Court Discusses Standard for Sealing Documents That Show Cooperation

US v. Doe: In 2012, Doe was convicted of a drug conspiracy. At sentencing, he received a downward departure based on a substantial assistance motion from the Government (apparently an oral one). In 2016, Doe sought a reduced sentence under 18 USC 3582(c)(2) due to retroactive changes in the Guidelines. The district court denied them motion in an order that explained that Doe’s original sentence was based partly on his cooperation. In 2018, Doe moved to have the order sealed, arguing that “the district court’s reference to his cooperation threatened his safety because the order was available to other inmates through the prison library.” The district court denied the motion in a brief order without any real analysis.

The Fourth Circuit reversed that decision, 2-1. The court first held that an order denying a motion to seal is a final order that can be appealed by the defendant seeking to seal documents. On the merits, the court first concluded that the proper standard to apply was the public’s right to access court records under the First Amendment. Under that standard, the court must make a decision on sealing a document on “specific factual findings” rather than “conclusory assertions.” The court noted that the district court’s order in this case “made no specific findings at all.” After reviewing the various competing interests, the court ultimately concluded that, generally, “protecting cooperators from harm is a compelling interest that can justify sealing” and sealing was justified here because “the record demonstrates that Defendant faces a heightened risk” of retaliation.

Judge Richardson dissented, arguing that regardless of the proper analytical standard, Does “motion is fatally underinclusive” because Doe’s cooperation was not secret at the time he sought to have the order sealed.

Congrats to the Defender office in EDNC on the win!