MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
PAUL
L. FRIEDMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This
matter is before the Court on the government’s sealed
motion [Dkt. No. 45] for leave to file its sentencing
memorandum under seal and its sealed motion for leave to file
its reply sentencing memorandum under seal, which has been
hand delivered to the Court but has not yet been docketed
electronically. The Court operates, however, on the
presumption that all filings are to be public in the absence
of a strong justification for filing certain very limited and
carefully tailored information under seal. This country has a
“strong tradition of access to judicial
proceedings.” United States v. Hubbard, 650
F.2d 293, 317 n.89 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “[A]s a general
rule, the courts are not intended to be, nor should they be,
secretive places for the resolution of secret
disputes.” United States v. Bank Julius, Baer &
Co., 149 F.Supp. 3d 69, 70 (D.D.C. 2015) (citing
Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,
597 (1978)); see also Metlife Inc. v. Fin. Stability
Oversight Council, 865 F.3d 661, 665 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
Accordingly, “[t]he starting point in considering a
motion to seal court records is a strong presumption in favor
of public access to judicial proceedings.” Hardaway
v. D.C. Hous. Auth., 843 F.3d 973, 980 (D.C. Cir. 2016)
(quoting EEOC v. Nat’l Children’s Ctr.,
Inc., 98 F.3d 1406, 1409 (D.C. Cir. 1996)).
The
government contends that sealing its sentencing memorandum
and reply memorandum is appropriate because they contain
grand jury material, including grand jury exhibits and
excerpts from and references to grand jury transcripts.
See Motion for Leave to File Sentencing Memorandum
Under Seal (“Mot. to Seal”) [Dkt. No. 45]. The
Court recognizes that Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure provides that “[r]ecords, orders,
and subpoenas relating to grand-jury proceedings must be kept
under seal to the extent and as long as necessary to prevent
the unauthorized disclosure of a matter occurring before a
grand jury.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(6). The Court agrees
that protection of grand jury proceedings and materials is of
paramount importance. See Douglas Oil Co. of California
v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211, 218 (1979). It seems
here, however, that much of the government’s sentencing
memorandum does not reference or pertain to grand jury
proceedings.[1] So far as the Court can tell, the first
two pages of the sentencing memorandum make no references to
grand jury materials, and some portions of the Statement of
Offense section are clearly based on the Statement of Offense
already filed on the public docket at the time of the plea.
See Dkt. No. 35 at 2-4. The Legal Argument portion
of the sentencing memorandum does not contain references to
grand jury materials. Large portions of those sections of the
government’s memorandum, therefore, appear not to
implicate the secrecy integral to grand jury proceedings.
Similarly, Exhibits 1, 4, 10, and 13 appear not to be grand
jury materials or related to the grand jury proceedings.
The
Court will not seal a filing in its entirety when it is not
necessary to do so. The Court, therefore, will grant the
government’s motions to file its sentencing memorandum
and reply memorandum under seal in part and deny the motions
in part. The government must file on the public docket a
redacted version of its two memoranda just as Mr. Benjamin
has done. See Sentencing Memorandum on Behalf of
James Benjamin [Dkt. No. 44]. It may redact grand jury
material from the memoranda and exhibits, but nothing else.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED
that the government’s motions to file its sentencing
memorandum [Dkt. No. 45] and its reply memorandum, and
attached exhibits, under seal are GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part; it is '
FURTHER
ORDERED that the government’s sentencing memorandum and
reply memorandum and exhibits may be filed under seal; and it
is
FURTHER
ORDERED that on or before October 2, 2019, the government
shall file on the public docket a copy of its sentencing
memorandum and its reply memorandum in which portions are
redacted solely to the extent necessary to preserve the
confidentiality of grand jury material.
SO
ORDERED.
---------
Notes:
[1] The Court has not yet had the
opportunity to review the contents of the proffered reply
...