United States v. Kenney

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF v. JEREMY LOUIS KENNEY DEFENDANT

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON

Date published: Dec 12, 2012

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 09-46-KSF (E.D. Ky. Dec. 12, 2012)

Opinion

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 09-46-KSF

12-12-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF v. JEREMY LOUIS KENNEY DEFENDANT

Karl S. Forester

OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon the motion of the Defendant, Jeremy Louis Kenney, to seal Defendant's "record of motions and proceeding and all judgments passed by this Court" [DE #131]. Defendant states that the record has been the source of "untold stress" on him and his family and that he "pray[s] that this chapter in [his] life will close without violence."

As recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978), there is a common law right to view court documents. The Sixth Circuit, when considering whether to seal court records in Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission, 710 F.2d 1165 (6th Cir. 1983), set forth the following background:

Throughout our history, the open courtroom has been a fundamental feature of the American judicial system. Basic principles have emerged to guide judicial discretion respecting public access to judicial proceedings. These principles apply as well to the determination of whether to permit access to information contained in court documents because court records often provide important, sometime the only, bases or explanations for a court's decision.

Id. at 1178. The Court further identified the following policy considerations underlying the historical public right of access to criminal trials: (1) "public trials play an important role as outlets for 'community concern, hostility, and emotions'"; (1) "public access provides a check on courts"; and (3) "open trials promote 'true and accurate factfinding.'" Id. (quoting Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 571, 592, 596 (1980)). While there are indeed exceptions to the right of access, including a defendant's right to a fair trial, "certain privacy rights of participants or third parties, trade secrets and national security," id. at 1179, a district court's discretion to seal the record of a proceeding "'is to be exercised charily.'" S.E.C. v. Van Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d 845, 848 (5th Cir.1993)(quoting Federal Savs. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Blain, 808 F.2d 395, 399 (5th Cir.1987)). Public access to judicial records "'serves to promote trustworthiness of the judicial process, to curb judicial abuses, and to provide the public with a more complete understanding of the judicial system, including a better perception of its fairness.'" Id. at 849 (quoting Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 678 (3d Cir.1988)).

In this case, Defendant does not identify a specific document or portion of a document that is currently public in the Court's record that he believes should be sealed. Indeed, the Court notes that several matters in the record in this case have already been sealed. In addition, the only justification provided for Defendant's request is that the Court's record is a source of "untold stress" on him and his family. This vague justification, particularly in light of the extremely broad request made by Defendant, is insufficient to overcome "the strong common law presumption in favor of public access to court proceedings and records." Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1179.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court, being fully and sufficiently advised, HEREBY ORDERS that Defendant's motion to seal Defendant's "record of motions and proceeding and all judgments passed by this Court" [DE #131] is DENIED.

Signed By:

Karl S. Forester

United States Senior Judge