Opinion
Case No. 6:02-cr-171-Orl-28KRS.
August 27, 2004
JESSE ISSA MAALI, M. SALEEM KHANANI, KHAN ASLAM, SAEEDULLAH AWAN, MAHMOOD JAMAL, BIG BARGAIN WORLD, INC., SS MART, INC., JEANS UNLIMITED, INC., DENIM UNLIMITED, INC., BARAKAT CORPORATION, BARAKAT INTERNATIONAL, INC., David Portlock, United States Attorney, Counsel for Defendant.
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Permission to File Pleading Under Seal (Doc. 608). This motion was discussed earlier today in open court, during which the Government stated that it did not object to the filing under seal.
In United States v. Noriega, 752 F. Supp. 1037, 1040 (S.D. Fla. 1990), the court explained:
Although the press and public have a First Amendment right of access to criminal trials, the right of access to judicial records is not of constitutional dimension but rather derives from common law. Thus, in contrast to the compelling justification required for closure of criminal trials, the trial court has broad latitude where only the common-law right of access to court records is implicated. Notwithstanding this discretion, a presumption of openness attaches to judicial records, and this presumption in favor of public access must be balanced against any competing interest advanced.
(Citations omitted). See also United States v. Kooistra, 796 F.2d 1390, 1391 (11th Cir. 1986) (holding that district court must articulate reasons for denial of access to records but that "the findings need only be sufficient for a reviewing court to be able to determine, in conjunction with a review of the sealed documents themselves, what important interest or interests the district court found sufficiently compelling to justify the denial of public access"); United States v. Fierer, No. CRIM.1:96-CR-294-ODE, 1997 WL 445937, at *2 (N.D. Ga. July 25, 1997) ("[T]he court finds that a compelling higher interest warrants the continued sealing of the materials to preserve interests more important than public disclosure and that the denial of access is narrowly tailored to serve that end."). Considering the competing interests involved here, the motion to file under seal shall be granted.
This matter has already garnered undue pretrial publicity, including publicity regarding matters that are not related to the charges in this case. Jury selection will begin in less than two weeks, and the parties understandably seek to limit further publicity in a case in which the selection of a jury may already be an arduous task. The Court has reviewed the proposed sealed document in camera, and the document is not relevant to the charges in this case. And, as noted earlier, the Government does not object to the proposed sealing.
The Court finds that the interests of the parties and the public in a fair trial of the Defendants in this case outweighs the need for immediate public access to the proposed sealed document. At the conclusion of trial, the document at issue will be unsealed and available to the public.
Therefore, Defendants' Motion for Permission to File Pleading Under Seal (Doc. 608) is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to file the proposed document under seal.
DONE and ORDERED.