Summary
refusing to seal and remove a published opinion because it would "contravene the long-recognized public interest in the accurate reporting and dissemination of judicial decisions"
Summary of this case from Ganski v. WolffOpinion
CRIMINAL NO. 2:03-CR-52-DBH
07-18-2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LARRY McCOULLUM, DEFENDANT
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEAL AND
REMOVE PUBLISHED OPINIONS
The defendant Larry McCoullum has filed two pro se motions. One requests that this court "seal all entr[ies] and entit[ies] regarding [McCoullum's] case, direct appeals, 2255 post conviction motions, every entry." Def.'s Mot. to Seal at 3 (ECF No. 101). The other, Defendant's Motion to Remove Published Opinions (ECF No. 102), seeks removal of three published opinions in McCoullum's case, see United States v. McCoullum, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96643 (D. Me. July 12, 2012); 530 F. Supp. 2d 355 (D. Me. Jan. 11, 2008); 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85987 (D. Me. Nov. 15, 2007).
In 2008, I granted the government's motion to seal certain matters. See Government's Mot. to Seal (ECF No. 88); Order Granting Mot. to Seal (ECF No. 89). That order remains in place. But McCoullum now claims that other prisoners have viewed the three opinions cited above, that "this shouldn[']t have never been possible, as [his] case was ordered sealed, almost over 5 years ago," Def.'s Mot. to Seal at 2, and that "it was to [his] understanding that every opinion or filing in regards to [him] was to be 'non-published' as [his] case is sealed," Def.'s Mot. to Remove Published Opinions at 6.
However, as is standard practice in this District, the 2008 sealing order only extended to those docket entries related to the filings specifically enumerated in the government's motion. It did not extend to judicial opinions or open court hearings. To the extent that McCoullum now moves for a further extension of the earlier sealing order, I DENY his motion. Such a far-reaching order would contravene the long-recognized public interest in the accurate reporting and dissemination of judicial decisions. See, e.g., Cox Broad. Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 492 (1975) ("The special protected nature of accurate reports of judicial proceedings has repeatedly been recognized."); Hicklin Eng'g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 348 (7th Cir. 2006) ("What happens in the federal courts is presumptively open to public scrutiny. Judges deliberate in private but issue public decisions after public arguments based on public records. . . . Any step that withdraws an element of the judicial process from public view makes the ensuing decision look more like fiat and requires rigorous justification."); Lowenschuss v. West Pub. Co., 542 F.2d 180, 185 (3d Cir. 1976) ("As ours is a common-law system based on the 'directive force' of precedents, its effective and efficient functioning demands wide dissemination of judicial decisions.").
I GRANT McCoullum's motion to seal his latest motion on the same basis that I granted earlier motions to seal. But I DENY his motions to seal all docket entries in his case and to remove all published opinions from the Bureau of Prisons Legal Law Library Computer System.
SO ORDERED.
________________
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE