions of certain docket entries, including court orders, a court

 memorandum opinion and order, a detention hearing transcript, one of the government's

 memoranda, and two of Mr. Mad?llrac's own motions. Toe proposed redactions cover references

 to his mental health status, mental health treatment, and                         . The government

 opposes in part, arguing that the proposed redactions are too broad. After considering the record,

 the applicable law, the parties' briefing, and the proposed redactions, the defendant's motion to

redact certain docket entries will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

                                      L      BACKGROUND

        On or about August 15, 2020, Mr. Madzarac allegedly issued threats to kill or attempt to

kill foreign officials associated with the Embassy of the State of Libya. Mr. Madzarac was

subsequently arrested and charged with one count of Interstate Communication with Intent to

Threaten or Injure, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), and one count of Threats Against Foreign

Officials, Official Guests, or Internationally Protected Persons, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 878(a).

       Mr. Madzarac made his initial appearance before Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey on

August 18, 2020, and the government moved for a forensic competency screening, which

Magistrate Judge Harvey denied. Minute Enny dated Aug. 18, 2020. On August 19, 2020, the

                                                  I
government filed a memorandum and proffer in support of pretrial detention. ECF No. 4. The

detention hearing was also held before Magistrate Judge Harvey on August 19, 2020, but it was

continued to August 21, 2020. Minute Entry dated Aug. 19, 2020. Based on the government's

Memorandum and Proffer in Support of Pretrial Detention, as well as Mr. Madz.arac's behavior

during his initial appearance and detention hearing, Magistrate Judge Harvey ordered, sua sponte,

that Mr. Madzarac undergo a forensic screening for a preliminary assessment of his competency

to stand trial. ECF No. 6. Based on the initial competency screening report, Magistrate Judge

Harvey ordered a mental competency examination on August 28, 2020. ECF No. 9. On

September 17, 2020, Mr. Madz.arac was indicted on one count ,of Interstate Communication with

Intent to Threaten or Injure, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), and one count of Threats Against

Foreign Officials, Official Guests, or Internationally Protected Persons, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 878(a). ECF No. 13. On December 16, 2020, Magistrate Judge Harvey issued a memorandum

opinion and order, finding Mr. Madz.arac competent to stand trial. ECF No. 22. On December 22,

2020, Magistrate Judge Harvey ordered Mr. Madz.arac conditionally released pending trial. ECF

No. 23. On March 11, 2021, Mr. Madz.arac submitted an unopposed motion to amend the

conditions of his release, ECF No. 25, which the Court granted, ECF No. 26. On May 5, 2021, Mr.

Madz.arac submitted another motion to amend the conditions of his release, ECF No. 32, which

the Court also granted, ECF No. 33.

       On May 31, 2022, Mr. Madzarac moved to redact certain docket entries related to his

mental health status, mental health treatment, and                         . Def.'s Mot. to Redact

Portions of Certain Docket Entries, ECF No. 58; see August 20, 2020 Order, ECF No. 6;

August 28, 2020 Order, ECF Nb. 9; Memorandum and Proffer in Support of Pretrial Detention,

ECF No. 4; Transcript of Detention Hearing, ECF No. 34; December 16, 2020 Memorandum

                                                 2
Opinion and Order, ECF No. 22; December, 22, 2020 Order, ECF No. 23; Unopposed Motion to

Amend Conditions of Release,ECF No. 25; Unopposed Motion to Amend Conditions of Release,

ECF No. 32; May 7, 2021 Order, ECF No. 33. The government opposed in part. Resp. to Def.'s

Mot. To Redact Portions of Certain Docket Entries, ECF No. 60. Mr. Madzarac replied. Def. 's

Reply, ECF No. 61.

        The issue is now ripe for this Court's review.

                                   II.     LEGAL STANDARDS

        The public has a First Amendment right of access to judicial records unless there is a

compelling reason demonstrating otherwise. See Washington Post v. Robinson, 935 F.2d 282,287

(D.C. Cir. 1991). To determine whether this right of public access is implicated, the Court must

first ask "whether the subject of an application is a 'judicial record."' United States v. Munchel,

567 F. Supp. 3d 9, 14 (D.D.C. 2021).

        Once the Court determines that the relevant materials qualify �s judicial records,it should

begin its analysis with a "strong presumption in favor of public access" to these records. In re

Leopold to Unseal Certain Elec. Surveillance Applications & Ords., 964 F.3d 1121, 1127 (D.C.

Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293,317 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). However,this

presumption "may be outweighed in certain cases by competing interests" raised by the party

opposing redaction. Metlife, Inc. v. Fin. Stability Oversight Council, 865 F.3d 661,665 (D.C. Cir.

2017). In Hubbard, the D.C. Circuit set forth a six-factor balancing test to evaluate whether judicial

records should be sealed. 650 F.2d at 317-22. The Court must 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 of

objection and identity of those objecting to disclosure; (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. Id.

                                                  3
                                      III.    DISCUSSION

       A. The Documents Are Judicial Records So A Presumption Of Access Applies

       "[W]hether something is a judicial record depends on 'the role it plays in the adjudicatory

process."' S.E.C. v. Am. Int'/ Grp., 712 F.3d 1, 3 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. El­

Sayegh, 131 F.3d 158, 163 (D.C. Cir. 1997)). Mr. Madzarac seeks to redact portions of court

orders, a memorandum opinion and order, a detention hearing transcript, one of the government's

memoranda, and two of Mr. Madzarac's own motions. Courts in the D.C. Circuit ·have treated

these types of documents as judicial records. See In re Leopold, 964 F.3d at 1128 ("There is no

doubt that the court orders themselves are judicial records."); United States v. Murray, No. 16-cr-

176 (RDM), 2018 WL 3025044, at *1 2 (D.D.C. June 15, 2018) (recognizing that transcripts of

judicial proceedings constitute judicial records); Hyatt v. Lee, 251 F. Supp. 3d 181, 186-187

(D.D.C. 2017) (recognizing the same for memorandum opinions, the parties' motions, and the

parties' memoranda in support of motions).

       B. Analysis Of The Hubbard Factors

       Because the documents at issue are judicial records, the Court shall analyze the proposed

redactions under each of the six Hubbard factors.

                   1. Need for Public Access

       The first Hubbard factor requires the Court to evaluate the need for public access to the

judicial records that Mr. Madzarac seeks to redact. In Hubbard, the D.C. Circuit explained that the

right of access "serves to produce an informed and enlightened public opinion [and] ... safeguard

against any attempt to employ our courts as instruments of persecution, to promote the search for

truth, and to ensure confidence in judicial remedies." In re Leopold, 964 F.3d at 1127 (quoting

Hubbard, 650 F.2d at 315 n. 79) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). There is a

heightened public interest in access to judicial records that help the public "understand the rulings

                                                 4
 as well as the contours of the disputes between the parties." Hyatt, 251 F. Supp. 3d at 184. Further,

 '"in cases where the government is a party ... [t]he appropriateness of making court files

 accessible' is enhanced." United States v. Thomas, 840 F. Supp. 2d 1, 4 (D.D.C. 2011) (quoting

 Friedman v. Sebelius, 672 F. Supp. 2d 54, 58 (D.D.C. 2009)).

        The information that Mr. Madzarac seeks to redact falls squarely within the information

 that serves to promote an informed public. Here, the proposed redacted information was used to

 determine whether Mr.Madzarac should be detained pending trial. Therefore, leaving these

documents unredacted "promotes an 'informed and enlightened public opinion' about the type of

defendant who may be detained pending trial in this Circuit." Munchel, 567 F. Supp.3d at 17

(quoting In re Leopold, 964 F.3d at 1127). This first factor therefore weighs against the proposed

redactions.

                   2. Extent of Previous Public Access

       Next, the Court must look to "whether, when and under what conditions the public has

already had access to court records." Hubbard, 650 F.2d at 318. If the disputed information was

already accessible to the public, "there would presumably be less justification to keep [it] under

seal." Vanda Pharms., Inc. v. Food & Drug Admin., 539 F. Supp.3d 44, 54 (D.D.C. 2021) (citing

Hubbard, 650 F.2d at 318 n.97).

       The documents at issue have been accessible on the public docket since August 2020 (ECF

Nos. 4, 6, 9), December 2020 (ECF Nos. 22, 23), March 2021 (ECF No. 25), and May 2021 (ECF

Nos. 32, 33, 34). Further, information need not be consistently redacted throughout the docket, so

the fact that Mr. Madzarac' s competency evaluation is itself sealed does not mean that documents

referencing the evaluation must be redacted. See Hyatt, 251 F.Supp. 3d at 187. Because the

information that Mr. Madzarac seeks to redact has been already accessible for a substantial amount

of time, this factor weighs against the proposed redactions. See Upshaw v. United States, 754 F.

                                                 5
Supp. 2d24,28 (D.D.C.2010) (prior public access for one year and eight months was enough time

to weigh in favor of continued public access).

               3. Identity of the Party Objecting to Disclosure

       Third, the Court must account for ''the fact that someone has objected to disclosure, and

the identity of that person." EEOC v. Nat'l Children's Ctr., Inc., 98 F.3d 1406, 1409 (D.C. Cir.

1996). When both parties seek to have information placed under seal, this factor weighs in favor

of nondisclosure. See United States v. Harris, 204 F. Supp. 3d 10, 17 (D.D.C. 2016). On the other

hand, if only the defendant objects to disclosure, this factor weighs in favor of keeping the

information public. See Munchel, 567 F. Supp. 3d at 18. "[T]he [D.C.] Circuit has also recognized

that when the government is a party to the case and supports public access to the judicial record­

this further strengthens the case for access." Id

       The government does not oppose redacting references to Mr. Madzarac's specific mental

health diagnosis, specific mental health treatment, and                            . However, the

government opposes redacting references to his. general mental health status and general mental

health treatment. Insofar as the government opposes the proposed redactions, this factor weighs in

favor of disclosure, and insofar as the government does not oppose Mr. Madzarac's proposed

redactions, this factor weighs in favor of redaction.

               4. Strength of Asserted Privacy and Property Interests

       "The fourth Hubbard factor requires the Court to 'assess the strength of any property or

privacy interests voiced by the moving party."' Harris, 204 F. Supp. 3d at 17 (quoting US. ex rel.

Dur ham v. Prospect Waterproofing, Inc., 818 F. Supp. 2d 64, 68 (D.D.C. 2011)). For the Court's

prior orders and memorandum opinions in particular, "there is a strong interest in public access,"

so "[the defendant] must provide a specific justification for each specific proposed redaction."

Hyatt, 251 F. Supp. 3d at 186. Issues that are ''very personal to [the defendant's] well-being" and

                                                    6