In re Voluntary Disclosures in Fifty-Five Closed Cases

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          HON. MICHAEL F. URBANSKI, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the court are nonparty Craig Frye's Motion to Seal Exhibit's [sic] Attached to His Reply in Support of His Motion to Intervene ("Motion to Seal Exhibits"), ECF No. 44, ^[1]and Motion to Seal Frye's Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene (the "Motion to Seal Reply," and collectively with the Motions to Seal Exhibits, the "Motions to Seal"), ECF No. 47, and nonparty BH Media Group, Inc.'s ("BH Media") Petition for Leave to Intervene and Oppose Sealing Motion ("Motion to Intervene" or "BH Media Mot. Intervene"), ECF No. 57.^[2] For the reasons stated below, the court will DENY Frye's Motions to Seal, GRANT BH Media's Motion to Intervene, and direct the clerk to unseal Frye's Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene (the "Reply"), ECF No. 43, and the attached nineteen exhibits (the "Exhibits").

         I. Background

         On April 30, 2018, the government filed a motion to disclose Giglio material in fifty-five related cases. E.g., Mot. Voluntary Disclosure Grand Jury Other Materials Pursuant to Brady and Giglio, ECF No. 32. Frye, a detective with the Town of Vinton Police Department, formerly a Task Force Officer with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and referenced in the Giglio material, moved to intervene and block the disclosure of the Giglio material in the fifty-five cases. E.g., Mot. Intervene, ECF No. 33.

         The court ultimately denied Frye's motions to intervene. Order ("Intervention Order"), ECF No. 55. The court held that "Frye's request [was] unprecedented" because Frye could point to no authority suggesting that a government witness could intervene as an interested party in a criminal case. Id. at 2. Instead, the court held that disclosure of potential Giglio material was firmly in the prosecutor's purview. Id. at 2.

         At issue here is Frye's Reply to his motion to intervene. Late in the evening on May 14, 2018, Frye filed his Reply along with the Exhibits, each of which contains either Giglio material or material that Frye claims is "extremely sensitive, prejudicial, and grossly inaccurate." Frye's Br. Supp. Mot. Seal Exhibits Attached His Reply Supp. Mot. Intervene ("Frye Br. Supp. Mot. Seal") at 2, United States v. Farrell. 7:12-cr-00058-MFU (W.D. Va. June 15, 2018), ECF No. 72; see Reply Exs. 1-19.^[3] Moreover, Frye's twenty-eight page Reply cited extensively from the Exhibits.

         When filing the Reply and Exhibits, Frye did not follow Local Rule 9, which governs the sealing of documents on the docket. Local Rule 9(b) requires that any party seeking to obtain a sealing order "must file an unsealed written motion containing" a generic description of the document to be sealed, the bases for sealing the document, and the duration for sealing. W.D. Va. Gen. R. 9(b)(2). Additionally, "the moving party must also tender to the court, in camera, the document proposed to be sealed." Id.

         Instead, Frye filed the Reply and the Exhibits directly on the docket, rather than in camera with the court. Frye contemporaneously filed the Motion to Seal Exhibits. Because Frye proceeded in this manner, his Reply and the Exhibits remained unsealed on the docket, where the public could view them. In the morning, approximately eight hours after Frye publicly filed the Reply, the Exhibits, and the Motion to Seal Exhibits, the court entered an order temporarily sealing the Exhibits until the Motion to Seal Exhibits could be addressed. Order, ECF No. 45.

         On that same morning, Frye filed the Motion to Seal Reply, asking the court to seal the Reply itself. Frye's Mot. Seal Frye's Reply Supp. Mot. Intervene, ECF No. 47. At argument on May 16, 2018, Frye to a large degree backed off this motion. Frye represented to the court that if it wanted to unseal the Reply, Frye thinks that would be satisfactory. While the court indicated at argument that it would unseal the Reply, the Reply remains sealed on the docket.

         II. BH Media's Motion to Intervene

         While the court denied Frye's motion to intervene, see Intervention Order 3, BH Media's Motion to Intervene finds itself on far stronger legal footing. At the threshold, Local Rule 9 allows "[a]ny person or entity, whether a party or not, [to] object to a motion to seal a document." W.D. Va. Gen. R. 9(b)(4). Local Rule 9 thus allows BH Media to oppose Frye's Motions to Seal, irrespective of BH Media's status as a party or nonparty in these cases.

         Moreover, media outlets "unquestionably have standing to challenge access to court documents." United States v. James, 663 F.Supp.2d 1018, 1020 (W.D. Wash. 2009); see also Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 262 (4th Cir. 2014) ("This Court has previously permitted news organizations to intervene in actions in which they were not otherwise parties to challenge a district court's sealing order."). This is because "[p]ublic access to judicial proceedings is consistent with the 'First Amendment and the common-law tradition that court proceedings are presumptively open to public scrutiny.'" United States v. Adams, 788 F.3d 115, 116 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Doe, 749 F.3d at 265).

         With both Local Rule 9 and the case law in mind, the court holds that BH Media has standing to oppose Frye's Motions to Seal. Accordingly, the court will grant BH Media's Motion to Intervene.

         III. Frye's Standing to File the Motions to Seal

         The Federal Public Defender (the "FPD") raises a threshold argument: Because the court has already denied Frye's motion to intervene, the FPD argues that Frye "does not have standing to seek to control or influence the presumptively public docket in these 55 cases." FPD's Opp. Frye's Mot. Seal, ECF No. 59, at 1.

         Superficially, Local Rule 9 provides some support for the FPD's argument. Local Rule 9 states: "To obtain a sealing order a party must file an unsealed written motion." W.D. Va. Gen. R. 9(b)(2). Because Frye's motion to intervene was denied and he is not a party, i Local ...