Wiesmueller v. Nettesheim

Filing 17

ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 9/18/2015. (cc: all counsel)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
CHRISTOPHER L. WIESMUELLER,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

Case No. 14-C-1384

NEAL P. NETTESHEIM, in his official
and unofficial capacity as State of Wisconsin
Circuit Court Reserve Judge,
Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 23, the Court issued a decision requesting further briefing
on Christopher Wiesmueller’s claim that the secrecy order in John Doe
investigation Case No. 10JD000007 (Milwaukee County Circuit Court),
commonly known as “John Doe I,” violates his First Amendment rights.
The defendant, the Honorable Neal P. Nettesheim, responded by lifting the
secrecy order with respect to Mr. Wiesmueller. As a result, Judge
Nettesheim argues that Wiesmueller’s First Amendment claim is now
moot. Judge Nettesheim’s order states, “I find that the interests in public
disclosure outweigh the need for continued secrecy.”
This Court reads that language to say, “I find that the interest
Wiesmueller has in his First Amendment right of disclosure outweighs the

need to further impose upon that right in order to ensure continued secrecy
to protect the John Doe investigation.” For the interest at issue here is not
public disclosure but rather Wiesmueller’s First Amendment right, if he so
chooses, to disclose his involvement in the John Doe. Whether the public
has access to this information depends first on whether Wiesmueller can
exercise his First Amendment right to disclose it. And the need for limiting
this First Amendment right to disclose, done for the purpose of protecting
an ongoing John Doe process, ends when the John Doe ends.
Therefore, there is no need to conduct a balancing test between a
participant’s First Amendment rights and the limitation of those rights
which are only found to be in the public interest to protect a John Doe
investigation when the need for that protection disappears. This is not true
of those John Doe participants, such as prosecutors, government agents,
court reporters, etc., whose First Amendment rights are not implicated in
the effort to maintain secrecy. It would appear that they are bound by the
secrecy order unless relieved by a determination that “the interests in
public disclosure outweigh the need for continued secrecy.” Here it seems is
where this balancing test applies.
The Court agrees that this case should be dismissed.
The Court’s June 23 Order granted Judge Nettesheim’s motion to
-2-

dismiss the balance of Wiesmueller’s claims. ECF No. 14. Therefore, the
Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 18th day of September, 2015.
SO ORDERED:
__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge

-3-