Court Opinion

ID: 9458762
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:00:50.73411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:39.236893
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12791   Document: 38-1    Date Filed: 08/04/2023   Page: 1 of 8

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-12791
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       In re: SEALED SEARCH WARRANT

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                    Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       MICHAEL S. BARTH,

                                           Interested Party-Appellant.
USCA11 Case: 22-12791     Document: 38-1     Date Filed: 08/04/2023   Page: 2 of 8

       2                     Opinion of the Court                22-12791

                           ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 9:22-mj-08332-BER-1
                          ____________________

       Before WILSON, JORDAN, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Michael S. Barth appeals from the district court’s denial of
       his motion to intervene in a search warrant proceeding. Because
       we find no error in the district court’s denial of the motion to
       intervene, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
                                       I.
              In August 2022, the government obtained a search warrant
       to search the Mar-a-Lago residence of former President Donald J.
       Trump. The search warrant and an affidavit demonstrating
       probable cause were filed under seal. Two days after the search
       was executed, Judicial Watch, Inc. moved to unseal these
       documents. Judicial Watch said that it was investigating “the
       potential politicization” of the FBI and Department of Justice and
       whether they are “abusing their law enforcement powers to harass
       a likely future political opponent.” Various news organizations
       intervened shortly thereafter for the purpose of unsealing and
       obtaining access to all the search warrant materials. The Florida
       Center for Government Accountability, Inc., a nonprofit focusing
USCA11 Case: 22-12791         Document: 38-1        Date Filed: 08/04/2023         Page: 3 of 8

       22-12791                  Opinion of the Court                                3

       on ensuring government accountability and transparency,
       intervened for the same purpose.
              Barth is proceeding pro se as a member of the public. He
       sought to intervene “for the limited purpose of miscellaneous relief
       to unseal all the remaining documents (including the Court’s
       notes), related to the sealed search warrant.” His motion said that
       he intends to “adopt and incorporate the applicable legal references
       in the memorandums of law filed by the Media Intervenors.”
               A magistrate judge denied Barth’s motion to intervene
       under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 because the “interests
       asserted by the movant are adequately represented by the media-
       intervenors.” Barth filed a letter seeking review by a district judge,
       which the district court construed as an objection to the magistrate
       judge’s order. Barth’s objection was overruled. The district court
       agreed with the magistrate judge that the parties who have been
       permitted to intervene “have thoughtfully and professionally
       litigated their position” and concluded “with certainty” that Barth’s
       interests were adequately represented. Moreover, the district
       court found no evidence of collusion with the government, no
       adverse interest between the existing intervenors and Barth, and
       that the intervenors have not failed in the fulfillment of their duties.
             Barth now appeals. 1 He argues that the district court erred
       by denying his request to intervene because the existing parties

       1 Since the date that Barth filed this suit, criminal prosecution related to the

       underlying search warrant has begun and various materials and excerpts
USCA11 Case: 22-12791       Document: 38-1      Date Filed: 08/04/2023      Page: 4 of 8

       4                       Opinion of the Court                   22-12791

       would not necessarily represent his interests. He says that counsel
       for the media intervenors made two “fatal mistakes”: (1) conceding
       that the warrant was supported by probable cause and (2)
       conceding that the government has an interest in protecting its
       methods that may, in some cases, outweigh the public right to
       access. He also argues that the media may only want to “unseal
       this matter so far” because they do not “really. . . want to know
       ‘both sides of the story.’” And he suggests that the government
       and media are colluding by leaking details of the investigation.
                                          II.
              An order denying a motion to intervene is not a final order.
       Fox v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 519 F.3d 1298, 1301 (11th Cir. 2008). Under
       the “anomalous rule,” however, “we exercise ‘provisional
       jurisdiction’ to determine whether a district court erred in denying
       intervention as of right under Rule 24(a), or clearly abused its
       discretion in denying permissive intervention under Rule 24(b).”
       United States v. US Stem Cell Clinic, LLC, 987 F.3d 1021, 1024 (11th
       Cir. 2021) (quoting Fox, 519 F.3d at 1301)). If “we discover no
       reason to reverse the district court, then ‘our jurisdiction
       evaporates’ and we dismiss the appeal.” Id.
                                         III.
             A party seeking to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2)
       must show that: “(1) his application to intervene is timely; (2) he

       related to it have already been unsealed. This appeal is not moot because
       portions of the search warrant affidavit remain under seal.
USCA11 Case: 22-12791      Document: 38-1      Date Filed: 08/04/2023     Page: 5 of 8

       22-12791               Opinion of the Court                          5

       has an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the
       subject of the action; (3) he is so situated that disposition of the
       action, as a practical matter, may impede or impair his ability to
       protect that interest; and (4) his interest is represented inadequately
       by the existing parties to the suit.” Fox, 519 F.3d at 1302–03. When
       a party fails to establish one of these requirements, it is unnecessary
       to analyze any of the remaining requirements. See, e.g., Worlds v.
       Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 929 F.2d 591, 595 (11th Cir. 1991).
               The district court’s decision denying Barth’s intervention
       rested on the fourth requirement. Representation is adequate if (i)
       no collusion is shown between the representative and an opposing
       party; (ii) the representative does not have or represent an interest
       adverse to the intervenor; and (iii) the representative does not fail
       in the fulfillment in their duty. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Falls
       Chase Special Taxing Dist., 983 F.2d 211, 215 (11th Cir. 1993). Unless
       one of these three conditions are met, we “will presume that a
       proposed intervenor’s interest is adequately represented when an
       existing party pursues the same ultimate objective as the party
       seeking intervention.” Id.; Int’l Tank Terminals, Ltd. v. M/V Acadia
       Forest, 579 F.2d 964, 967 (5th Cir. 1978).
              We conclude that the district court correctly denied Barth’s
       motion to intervene. Barth’s interest in the unsealing of the search
       warrant and all related materials is adequately protected by the
       existing intervenors. Judicial Watch, the media organizations, and
       the Florida Center for Government Accountability all share the
       same ultimate objective and continue to forcefully litigate to
USCA11 Case: 22-12791      Document: 38-1     Date Filed: 08/04/2023     Page: 6 of 8

       6                      Opinion of the Court                 22-12791

       achieve it. Indeed, the existing intervenors have, for the most part,
       accomplished this interest. The search warrant and large portions
       of the affidavit have been unsealed. And almost a year later, the
       existing intervenors continue to move for further unsealing. The
       media organizations recently moved for the government to
       periodically reassess and report on unsealing of the search warrant
       affidavit as changed circumstances may undermine the
       government interests justifying the seal. We therefore presume
       that Barth’s interest is adequately represented by the existing
       intervenors who share the same ultimate objective.
              Barth has not presented any reason to counter that
       presumption. The persistent effort of the existing intervenors to
       unseal the search warrant materials undercuts Barth’s
       unsubstantiated suggestion that they only want to unseal the
       matter “so far.” His further contention that the government is
       colluding with the intervenors is unsupported by any evidence in
       the record. And he has not explained how his interests are adverse
       to the existing intervenors given that they all share the same
       objective as him in unsealing the search warrant affidavit.
              The “fatal mistakes” that Barth points to also do not suggest
       that the existing intervenors have failed in the pursuit of this goal.
       The record makes clear that the magistrate judge—not the existing
       intervenors—stated that the search warrant was supported by
       probable cause. At a hearing that took place before the affidavit
       was partially unsealed, counsel for the media intervenors
       characterized the warrant as being “based on alleged probable
USCA11 Case: 22-12791     Document: 38-1      Date Filed: 08/04/2023    Page: 7 of 8

       22-12791               Opinion of the Court                        7

       cause.” The magistrate judge interjected: “Not alleged probable
       cause, I found there is probable cause.” Counsel responded:
       “Indeed you did, your Honor.” In context—where the intervenors
       could not have independently concluded that probable cause
       existed because the affidavit had not yet been unsealed—we do not
       interpret this exchange as a concession that probable cause existed.
       In any event, conceding that probable cause existed to support the
       warrant would not undercut efforts to unseal the affidavit.
              Barth’s second “fatal mistake” is not a mistake at all. The
       magistrate judge asked counsel for the media intervenors whether
       “as an abstract matter, maintaining the integrity of the
       investigation, and particularly the sources and methods of
       conducting the investigation, can be[,] in the right case[,] a
       legitimate and sufficient Government interest to overcome the
       public right of access.” Counsel responded that “with the caveats
       that the Court has mentioned, in the right case, at the right
       moment of the right case” he “would agree with that principle as a
       general matter.” This is a correct statement of law and counsel’s
       agreement with it does not suggest that the existing intervenors are
       inadequately representing Barth’s interest. See United States v.
       Valenti, 987 F.2d 708, 714–15 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding that district
       court properly denied motion to unseal “as a necessary means to
       achieving the government’s compelling interest in the protection
       of a continuing law enforcement investigation”). Accordingly, we
       conclude that Barth’s interest is adequately represented by the
       existing parties to the litigation.
USCA11 Case: 22-12791        Document: 38-1        Date Filed: 08/04/2023        Page: 8 of 8

       8                         Opinion of the Court                     22-12791

                                     *       *       *
              The district court correctly denied Barth’s motion to
       intervene as of right under Rule 24(a) and Barth does not argue that
       he sought permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). Therefore,
       we have no reason to reverse the district court and dismiss the
       appeal for lack of jurisdiction.2

              DISMISSED.

       2 We previously dismissed this appeal to the extent that it concerned Barth’s

       motion for recusal and do not address the arguments that the parties raised on
       that matter in the briefing.