The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ADHAM AMIN HASSOUN,
Petitioner, ORDER
v. 1:19-CV-00370 EAW
JEFFREY SEARLS, in his official
capacity as Acting Assistant Field Office
Director and Administrator of the Buffalo
Federal Detention Facility,
Respondent.
Both parties have filed motions to seal (Dkt. 243; Dkt. 245) in connection with
Respondent’s motion to stay (Dkt. 242). Although the Court has previously allowed the
sealed filings of some of these same materials in connection with this matter, those
determinations were made during a different procedural posture in the case. Moreover, the
Court now sua sponte reconsiders those determinations, for the reasons discussed below.
The parties seek to seal materials that they are specifically relying upon in support
of their respective positions on the pending motion to stay, which the Court will have to
analyze and discuss in issuing a written decision in connection with that pending motion.
The Court further does not find that any of the parties’ justifications for sealing the
documents meets the high threshold for sealing, particularly given the fact that much of
what the parties seek to seal has already been publicly disclosed in one form or another.
For instance, Respondent generally contends that the declaration of Michael H.
Glasheen (the “Glasheen Declaration”) and attached Federal Bureau of Investigation
letterhead memorandum dated June 5, 2020 (the “FBI Letter”), must be sealed as the
material “contains sensitive, confidential, non-public, law enforcement information,
including law enforcement tactics and plans with regard to the government’s plans and
ability to monitor Petitioner.” (Dkt. 243-1 at ¶ 4). Respondent’s statement is conclusory
and is not supported by a review of the Glasheen Declaration, which does not reveal
anything particularly sensitive or confidential. Similarly, the attached FBI Letter reiterates
allegations, much of which are already in the public record. Moreover, the Court
anticipates referencing material in the FBI Letter in connection with its decision on the
pending motion to stay. As explained by the Second Circuit, strong policy reasons support
not only disclosure of the Court’s written decision, but also any underlying material on
which it relies in reaching that decision:
The presumption of access is based on the need for federal courts, although
independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a
measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the
administration of justice. Federal courts exercise powers under Article III
that impact upon virtually all citizens, but judges, once nominated and
confirmed, serve for life unless impeached through a process that is
politically and practically inconvenient to invoke. Although courts have a
number of internal checks, such as appellate review by multi-judge tribunals,
professional and public monitoring is an essential feature of democratic
control. Monitoring both provides judges with critical views of their work
and deters arbitrary judicial behavior. Without monitoring, moreover, the
public could have no confidence in the conscientiousness, reasonableness, or
honesty of judicial proceedings. Such monitoring is not possible without
access to testimony and documents that are used in the performance of
Article III functions.
United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995).
Petitioner’s motion to seal is even more general and broad, seeking to seal the
entirety of his submission except for those materials that he is able to reach agreement on
with Respondent. (See Dkt. 245-1 at ¶¶ 4-5). Petitioner cites to the alleged harm in
disclosure of unproven allegations against him and the potential impact on his ability to be
removed to a safe third country. (Id. at ¶ 2). However, the Court is not persuaded,
especially given that extensive information about Petitioner already exists in the public
domain and the fact that Respondent concedes that much of these allegations could not
establish Petitioner’s dangerousness within the parameters set by the Court. Moreover,
Petitioner does not identify with any particularity which materials need to be sealed and
for what reasons. (See generally Dkt. 245-1).
Under both the common law and the First Amendment, there is a strong presumption
of public access to judicial documents. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435
F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006); United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 1995).
“In light of this strong First Amendment presumption, continued sealing of the documents
may be justified only with specific, on-the-record findings that sealing is necessary to
preserve higher values and only if the sealing order[s] [are] narrowly tailored to achieve
that aim.” Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 47 (2d Cir. 2019). Neither party has provided
sufficient information to the Court to meet this standard.
Accordingly, the motions to seal (Dkt. 243; Dkt. 245) are hereby denied. On or
before 9:00 AM on Monday, June 29, 2020, each party must publicly file the entirety of
his papers submitted in connection with the motion to stay. The Court does not mean to
preclude either party from filing, prior to that date and time, a much more narrowly tailored
motion to seal, but any such motion must contain specifics as to any proposed redactions
and identify with respect to each proposed redaction the justification for keeping the
information from the public record. Both parties should also be aware that resolution of
any such future motion to seal will be necessary prior to the Court rendering a decision on
the pending motion to stay.
SO ORDERED.
________________________________
ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD
United States District Judge
Dated: June 26, 2020
Rochester, New York