Irvin v. Attica Correctional Facility

Filing 14

ORDER: Pursuant to the attached Order, the Respondent's 13 Motion to Seal is granted in part and denied in part. A copy of this Order has been mailed to Wayne Irvin, 12-B-2727, ATTICA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Box 149, Attica, NY 14011. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 6/19/17. (LAS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_________________________________
WAYNE IRVIN,
Petitioner,
v.

15-CV-0291-A
ORDER

ATTICA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
Respondent.
__________________________________
In this habeas corpus action, the Respondent moves to file its memorandum in
opposition and the state court record under seal, in compliance with New York Civil
Rights Law § 50-b, because Petitioner’s conviction was the result of a number of sex
crimes. Specifically, the Respondent seeks to file its opposition and the state court
record under seal to protect the identity of the victim.
“The notion that the public should have access to the proceedings and
documents of courts is integral to our system of government.” United States v. Erie
Cnty., 763 F.3d 235, 238-89 (2d Cir. 2014). This notion, and the “common law right” it
supports (Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006)), is
grounded in 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.” United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d
1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995).

Thus, to ensure judicial accountability and to promote

confidence in the judiciary, the public has a presumptive right to “access . . . testimony
and documents that are used in the performance of Article III functions.” Id. See also
id. (referring to the “presumption of access” to judicial documents). There is no question
1

that the Respondent’s opposition, and the state court records that underlie the claims in
this case, are judicial documents to which there is a presumption of access.
But the presumption of public access to judicial documents, like nearly all
presumptions, may be rebutted. Thus, once a court determines that documents are
“judicial documents” to which the presumption of public access applies, the court “must
determine the weight of that presumption” by looking to “the role of the material at issue
in the exercise of Article III judicial power and the resultant value of such information to
those monitoring the federal courts.” Erie Cnty., 763 F.3d at 239 (quotation marks
omitted).

The court must then “balance competing considerations against” the

presumption of access. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119. One such competing consideration
is, unquestionably, the need to protect victims of sex crimes “from likely adverse
personal, professional, and psychological consequences” of being known as the victims
of sex crimes. United States v. Thompson, 178 F. Supp. 3d 86, 96 (W.D.N.Y. 2016)
(quotation marks omitted) (addressing First Amendment concerns raised by proposed
protective order in sex trafficking prosecution).
The Respondent’s proposed wholesale sealing, however, is far too broad to
protect this interest. The Respondent may, therefore, file its memorandum in opposition
under seal by the date on which the Respondent’s opposition is due. However, within
30 days of that date, the Respondent shall file, on the public docket, a copy of its
memorandum with appropriate redactions.
Further, based on the Respondent’s representation that the victim’s name and
other identifying information appear “throughout the state court record and trial
transcript,” thereby making “redaction . . . not practicable,” Docket No. 13-1 ¶ 5, the

2

Respondent may file the state court record under seal by the date on which the record
is due.

Certain parts of the state court record, however, are surely not subject to

redaction—for instance, the decision of the Fourth Department, which is publicly
available. See People v. Irvin, 111 A.D. 1294. Thus, within 60 days of the date on
which the record is due, the Respondent shall file, on the public docket, a copy of the
state court record with appropriate redactions. If particular documents, or pages within
particular documents, require enough redaction as to make the redacted document or
redacted page intelligible, the Respondent may redact an entire document or an entire
page.
SO ORDERED.

__s/Richard J. Arcara____________
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: June 19, 2017
Buffalo, New York

3