USA v. Thomas
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and ) PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS ) ) v. ) Criminal Action No. 2015-0039 ) DELROY THOMAS, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) Attorneys: Alphonso G. Andrews, Esq., Rhonda Williams-Henry, Esq., St. Croix, U.S.V.I. For the United States Martial A. Webster, Esq., St. Croix, U.S.V.I. For Defendant ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Government’s “Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal.” (Dkt. No. 278). In its Motion, the Government requests that the Court grant its motion to “file a document under seal” without describing the nature of the document or the reasons the document should be filed under seal. It is well-settled law that there exists “a common law public right of access to judicial proceedings and records.” In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). “When a party files a motion to seal, he or she must demonstrate that ‘good cause’ exists for protection of the material at issue.” Ragbir v. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-1_15-cr-00039/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_15-cr-00039-3.pdf
SHA-256 0f908bb6766cf50bfdca40fff2817c76c4a190daaa7e0db53371aac5c6cc231d
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-0f908bb6766c
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and ) PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS ) ) v. ) Criminal Action No. 2015-0039 ) DELROY THOMAS, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) Attorneys: Alphonso G. Andrews, Esq., Rhonda Williams-Henry, Esq., St. Croix, U.S.V.I. For the United States Martial A. Webster, Esq., St. Croix, U.S.V.I. For Defendant ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Government’s “Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal.” (Dkt. No. 278). In its Motion, the Government requests that the Court grant its motion to “file a document under seal” without describing the nature of the document or the reasons the document should be filed under seal. It is well-settled law that there exists “a common law public right of access to judicial proceedings and records.” In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). “When a party files a motion to seal, he or she must demonstrate that ‘good cause’ exists for protection of the material at issue.” Ragbir v. United States, 2018 WL 3972921, at *1 (D.N.J. Aug. 20, 2018) (citing E.E.O.C. v. Kronos Inc., 620 F.3d 287, 302 (3d Cir. 2010)). “Good cause is established on a showing that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the Case: 1:15-cr-00039-WAL-GWC Document #: 282 Filed: 06/26/19 Page 1 of 2 party seeking closure. The injury must be shown with specificity.” Id. (quoting Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 722, 786 (3d Cir. 1994)). Similarly, “[t]he First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings is firmly established.” United States v. Smith, 123 F.3d 140, 146 (3d Cir. 1997) (citing Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980)). “[F]or a district court to seal a criminal proceeding or records, ‘particularized findings must be made on the record in each case, (1) establishing the existence of a compelling governmental interest, and (2) demonstrating that absent limited restrictions upon the right of access, that other interest would be substantially impaired.’” Id. at 147 (quoting United States v. Antar, 38 F.3d 1348, 1359 (3d Cir. 1994)). Thus, “where a right of access exists, the proponent of closure bears a strong burden in rebutting the ‘presumption of openness.’” Antar, 38 F.3d at 1362. Because the Government has provided no information upon which the Court can determine whether the presumption of openness has been rebutted, the Court will deny the Motion without prejudice. UPON CONSIDERATION of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the Government’s “Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal” is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED. Date: June 26, 2019 _______/s/________ WILMA A. LEWIS Chief Judge Case: 1:15-cr-00039-WAL-GWC Document #: 282 Filed: 06/26/19 Page 2 of 2