United States District Court, D. Maine
ORDER ON MOTION TO SEAL
A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the sentencing hearing in this case on May 11, 2018, defense
counsel for Tarah Doliber orally moved to seal her sentencing
memorandum and letter to the Court. Oral Mot. to Seal
Sentencing Mem. and Def.'s Ex. 1 (ECF No. 107). The
Court preliminarily granted the motion to seal and ordered
the parties to file memoranda justifying the sealing of
documents that are presumptively public under United
States v. Kravetz, 706 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2013).
4, 2018, Ms. Doliber filed a memorandum and urged the Court
to seal both her sentencing memorandum and her letter to the
Court. Mem. in Supp. of Def.'s Mot. to Seal (ECF
No. 113). She also moved to seal the memorandum in support of
her motion to seal. Mot. to Seal Mem. in Supp. of Oral
Mot. to Seal (ECF No. 114).
8, 2018, the Government filed its memorandum and suggested
that some, but not all, of Ms. Doliber's sentencing
memorandum and letter to the Court should be redacted.
Mem. Relating to Def.'s Mot. to Seal Sentencing
Materials (ECF No. 116). Specifically, the Government
suggested redacting a portion of page two of her sentencing
memorandum-from the last sentence of the first full paragraph
to the last full sentence. Id. at 2 n.2. Although
the Government represented that redactions to Ms.
Doliber's letter to the Court generally “might
strike the appropriate balance between the public's right
of access and the Defendant's competing privacy
interests”, id. at 2, the Government did not
suggest any redactions to that letter. Id. at 1-2.
On June 11, 2018, the Government moved to seal its memorandum
relating to the motion to seal. Mot. to Seal (ECF
Kravetz, the parties submitted the sentencing
memoranda and other documents to the court to “seek to
influence the judge's determination of the appropriate
sentence” and therefore the documents “fall
squarely into the category of materials that a court relies
on in determining central issues in criminal
litigation.” Id. at 56. Once the presumption
applies, which it does here, “only the most compelling
reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial
records.” Id. 59 (quoting In re Providence
Journal Co. Inc., 293 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2002)
(quoting F.T.C. v. Standard Fin. Mgmt. Corp., 830
F.2d 404, 410 (1st Cir. 1987))). Here, the Court accepts the
Government's and Ms. Doliber's concerns as
legitimate, but the First Circuit has stressed that
“where the public's right of access competes with
privacy rights, ‘it is proper for a district court,
after weighing competing interests, to edit and redact a
judicial document in order to allow access to appropriate
portions of the document.'” Id. at 62
(quoting United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 147
(2nd Cir. 1995)).
these principles in mind, although the parties made the case
for sealing some portions of the documents, other portions of
the documents must be available to the public:
Defendant's Motion to Seal Memorandum in Support of Oral
Motion to Seal (ECF Nos. 114, 117)
party has moved for continued sealing of these motions. The
Court ORDERS them unsealed.
Defendant's Memorandum in Support of Defendant's
Motion to Seal (ECF Nos. 113).
Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Defendant's
motion to seal her memorandum in support of her motion to
seal (ECF Nos. 114, 117). The Court seals the memorandum
beginning at the third sentence of the second full paragraph
of page one though the last sentence of the first full
paragraph on page two, and seals the memorandum from the
first sentence on page three through the fourth sentence on
page three. The Court seals the second paragraph on page
three. Otherwise, the Defendant's motion to seal her
memorandum in support of her motion to seal is denied.
Government's Motion to Seal (ECF No. 118).
unclear whether the Government is seeking to seal its motion
seal. Motion to Seal (ECF No. 118) (moving the Court
to seal ECF No. 116 “as well as any and all related
docket entries” without specifying which docket entries
qualify as “related”). However, if it is, the
Court DENIES the Government's motion to seal its motion
to seal because there is nothing in the motion to seal itself
that would be subject to sealing.
Government's Memorandum Relating to Defendant's
Motion to Seal Sentencing Materials (ECF No. 116)
Court DENIES the Government's Motion to Seal (ECF No.
118) insofar as the Government is seeking to seal its
memorandum relating to the Defendant's motion to seal
(ECF No. 116). The Government's memorandum largely
summarizes its reading of Kravetz and ultimately
suggests redaction of a portion of Ms. Doliber's
sentencing memorandum without quoting it. The Court cannot
see why any of this material should be redacted, and
ultimately it ...