UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Criminal No. 21-0598 (PLF) ) TERENCE SUTTON, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On December 6, 2021, in ordering the parties to file public versions of filings that
were then under seal because they related to the Government’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel
[Dkt. No. 76], the Court identified three categories of information (collectively, “Sealed
Information”) to be redacted from the public versions of those filings:
(1) any information that could reveal the nature of matters occurring before the grand jury, which is protected from public disclosure by Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure;
(2) any information that could reveal the identity of a grand jury witness, as such a witness’s identity is protected from public disclosure by Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; and
(3) any personally identifiable information of any individual, redaction of which is necessary to comply with Rule 49.1(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
See Opinion and Order (“Unsealing Opinion”) [Dkt. No. 105] at 7, 9-10. The Court also ordered
the parties to file any future filings that related to the government’s motion to disqualify counsel
under seal and, within five days of any such filings, to file public versions of those filings with
all Sealed Information redacted. See id. at 8, 10. Previously, on October 4, 2021, the Court had ordered that the last category of
information – personally identifiable information – was “entitled to be kept confidential” from
unauthorized public disclosure. Protective Order Governing Discovery (“Protective Order”)
[Dkt. No. 28] at 1, ¶¶ 7-11. Defining this category of information as “sensitive materials,” the
Court cross-referenced Rule 49.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which recognizes
the following as personally identifiable information: “an individual’s social-security number,
taxpayer-identification number, or birth date, the name of an individual known to be a minor, a
financial-account number, or the home address of an individual.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 49.1(a). To
protect such sensitive materials from public disclosure, the Court ordered that “[a]bsent prior
permission from the Court, information marked as sensitive [by the government] shall not be
included in any public filing with the Court, and instead shall be submitted under seal.” Id. at
¶ 8.
Since then, the parties have filed numerous motions and documents under seal
because they seemingly relate to or reference, even in minor part, materials that have been
designated as “sensitive.” See, e.g., Mr. Sutton’s Motion for Brady Sanctions (“Mot. for Brady
Sanctions”) [Dkt. No. 67] at 1 (“This motion is filed under seal since it discusses several witness
interview reports . . . which the Government has marked sensitive.”); Mr. Sutton’s Motion for a
Bill of Particulars (“Mot. for Bill of Particulars”) [Dkt. No. 118] at 1 (“This motion is filed under
seal because it references material subject to the Court’s protective order.”); Mr. Sutton’s Motion
to Compel Disclosure of Requested Discovery (“3d Mot. to Compel Discovery”) [Dkt. No. 122]
(providing no justification for filing under seal). In addition, it seems that the government may
be applying the “sensitive” designation more broadly than the Protective Order definition would
permit. Compare Mot. for Brady Sanctions at 1 (noting the government had marked several
2 witness interview reports as sensitive), with Protective Order at ¶ 7 (defining “sensitive
materials” as “personal identity information as identified in Rule 49.1 of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure”).
It must be remembered that courts favor open criminal proceedings whenever
possible, given that “[t]he common-law right of public access to judicial records ‘is a
fundamental element of the rule of law, important to maintaining the integrity and legitimacy of
an independent Judicial Branch.’” In re Leopold to Unseal Certain Elec. Surveillance
Applications & Ords., 964 F.3d 1121, 1127 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (quoting MetLife, Inc. v. Fin.
Stability Oversight Council, 865 F.3d 661, 663 (D.C. Cir. 2017)). Indeed, “a presumption of
openness inheres in the very nature of a criminal trial under our system of justice.” Richmond
Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 573 (1980) (plurality opinion); see also Press-
Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct. of California, 464 U.S. 501, 510 (1984) (“The presumption of
openness may be overcome only by an overriding interest based on findings that closure is
essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.”).
Consequently, although the Court “may order that a filing be made under seal without
redaction,” it may “later unseal the filing or order the person who made the filing to file a
redacted version for the public record.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 49.1(d).
In view of the history of this case, the Court thinks it is important to reemphasize
to the parties that these proceedings should not be conducted primarily under seal. Rather, the
parties should file documents under seal only according to the prescriptions set forth in the
Court’s Protective Order and Unsealing Opinion, or otherwise with the express authorization of
the Court. See D.D.C. LCrR 49(f)(6)(i) (“Absent statutory authority, no case or document may
be sealed without an order from the Court.”). And documents should be marked and treated as
3 “sensitive,” as that term is defined in the Protective Order, in a tailored way so as not to require
the sealing or redaction of material that is not in fact personally identifiable information as
identified in Rule 49.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The Court nevertheless recognizes that there are various categories of
“Confidential Information” that rightfully should be protected from public disclosure. As the
Court has previously discussed, such Confidential Information includes: (1) any information that
could reveal the nature of matters occurring before the grand jury; (2) any information that could
reveal the identity of a grand jury witness; and (3) any sensitive materials, that is, personally
identifiable information. See Unsealing Opinion at 7; Protective Order at ¶ 7; see also FED. R.
CRIM. P. 6(e); FED. R. CRIM. P. 49.1(a). In addition, the identities or statements of prosecution
witnesses likely qualify as Confidential Information that should not be publicly disclosed, to the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Criminal No. 21-0598 (PLF) ) TERENCE SUTTON, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On December 6, 2021, in ordering the parties to file public versions of filings that
were then under seal because they related to the Government’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel
[Dkt. No. 76], the Court identified three categories of information (collectively, “Sealed
Information”) to be redacted from the public versions of those filings:
(1) any information that could reveal the nature of matters occurring before the grand jury, which is protected from public disclosure by Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure;
(2) any information that could reveal the identity of a grand jury witness, as such a witness’s identity is protected from public disclosure by Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; and
(3) any personally identifiable information of any individual, redaction of which is necessary to comply with Rule 49.1(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
See Opinion and Order (“Unsealing Opinion”) [Dkt. No. 105] at 7, 9-10. The Court also ordered
the parties to file any future filings that related to the government’s motion to disqualify counsel
under seal and, within five days of any such filings, to file public versions of those filings with
all Sealed Information redacted. See id. at 8, 10. Previously, on October 4, 2021, the Court had ordered that the last category of
information – personally identifiable information – was “entitled to be kept confidential” from
unauthorized public disclosure. Protective Order Governing Discovery (“Protective Order”)
[Dkt. No. 28] at 1, ¶¶ 7-11. Defining this category of information as “sensitive materials,” the
Court cross-referenced Rule 49.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which recognizes
the following as personally identifiable information: “an individual’s social-security number,
taxpayer-identification number, or birth date, the name of an individual known to be a minor, a
financial-account number, or the home address of an individual.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 49.1(a). To
protect such sensitive materials from public disclosure, the Court ordered that “[a]bsent prior
permission from the Court, information marked as sensitive [by the government] shall not be
included in any public filing with the Court, and instead shall be submitted under seal.” Id. at
¶ 8.
Since then, the parties have filed numerous motions and documents under seal
because they seemingly relate to or reference, even in minor part, materials that have been
designated as “sensitive.” See, e.g., Mr. Sutton’s Motion for Brady Sanctions (“Mot. for Brady
Sanctions”) [Dkt. No. 67] at 1 (“This motion is filed under seal since it discusses several witness
interview reports . . . which the Government has marked sensitive.”); Mr. Sutton’s Motion for a
Bill of Particulars (“Mot. for Bill of Particulars”) [Dkt. No. 118] at 1 (“This motion is filed under
seal because it references material subject to the Court’s protective order.”); Mr. Sutton’s Motion
to Compel Disclosure of Requested Discovery (“3d Mot. to Compel Discovery”) [Dkt. No. 122]
(providing no justification for filing under seal). In addition, it seems that the government may
be applying the “sensitive” designation more broadly than the Protective Order definition would
permit. Compare Mot. for Brady Sanctions at 1 (noting the government had marked several
2 witness interview reports as sensitive), with Protective Order at ¶ 7 (defining “sensitive
materials” as “personal identity information as identified in Rule 49.1 of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure”).
It must be remembered that courts favor open criminal proceedings whenever
possible, given that “[t]he common-law right of public access to judicial records ‘is a
fundamental element of the rule of law, important to maintaining the integrity and legitimacy of
an independent Judicial Branch.’” In re Leopold to Unseal Certain Elec. Surveillance
Applications & Ords., 964 F.3d 1121, 1127 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (quoting MetLife, Inc. v. Fin.
Stability Oversight Council, 865 F.3d 661, 663 (D.C. Cir. 2017)). Indeed, “a presumption of
openness inheres in the very nature of a criminal trial under our system of justice.” Richmond
Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 573 (1980) (plurality opinion); see also Press-
Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct. of California, 464 U.S. 501, 510 (1984) (“The presumption of
openness may be overcome only by an overriding interest based on findings that closure is
essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.”).
Consequently, although the Court “may order that a filing be made under seal without
redaction,” it may “later unseal the filing or order the person who made the filing to file a
redacted version for the public record.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 49.1(d).
In view of the history of this case, the Court thinks it is important to reemphasize
to the parties that these proceedings should not be conducted primarily under seal. Rather, the
parties should file documents under seal only according to the prescriptions set forth in the
Court’s Protective Order and Unsealing Opinion, or otherwise with the express authorization of
the Court. See D.D.C. LCrR 49(f)(6)(i) (“Absent statutory authority, no case or document may
be sealed without an order from the Court.”). And documents should be marked and treated as
3 “sensitive,” as that term is defined in the Protective Order, in a tailored way so as not to require
the sealing or redaction of material that is not in fact personally identifiable information as
identified in Rule 49.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The Court nevertheless recognizes that there are various categories of
“Confidential Information” that rightfully should be protected from public disclosure. As the
Court has previously discussed, such Confidential Information includes: (1) any information that
could reveal the nature of matters occurring before the grand jury; (2) any information that could
reveal the identity of a grand jury witness; and (3) any sensitive materials, that is, personally
identifiable information. See Unsealing Opinion at 7; Protective Order at ¶ 7; see also FED. R.
CRIM. P. 6(e); FED. R. CRIM. P. 49.1(a). In addition, the identities or statements of prosecution
witnesses likely qualify as Confidential Information that should not be publicly disclosed, to the
extent the government produces such material to defendants before trial. See United States v.
Celis, 608 F.3d 818, 831-32 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (noting that neither Rule 16 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure nor Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), require the
disclosure of witness lists before trial in noncapital cases); United States v. Safavian, 233 F.R.D.
12, 15-16 (D.D.C. 2005) (noting that statements made by prospective government witnesses are
not generally discoverable before trial, except where they are “exculpatory or favorable” and
therefore “so-called Brady material” (citing FED. R. CRIM. P. 16(a)(2))).
For these reasons, the Court directs the parties to file redacted versions on the
public docket of all filings that are currently under seal because they relate to or reference
Confidential Information. See, e.g., Mot. for Brady Sanctions; Mot. for Bill of Particulars; 3d
Mot. to Compel Discovery. The parties are also directed to meet and confer before filing public
versions of those filings to attempt to agree upon the redactions necessary to ensure that
4 Confidential Information therein will not be publicly disclosed. Finally, in light of the concerns
raised by the Court herein, the parties are directed to meet and confer to attempt to agree upon a
procedure to govern future filings relating to or referencing Confidential Information.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that on or before February 15, 2022, the parties shall meet and confer
in an effort to agree upon the redactions that would be made to all filings that are currently sealed
and relate to Mr. Sutton’s Motion for Brady Sanctions [Dkt. No. 67], his Motion for a Bill of
Particulars [Dkt. No. 118], and his Motion to Compel Disclosure of Requested Discovery [Dkt.
No. 122] to ensure that Confidential Information, as defined in this opinion, is not publicly
disclosed; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that on or before February 18, 2022, the parties shall file
public versions of all such filings, redacting all Confidential Information therein; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer to attempt to agree
upon: (1) all categories of Confidential Information that shall be protected from public disclosure
in future filings; (2) a procedure to govern future filings relating to or referencing such
Confidential Information on the public docket; and (3) whether a status conference to discuss
these issues would be helpful to the parties; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that on or before February 25, 2022, counsel for the
parties shall file a joint status report noting their respective positions on these three issues.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ ___________________________ PAUL L. FRIEDMAN United States District Judge
DATE: February 4, 2022