%PDF-1.4 % 2 0 obj <>stream x{{@SWZ ! !!HD!D*(`T`*:U|[Smk[Fk}vδuqn;:J鴎Ng;V>ǜ{kkA-:c;9 xs޲vxvڸ^OyoY߳ѧܷߥKvK^}[.>{]2\l8J/f\^(Px! 2.8/$]\q_>y^8q}zr|ި})?d4[eZM=7=[[íj}(Omoy==Ta=t-> >8z`p66p?5A?N_A 36a>}x2,?a34C,Ű~h6hhep',NX+g Vծ/K8nDd(xޏ{ TB?}s|T0‡(>!7p.G1~ xW<^ſw` t5'_ cLT8Y f!l eea,SYa:X$b,ŲX313Hf Ϭ,٘%$ ~86 N3~'ix^?0u<؁n<28+Pd̷*QR(UamXxNon3-=1)91"5͙>25*sY9'y%Ko4yJYi+f̬u{ں90w^}M -^ڶޱ+:W5]k\{M{lݶ}]w}Ͻwࡇ9c:|DxO?g=u_x_}ƛoWoއߜ|_E:ޕޅIkA+ϛ1td'0/?/7OyY&H9y 9|ǿ~#=]3ym7ꈻOxBM?_])KZɾTXCXKLk܏MA;&rˠ=%O#KZ;7$fg7yzD0O}gP+4gv7vs"+M.>mjyٔɓn+X-L5v̑δIv[5b҅i5Â*B03u~nzSy:sn`oon首oil\Ma.g X]^Im*$E\FzXg.{-)+X RG`SΟdm=Iy(gXRQqa|Z`+S/+,*XRGCrC~<[Gl=uzk+#l9BrgQkaG-z}Dd(X/u3gNiz{zl9ġ|el%jMٿRtjo9톹TwW07*?5C5 ^5Ts{vtZe_[H[VXoc-֞0sJnk&J~Nj^7v .=Z`r9&4 ZT[ 0{[?.{N`;ǜ:ڢByNk_gp}?XEM*.n~]zE|fsQO]|,kys;> FAU!ol( \ًz*Mudi͕6ZPŁFJ,~V0trl@ >h+eke09ʦ2WXjaP:!>JHK r͕ CI 0ЎoTp*Ek >#USWwJ' adeǼ`.0e|m\=ʐuث7nP ,T=T{7*_,T U{Ti=|pk`@ K!+[?gg1Yl=nn XK{*sA~ R,>!u9 ǭ7M|NKWM+OPHWP7xU>gp\ƹ f^#MJnKe\wA橆xNAvLj'2?KQ H俋|VU-詫i(vyǑ)BAֆ `A SGthDC- PB;B0+V0 "UqAga DYΈ M8#n}'gY6R'[V ^O18sU5m鬡2-Yc=pG_,pcVБ0jX7D /3"遫'yG35cG8jB`NV6hvSDhuUٚlcaofΏeUML ea؊a V f%[&l=]w.+nI~E4JO1 51GϮAS(v;>+`ŽJűʦ1¹OorƏv&A39"v| rD<9yW7N<:|eSGkw*Y_J*m0k3>xEr]\2ӬrϖΪxdٴT&oN^Ik! ݩ=BPba!6Z/SHhk\iZ&2uT cɴ!'_,tZxsa,,L{޵v5v5A9^ߑԝ:,a6YGTwd=3;U=*֩Q}qEQC(m(edzQK)KL2 D۬31S3o3uy%h :&9;b:QAɅiYCa{udcc22[9mxvժgrNiSoj}lphK~͸q nq16xnpC1aᅾSZ갴|jk7W߷$/o}UTy3s&=oBĠ̙mVk~efJ7-[yWmIj9/2i1\Nx^v7NGސGCؑ0Vn^o,tzL؞b1[bII51"B,qFG)D00GG#2";%(ȹlD#7Xk嫍jbQQR/^ꋼh²(r4?ޗ]r$)Mb9 1V2~օiY󽆣U"Kjۻ('/dgoճ(qZ&8i;VDWlѪc WN?xlr*Wg!j/};AP&)2X&WE>}<t^uap" m+AelG,!4 ܌BnnN))XWI[%,a'˂*B- a TBJ`@)2骡?*U)Eʖ_HB6L\ZYJT* z&d B? L8&B-3 ,Pgi5\5HN"ED,e&)"Xu#MH\;7YlFYhQsip_= ,ijA$NMIk9D:n @4Ի=peHGdNHcmvV\Iq+BI rǢ AU ZExN2r y7?be1?x#lz{+-/LfLp'ws{_E9`2PqVxU*:~0=+\]/J8/)>%$Y#ӑnOQ/__ސԩgL޴ Ľ',HR6EMt;OVV *EIM$}݀NP0NU ʛmg~Z"']hV<+gϯ=x=WKkǵ|Ά-~sb&yN82`<ݡ2V<Xz7H#3-NS]3vXalAXϷ@M @ sk)O2d1Z:u;vӔh\e`=sVB|QG)h).YcnHa:*$/S*u|9/mܻRr4qvWIZ0a" wTg^y29c50ɎBJ;|9s3D ˨.% o^ +"pfɤPZ &JYbL5KflњU.YUJ`PTRYL]̱-/V0zLC1ÈXwӤgչYs%#a|eYÞ ]4k-XRjv֌,_*\3V7a.+3+YuFsdpr旛bRÓ\S?u4:͂dHMcpE,P#{F2c֐! !:9مcՑё+"7G ̸(wF|z( Buyp$kbl.v;b٥b-)U|ilUCU&~LI_72h'3}ϐ̲ln/K.)?lkQϙw5iNtޘ$A-IO?l{h~zzC禤?Ƚfrqs:b(D}WU5^5ۯVIƫr7yF4RݑisZCǠ'OJG='K%xz**蓮J쒄~Wb%l$L*!etry$J}5A[ $=u<='wϢQ(C;gy_?؊lwc!L х`uK1%wjPЕ QORFTҕi5~A}`/m'VWRb¢#&5NNaqp;Xg[W<ՏMJ_I`i슱)eE ې;%p 򖘪LDYds~>i11kpZmVTi;s)r7/ Q5h4e$0hdr1/Uqd<0R@o)=O&P vOmoSRT܉S%~7Lj"% FX(STE //#GH4I4hQQQ]i#>2C4HtHz yS8ȂF^~/5,}?"s8ONP4?Hyr)M#J%xz«$>4Ә|iejc [x{(Co"@z2Ȣ~&*wGo \4_FtpuϸaM$@Gsn$ bYR"րlҖ[GpA'| ў~ ۥĉ"K*x*GIDrV0P/ȁٷþX &#x_XKXs)? 0#w)_ *_ʉd '.ͭ{3먭TU(#Xccǔn;JDj. սF<_PD2ކѼZK +5plf{`dXQj(lehl+T+o|;Sž%M29r#gU<<= =rP"m!ai}P*akC. A1:${;vGJi2t|Bmc_B$<,joM9)R/'s2αxJJIOmr'魄Ӎu  n"vF9puVrP~J8Q2'⯕Q\tC\SD5t kO 6 *9PꡈK~ 9QptnP:[lӃ!Q &~.o#KYA_7T>Wȷ)?}#q?r?P[&+3PI6]F4hW!2J3=(N|-I1#ȟ J8G~)5,OcK^>_f~&udv~ e|np/B<)Πm^8O)=ɿ5pF8zH%$_|Fupy: \6aj'?x߅y<Nx-}~S< ".hLqėįJSE+ l\w<Щ.S.r9  yn3d=!cnVt2CD^xQ)Ԧ-e9x@x\Et'f"/@N;'.z]a2`췂 T"%*67W/OjSC~_o#~ϳ}8V{<}Pqe2ɟQtokx5 =oʒL_{Lz+k0͕)WjrgqO1i?x O<.]}ў>.'հ0Ҝ3cXᰭW屷2 Q_l.Q endstream endobj 3 0 obj <> endobj 1 0 obj <> endobj 4 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 5 0 obj <>stream xM@D)Ysi+l`@41)&yA%oD!tQZq׎ b Hټds;OO|Ɇ{Ot)?]Cm|J s endstream endobj 6 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 7 0 obj <>stream xM @D)Y$^+lE$x̠lN©Ծ9)26ԜrtnDx?\#>stream x+| endstream endobj 9 0 obj <>stream xM@D)Y84j F@0 _+&yR^rBNkXYY6Xr/sqit)_.C u7;" endstream endobj 10 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 11 0 obj <>stream xM @D)Y9rMB$ b1ZBZ㯟Sr6Ԝr#8CsMP:Δ>v10v endstream endobj 12 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 13 0 obj <>stream xM @D)Y9r]D \a+H$_7d]B,lŝrg S0,q/}ćpM%(yg7ڄ2吥= endstream endobj 14 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 15 0 obj <>stream xM@D)Yra+l`51WLrB^߾:q!0E)r@&po>~hJgޙ2 0-̶!(,:& endstream endobj 16 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 17 0 obj <>stream xM @DSBMvZṼH$/\$g3JB\:q~bSSE2v\r/K8CS(ygOtlrR; endstream endobj 18 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 19 0 obj <>stream xM@D)Ysi+l`@41)&y *y% {ӊv$h2C"Ify[@<=%>ŊGҙɦ>stream x+| endstream endobj 21 0 obj <>stream xM @D)Y9\+lE/<$o`R^rB^΍[k RSdY2Tr/s,} P:Δ6f9J)ot endstream endobj 22 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 23 0 obj <>stream xM@D)Ysi+l`@41)&y Jy) ;~=5n-su0E.%8V>zzyx \۾z(ygWMX߆fIv endstream endobj 24 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 25 0 obj <>stream xM@D)YsiZ+l@@M-qVAC?{ a,Kfa{@n<=4>|Jgޙr&]10[NQJy9 endstream endobj 26 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 27 0 obj <>stream xM@D)Yri+l`@4!WL|=͖6nX$a4[6a]ď +mW=μ3eEa/D)e: endstream endobj 28 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 29 0 obj <>stream xM@D)YsiZ+l@@^1ˠes#֚XI",Kea{@n<=4>|Jgޙr&:vrRs endstream endobj 30 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 31 0 obj <>stream xM1@+:oӨ$7uhҴE%o9F!t}N\sb+$(du6OO̜{/ǥGҙwrڥi:>/t endstream endobj 32 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 33 0 obj <>stream xMP-w{_AkI^akqd>stream x+| endstream endobj 35 0 obj <>stream xM@D)Ysr\'QkI5 B^1T2 ; Zq.|Yy>X_r/G(yg/ۈC,=䘤7= endstream endobj 36 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 37 0 obj <>stream xM @D)Y\NMB$^7cT5—-B;SnklrHRv endstream endobj 38 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 39 0 obj <>stream xM@D)YsIZ+l`@MBNϝK_~ySVijCėx (ygOtU-̲cZZ endstream endobj 40 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 41 0 obj <>stream xM @D)Y9sNMB$^7cT5qt)7_}lrHRw  endstream endobj 42 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 43 0 obj <>stream xM @D)Y]SIDSA|S MMI*yu endstream endobj 44 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 45 0 obj <>stream xM @D)Y\rM…H_7!$YZى;4a.wYl 5—㘇t)7|"f!I-/< endstream endobj 46 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 47 0 obj <>stream xS*r 2T0343E\F @R F @\. ǂ+CC]SCSC0pOR0P@n9)V FFtVc4##͐,.@.t endstream endobj 48 0 obj [/PDF/Text] endobj 49 0 obj <> endobj 50 0 obj <> endobj 55 0 obj <>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 51 0 obj <> endobj 56 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 664.5 Tm /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 115.326 -8.4 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc (PUBLISHED) Tj /F1 19 Tf 84.2 Tz -114.766 -38 Td 1.9 Tw (UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 66.136 -18 Td 1.2 Tw (FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -66.696 -18 Td () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw 0 0 Td 183.8 0 Td /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz -2.18 -17.6 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -2.8 Td 1.2 Tw (In Re: A) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (PPLICATION) Tj 2.12 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (OF) Tj 2.12 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (THE) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( U) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (S) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj 2.12 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (OF) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( A) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (MERICA) Tj 2.12 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (FOR) Tj 2.12 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (AN) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( O) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (RDER) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (P) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (URSUANT) Tj 2.12 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (TO) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( 18 U.S.C. S) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ECTION) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (2703\(D\)) Tj 0 -18 Td 173 0 Td -173 -18 Td (U) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (TATES OF) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( A) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (MERICA) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 85.668 -18 Td (Plaintiff-Appellee,) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 132.402 -13.8 Td (No. 11-5151) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz -36.45 -1.3 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -99.12 -2.9 Td 1.2 Tw (v.) Tj -82.5 -18 Td (J) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ACOB) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( A) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (PPELBAUM) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (; R) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (OP) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( G) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ONGGRIJP) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (;) Tj 0 -13.2 Td (B) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (IRGITTA) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( J) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ONSDOTTIR) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 61.008 -18 Td (Defendants-Appellants,) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 17.328 -18 Td (and) Tj -78.336 -18 Td (T) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (WITTER) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, I) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (NCORPORATED) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 121.008 -18 Td (Defendant.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 60.612 -8.8 Td 1.6 Ts 2 Tw () Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -142.878 -24.9 Td 1.2 Tw (Appeal from the United States District Court) Tj -12.75 -12.5 Td (for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.) Tj 48.72 -12.5 Td (Liam O'Grady, District Judge.) Tj 5.298 -12.6 Td (\(1:11-dm-00003-TCB-LO-1\)) Tj 5.202 -25 Td (Argued: October 26, 2012) Tj -1.332 -25.2 Td (Decided: January 25, 2013) Tj -70.794 -25 Td (Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and) Tj -5.538 -12.5 Td (Samuel G. WILSON, United States District Judge for the) Tj 15.192 -12.6 Td (Western District of Virginia, sitting by designation.) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm 0 G .9 w 0 -81.95 m 183.8 -81.95 l s .5 w 0 -160.15 m 173 -160.15 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -195.9 m 186.6 -89.8 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -319 m 186.6 -212.9 l s .9 w 0 -325.95 m 183.3 -325.95 l s .5 w 0 -512.75 m 300 -512.75 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g ET Q endstream endobj 57 0 obj <> endobj 58 0 obj <> endobj 59 0 obj <> endobj 60 0 obj <> endobj 66 0 obj <> endobj 67 0 obj <> endobj 68 0 obj <> endobj 69 0 obj <> endobj 70 0 obj <> endobj 71 0 obj <> endobj 72 0 obj <> endobj 73 0 obj <> endobj 61 0 obj <>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 62 0 obj <>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 63 0 obj <>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 64 0 obj <>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 65 0 obj <>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 74 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.28 Tw 0 Tc (Petition denied by published opinion. Judge Gregory wrote) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.75 Tw (the opinion, in which Judge Duncan joined. Judge Wilson) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (wrote a separate concurring opinion.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 120.996 -44.2 Td (COUNSEL) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz -120.996 -26.2 Td 2 Tw (ARGUED:) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Aden J. Fine, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 4.14 Tw (UNION, New York, New York, for Appellants. Andrew) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .21 Tw (Peterson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.81 Tw (Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz (ON BRIEF:) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Cindy A.) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .05 Tw (Cohn, Lee Tien, Marcia Hofman, ELECTRONIC FRONTIER) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .23 Tw (FOUNDATION, San Francisco, California, Rebecca K. Glen-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.83 Tw (berg, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF VIR-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 6.54 Tw (GINIA FOUNDATION, INC., Richmond, Virginia, for) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.9 Tw (Appellant Birgitta Jonsdottir; Rachael E. Meny, John W.) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .84 Tw (Keker, Steven P. Ragland, KEKER & VAN NEST LLP, San) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .1 Tw (Francisco, California, John K. Zwerling, Stuart Sears, ZWER-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.14 Tw (LING, LEIBIG & MOSELEY, PC, Alexandria, Virginia, for) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.85 Tw (Appellant Jacob Appelbaum; John D. Cline, LAW OFFICE) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.5 Tw (OF JOHN D. CLINE, San Francisco, California, K.C. Max-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.26 Tw (well, LAW OFFICE OF) Tj 3 Tw ( ) Tj 2.26 Tw (K.C. MAXWELL, San Francisco,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 5.2 Tw (California, Nina J. Ginsberg, DIMUROGINSBERG, PC,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.95 Tw (Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant Rop Gonggrijp. Neil H.) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.93 Tw (MacBride, United States Attorney, Lindsay Kelly, Assistant) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .47 Tw (United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 123.666 -44.2 Td (OPINION) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -123.666 -26.2 Td (GREGORY, Circuit Judge:) Tj 12 -26.2 Td .07 Tw (We are called upon to determine the public's right to access) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 2.5 Tw (orders issued under 18 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.5 Tw (2703\(d\) and related docu-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3 Tw (ments at the pre-grand jury phase of an ongoing criminal) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.25 Tw (investigation. Because we find that there is no First Amend-) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -59.35 m 300 -59.35 l s .5 w 0 -380.55 m 300 -380.55 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (2) Tj 54.1105 0 Td (In Re: A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (PPLICATION) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (OF) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (THE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 75 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2 Tw 0 Tc (ment right to access such documents, and the common law) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 2.41 Tw (right to access such documents is presently outweighed by) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.2 Tw (countervailing interests, we deny the request for relief.) Tj 146.502 -25.3 Td (I.) Tj -2.334 -25.3 Td (A.) Tj -132.168 -25.3 Td 1.66 Tw (Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of) Tj -12 -12.7 Td 1.8 Tw (1986, commonly known as the Stored Communications Act) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .92 Tw (\("SCA"\), was enacted to protect the privacy of users of elec-) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 4.86 Tw (tronic communications by criminalizing the unauthorized) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .33 Tw (access of the contents and transactional records of stored wire) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 2.71 Tw (and electronic communications, while providing an avenue) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 2.55 Tw (for law enforcement entities to compel a provider of elec-) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 2.52 Tw (tronic communication services to disclose the contents and) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 2.18 Tw (records of electronic communications. Pub. L. No. 99508,) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.87 Tw (100 Stat. 1848, 1868 \(codified at 18 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.87 Tw (2701-2711\).) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.15 Tw (As one Senator remarked, the SCA was "designed to protect) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 0 Tw (legitimate law enforcement needs while minimizing intrusions) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.18 Tw (on the privacy of system users as well as the business needs) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.95 Tw (of electronic communications system providers." 132 Cong.) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.2 Tw (Rec. 14601 \(1986\) \(statement of Sen. Leahy\). ) Tj 12 -25.3 Td 3.71 Tw (To obtain records of stored electronic communications,) Tj -12 -12.8 Td 1.37 Tw (such as a subscriber's name, address, length of subscription,) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .64 Tw (and other like data, the government must secure either a war-) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.03 Tw (rant pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41, or a) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.33 Tw (court order under 18 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.33 Tw (2703\(d\). 18 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.33 Tw (2703\(c\).) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .96 Tw (Orders issued under ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .96 Tw (2703\(d\) may be granted if the govern-) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.06 Tw (ment "offers specific and articulable facts showing that there) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.2 Tw (are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .55 Tw (or electronic communication, or the records or other informa-) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.03 Tw (tion sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .96 Tw (investigation." 18 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .96 Tw (2703\(d\). This is essentially a rea-) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.2 Tw (sonable suspicion standard. ) Tj 12 -25.4 Td .6 Tw (In seeking access to records, the government need not give) Tj -12 -12.8 Td 6.07 Tw (prior notice to the subscriber or customer. 18 U.S.C.) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 450.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (3) Tj -240.3895 0 Td (In Re: A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (PPLICATION) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (OF) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (THE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 76 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.03 Tw 0 Tc () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.03 Tw (2703\(c\)\(3\). The SCA also provides for gag orders, which) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.57 Tw (direct the recipient of a ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.57 Tw (2703\(d\) order to refrain from dis-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.81 Tw (closing the existence of the order or investigation. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( 18) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (2705\(b\).) Tj 144.498 -26.3 Td (B.) Tj -132.498 -26.3 Td 2.12 Tw (This case involves the ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.12 Tw (2703\(d\) orders pertaining to the) Tj -12 -13.3 Td 2 Tw (Government's request for records of electronic communica-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 4.75 Tw (tions relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. The) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.03 Tw (underlying facts of the investigation, which are not presently) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .6 Tw (before us, relate to the unauthorized release of classified doc-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 3.38 Tw (uments to WikiLeaks.org, and the alleged involvement of) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (Bradley E. Manning, a U.S. Army Private First Class. ) Tj 12 -26.3 Td 1.03 Tw (As part of its investigation, the Government petitioned the) Tj -12 -13.3 Td 2.25 Tw (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.33 Tw (obtained an order pursuant to ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.33 Tw (2703\(d\), from a magistrate) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .91 Tw (judge \("Twitter Order"\), directing Twitter, Inc. \("Twitter"\) to) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.21 Tw (disclose records of electronic communications pertaining to) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.88 Tw (Appellants Jacob Appelbaum, Rop Gonggrijp, and Birgitta) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.7 Tw (Jonsdottir \("Subscribers"\).) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (1) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Specifically, the order directed) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.11 Tw (Twitter to provide Subscribers' names, usernames, personal) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .54 Tw (contact information, account information, connection records,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .55 Tw (financial data,) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (2) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( length of service, direct messages to and from) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.42 Tw (email addresses and Internet Protocol addresses for all com-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.71 Tw (munications between November 1, 2009, and December 14,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (2010. ) Tj 12 -26.3 Td 1.85 Tw (The issuing magistrate judge determined that prior notice) Tj -12 -13.2 Td .24 Tw ("to any person" of the Twitter Order, the Government's appli-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.23 Tw (cation for the Twitter Order \("Twitter Application"\), and the) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .76 Tw (1) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The Twitter Order also sought information pertaining to Manning and) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 1.15 Tw (Julian Assange, WikiLeaks.org's founder. Manning and Assange did not) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (challenge the Twitter Order or participate in litigating access. ) Tj 10 -14 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .35 Tw (2) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The Government subsequently discarded its request for financial infor-) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (mation. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -430.15 m 300 -430.15 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (4) Tj 54.1105 0 Td (In Re: A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (PPLICATION) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (OF) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (THE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 77 0 obj <> endobj 80 0 obj <> endobj 81 0 obj <> endobj 78 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.48 Tw 0 Tc (ongoing criminal investigation, would "seriously jeopardize) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.18 Tw (the investigation." Consequently, the magistrate judge sealed) Tj 0 -13 Td .22 Tw (the Twitter Order and Application, and directed Twitter not to) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.78 Tw (disclose their existence, or the investigation to any person) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.55 Tw (unless and until otherwise ordered by the court. On January) Tj 0 -13 Td .53 Tw (5, 2011, upon the Government's motion, the magistrate judge) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .58 Tw (unsealed the Twitter Order and authorized Twitter to disclose) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (the order to Subscribers. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 4.08 Tw (On January 26, 2011, Subscribers moved the court to) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .66 Tw (vacate the Twitter Order, unseal all documents relating to the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.87 Tw (Twitter Order, and unseal and publicly docket any other) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .37 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .37 Tw (2703\(d\) orders on the subject of the investigation pertaining) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .41 Tw (to Subscribers that were issued to companies other than Twit-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (ter \("Other ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (2703\(d\) Orders"\). ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.7 Tw (Following a hearing on the motions, the magistrate judge) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 3.75 Tw (issued a memorandum opinion and an order denying the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.11 Tw (motion to vacate, and partially granting the motion to unseal) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .73 Tw (as follows: it \(1\) granted the motion to unseal pleadings filed) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.25 Tw (during the litigation over the Twitter Order; \(2\) denied the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.91 Tw (motion to unseal the Twitter Application; \(3\) denied the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.36 Tw (motion to unseal the Other ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.36 Tw (2703\(d\) Orders; and \(4\) took) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.44 Tw (under advisement the issue of public docketing of the Other) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .25 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .25 Tw (2703\(d\) Orders and related motions. In ruling on the motion) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (to unseal, the magistrate judge determined that there was no) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .62 Tw (First Amendment right to access the Twitter Application, and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (the Other ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .33 Tw (2703\(d\) Orders and their applications. The magis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td (trate judge also determined that the common law presumption) Tj 0 -13.1 Td (of access to judicial records was overcome because the sealed) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .45 Tw (documents contained "sensitive nonpublic facts, including the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .17 Tw (identity of targets and witnesses in an ongoing criminal inves-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (tigation.") Tj 12 -26 Td .81 Tw (While Subscribers' request for public docketing was pend-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .96 Tw (ing, the Eastern District reviewed and changed the docketing) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .83 Tw (procedures of its clerk's office. Specifically, the Eastern Dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .52 Tw (trict instituted new case-numbering procedures by creating an) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 450.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (5) Tj -240.3895 0 Td (In Re: A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (PPLICATION) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (OF) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (THE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 79 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .21 Tw 0 Tc ("EC" docket for recording cases pertaining to requests for pen) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.48 Tw (registers and ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.48 Tw (2703\(d\) orders. The EC docket is a "running) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .82 Tw (list" that is publicly available from the district court's clerk's) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.22 Tw (office. It indicates all assigned case numbers, the date of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.83 Tw (assignment, the presiding judge, and whether the case is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.25 Tw (sealed. However, it lacks individual docket entries for all) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.54 Tw (types of documents filed in each case and the dates of such) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (entries. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 2.7 Tw (Following the creation of the EC docket, the magistrate) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .28 Tw (judge denied Subscribers' public docketing request, reasoning) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (that "there exists no right to public notice of all the types of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.76 Tw (documents filed in a sealed case." Subscribers then filed) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.08 Tw (objections to the magistrate judge's sealing and docketing) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (decisions with the district court. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.9 Tw (In reviewing the magistrate judge's decisions, the district) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.15 Tw (court applied a clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.24 Tw (of review and overruled Subscribers' objections. The district) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.91 Tw (court stated that it "also conducted a ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (de novo) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( review and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.08 Tw (f[ound] that [the magistrate judge]'s findings and orders sur-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.1 Tw (vive a more demanding scrutiny." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In re Appl. of the U.S. for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.43 Tw (an Order Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.43 Tw (2703\(d\)) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 830 F. Supp. 2d) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (114, 122 n.7 \(E.D. Va. 2011\). The district court then affirmed) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (the magistrate judge's sealing and docketing decisions.) Tj 12 -26 Td (Subscribers appealed.) Tj 132.504 -26 Td (II.) Tj -132.504 -26 Td .2 Tw (We first address the basis for our jurisdiction over this mat-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td (ter. We have stated "[m]andamus, not appeal, `is the preferred) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.08 Tw (method of review for orders restricting [access] to criminal) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.67 Tw (proceedings.'" ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Balt. Sun Co. v. Goetz) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 886 F.2d 60, 63 \(4th) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.51 Tw (Cir. 1989\) \(quoting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Wash. Post Co. v. Soussoudis) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 807 F.2d) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.25 Tw (383, 388 \(4th Cir. 1986\)\). As mandamus is the preferred) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (method for reviewing courts' orders restricting access to crim-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .15 Tw (inal proceedings, we treat Subscribers' appeal as a petition for) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (6) Tj 54.1105 0 Td (In Re: A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (PPLICATION) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (OF) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (THE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 82 0 obj <>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 52 0 obj <> endobj 83 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .55 Tw 0 Tc (mandamus, and we have jurisdiction under the All Writs Act,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (28 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (1651. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Wash. Post Co.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 807 F.2d at 388.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (3) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.6 Td 1.78 Tw ("[W]rits of mandamus are to be issued only in extraordi-) Tj -12 -13.4 Td 1.12 Tw (nary circumstances." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 393 \(citing ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Platt v. Minn. Mining) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.55 Tw (& Mfg. Co.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj ( 376 U.S. 240, 245 \(1964\)\). To successfully) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.37 Tw (obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner must show that "he has) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .72 Tw (a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought," and "there) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .34 Tw (are no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .33 Tw (re Braxton) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj ( 258 F.3d 250, 261 \(4th Cir. 2001\) \(citations omit-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .92 Tw (ted\). For the reasons that follow, Subscribers fail to establish) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.8 Tw (they have a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (and therefore, we deny the petition for mandamus.) Tj 142.506 -26.6 Td (III.) Tj -130.506 -26.5 Td 3.85 Tw (Subscribers raise two substantive issues on appeal: \(1\)) Tj -12 -13.4 Td .33 Tw (whether the district court erred in refusing to unseal the Other) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .85 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .85 Tw (2703\(d\) Orders and derivative motions and orders concern-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .87 Tw (ing such orders; and \(2\) the sufficiency of the docketing sys-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3 Tw (tem employed by district courts in the Eastern District of) Tj /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (Virginia.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (4) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Overlaying these two issues is whether the district) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.07 Tw (court applied the proper standard of review to the magistrate) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.33 Tw (judge's decisions. We first address the procedural issue, and) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (then address the substantive issues in turn.) Tj 144.168 -26.5 Td (A.) Tj -132.168 -26.5 Td 6 Tw (Subscribers contend that in reviewing the magistrate) Tj -12 -13.3 Td 4.53 Tw (judge's decisions, the district court erred by applying a) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26.2 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.3 Tw (3) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (We note that even if we treat this request for relief as an appealable) Tj -10 -11.3 Td 1.67 Tw (collateral order under ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 337 U.S.) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 1 Tw (541 \(1949\), we would reach the same result. ) Tj 10 -14.1 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.03 Tw (4) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (We do not address the following issues abandoned on appeal: \(1\) the) Tj -10 -11.3 Td 1.86 Tw (denial of the motion to vacate the Twitter Order; \(2\) the denial of the) Tj 0 -11.3 Td .41 Tw (motion to unseal the Twitter Application; and \(3\) the denial of the motion) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 1 Tw (to unseal ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (applications) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( for the Other ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1 Tw (2703\(d\) Orders. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -407.05 m 300 -407.05 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 450.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7) Tj -240.3895 0 Td (In Re: A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (PPLICATION) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (OF) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (THE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 84 0 obj <>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 85 0 obj <>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 86 0 obj <>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 87 0 obj <>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 88 0 obj <>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 89 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .4 Tw 0 Tc ("clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard, as opposed to) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .67 Tw (a ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (de novo) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( standard of review. We have held that a magistrate) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 3.66 Tw (judge's power to control access to judicial documents or) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .75 Tw (docket sheets derives from the district court's inherent power) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.07 Tw (to control access. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Wash. Post Co. v. Hughes) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 923 F.2d) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.61 Tw (324, 326 n.2 \(4th Cir. 1991\) \("A magistrate's power to seal) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .18 Tw (or unseal documents derives from the district court's power to) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .97 Tw (take such actions"\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see also ) Tj (Ƶ v. Holder) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 673 F.3d 245,) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.09 Tw (256 \(4th Cir. 2011\) \(whether to seal a docket sheet is within) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (the district court's inherent power\).) Tj 12 -26.4 Td .03 Tw (A magistrate judge's power to control access falls under the) Tj -12 -13.3 Td 1.56 Tw ("additional duties" prong of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 5.61 Tw (U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 5.61 Tw (636\(b\)\(3\), and decisions under this prong are) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.88 Tw (accorded ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (de novo) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( review by the district court. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Hughes) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 923) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .41 Tw (F.2d at 326 n.2 \(citing ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Matthews v. Weber) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 423 U.S. 261, 273) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .28 Tw (\(1976\)\). Consequently, in this proceeding, both the magistrate) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .8 Tw (judge's sealing and docketing decisions fall within the "addi-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .72 Tw (tional duties" provision of ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .72 Tw (636\(b\)\(3\), and are reviewable ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (de) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.47 Tw (novo) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. Upon a careful examination of the district court's rul-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.14 Tw (ings, we hold that the district court applied the appropriate) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (standard of review to the magistrate judge's decisions.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (5) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 144.498 -26.3 Td 1.2 Tw (B.) Tj -132.498 -26.3 Td .25 Tw (Subscribers next contend that the district court erred in per-) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 1.03 Tw (mitting the Other ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.03 Tw (2703\(d\) Orders and related documents to) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.17 Tw (remain sealed because these documents are subject to the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.57 Tw (right of access. The right of public access derives from two) Tj 0 -13.2 Td (independent sources: the First Amendment and the common) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.45 Tw (law. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Va. Dep't of State Police v. Wash. Post) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 386 F.3d 567,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.23 Tw (575 \(4th Cir. 2004\). "The distinction between the rights of) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .25 Tw (access afforded by the common law and the First Amendment) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .95 Tw (5) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (As we noted in our discussion of the facts, although the district court) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 1.68 Tw (purported to apply a "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard, it) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .64 Tw (nevertheless found that the magistrate judge's decisions survived ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (de novo) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (review. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -444.15 m 300 -444.15 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (8) Tj 54.1105 0 Td (In Re: A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (PPLICATION) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (OF) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (THE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 90 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.18 Tw 0 Tc (is `significant,' because the common law `does not afford as) Tj 0 -12.4 Td 1.44 Tw (much substantive protection to the interests of the press and) Tj 0 -12.4 Td .41 Tw (the public as does the First Amendment.'" ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( \(quoting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Goetz) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -12.5 Td .99 Tw (886 F.2d at 64; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 846 F.2d) Tj 0 -12.5 Td .85 Tw (249, 253 \(4th Cir. 1988\)\). Specifically, the common law pre-) Tj 0 -12.5 Td .03 Tw (sumes a right to access ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (all) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( judicial records and documents, but) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 3.34 Tw (this presumption can be rebutted if "the public's right of) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 2.26 Tw (access is outweighed by competing interests." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In re Knight) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 2.16 Tw (Publ'g Co.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 743 F.2d 231, 235 \(4th Cir. 1984\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see ) Tj (United) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 2.03 Tw (States v. Moussaoui) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 65 F. App'x 881, 886 \(4th Cir. 2003\)) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 1.25 Tw (\(unpublished\). On the other hand, the First Amendment pro-) Tj 0 -12.5 Td .8 Tw (vides a right of access only to ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (particular) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( judicial records and) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 2.36 Tw (documents, and this right yields only in the existence of a) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 1.15 Tw ("compelling governmental interest . . . [that is] narrowly tai-) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 2.08 Tw (lored to serve that interest." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Va. Dep't of State Police) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 386) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 1.2 Tw (F.3d at 575.) Tj 146.832 -24.7 Td (i.) Tj -134.832 -24.8 Td .27 Tw (For a right of access to a document to exist under either the) Tj -12 -12.5 Td .88 Tw (First Amendment or the common law, the document must be) Tj 0 -12.5 Td .96 Tw (a "judicial record." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Goetz) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 886 F.2d at 63-64. Whether a cer-) Tj 0 -12.5 Td .92 Tw (tain document is a "judicial record" is a question of law, and) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 1.06 Tw (we determine it ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (de novo) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 1.2 Tw (Onondaga) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 435 F.3d 110, 121 \(2d Cir. 2006\).) Tj 12 -24.8 Td 6.51 Tw (Although we have never explicitly defined "judicial) Tj -12 -12.5 Td .51 Tw (records," it is commonsensical that judicially authored or cre-) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 1.3 Tw (ated documents are judicial records. Thus, we have no diffi-) Tj 0 -12.5 Td .78 Tw (culty holding that the actual ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .78 Tw (2703\(d\) orders and subsequent) Tj 0 -12.5 Td 1.2 Tw (orders issued by the court are judicial records.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (6) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -24.7 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .92 Tw (6) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Citing ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (United States v. Amodeo) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 44 F.3d 141, 145 \(2d Cir. 1995\), the) Tj -10 -10.6 Td 1.47 Tw (Government contends that ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.47 Tw (2703\(d\) orders themselves are not "judicial) Tj 0 -10.6 Td .3 Tw (records" because they are "not useful to the judicial process," and they are) Tj 0 -10.6 Td .92 Tw (merely a vehicle used to obtain relevant business records. This argument) Tj 0 -10.6 Td 1.08 Tw (is unavailing because ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Amodeo) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( applies to documents filed with the court,) Tj 0 -10.6 Td .24 Tw (not by the court. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Amodeo) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 44 F.3d at 145 \("We think that the mere fil-) Tj 0 -10.6 Td 1.64 Tw (ing of a paper or document ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (with) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( the court is insufficient to render that) Tj 0 -10.6 Td .28 Tw (paper a judicial document subject to the right of public access." \(emphasis) Tj 0 -10.6 Td 1 Tw (added\)\). ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -393.65 m 300 -393.65 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 450.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (9) Tj -240.3895 0 Td (In Re: A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (PPLICATION) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (OF) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (THE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 91 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td 1.9 Tw 0 Tc (With respect to whether the derivative ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.9 Tw (2703\(d\) ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (motions) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -12 -13 Td 1.98 Tw (are "judicial records," our prior cases guide this inquiry. In) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13 Td 1.03 Tw (Rushford) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, we held that discovery documents filed in connec-) Tj 0 -13 Td .56 Tw (tion with a dispositive motion, such as a motion for summary) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.45 Tw (judgment, were subject to the right of access because "sum-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.48 Tw (mary judgment adjudicates substantive rights." 846 F.2d at) Tj 0 -13 Td .3 Tw (252. In ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In re Policy Management Systems Corp.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, we refrained) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.07 Tw (from ascribing the First Amendment right of access to docu-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.11 Tw (ments not considered by the court but filed with a motion to) Tj 0 -13 Td .46 Tw (dismiss, reasoning that they "do not play any role in the adju-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.76 Tw (dicative process." 67 F.3d 296 \(4th Cir. 1995\) \(unpublished) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.66 Tw (table decision\). Taken together, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Rushford) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In re Policy) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.28 Tw (Management Systems Corp.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( hold that documents filed with) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .63 Tw (the court are "judicial records" if they play a role in the adju-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.14 Tw (dicative process, or adjudicate substantive rights. We adopt) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .7 Tw (that definition. In doing so, we are in harmony with the deci-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.63 Tw (sions of several of our sister circuits. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See, e.g., ) Tj (In re Provi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.1 Tw (dence Journal Co.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 293 F.3d 1, 9 \(1st Cir. 2002\) \(examining) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.42 Tw (the common law presumption of access coextensively with) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.27 Tw (the definition of "judicial records," and holding that the pre-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.3 Tw (sumption attaches to "those materials which properly come) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.44 Tw (before the court in the course of an adjudicatory proceeding) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.92 Tw (and which are relevant to that adjudication." \(citation omit-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.17 Tw (ted\)\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (United States v. El-Sayegh) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 131 F.3d 158, 163 \(D.C.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.23 Tw (Cir. 1997\) \("[W]hat makes a document a judicial record and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2 Tw (subjects it to the common law right of access is the role it) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.08 Tw (plays in the adjudicatory process."\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Amodeo) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 44 F.3d at 145) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .85 Tw (\("[T]he item filed must be relevant to the performance of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .27 Tw (judicial function and useful in the judicial process in order for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .6 Tw (it to be designated a judicial document."\). Applying this defi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .55 Tw (nition, the derivative ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .55 Tw (2703\(d\) motions are "judicial records") Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.22 Tw (because they were filed with the objective of obtaining judi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.81 Tw (cial action or relief pertaining to ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.81 Tw (2703\(d\) orders. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See also) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.91 Tw (Goetz) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 886 F.2d at 63-64 \(holding search warrant affidavits) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.32 Tw (are "judicial records" because they are considered by a judi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .44 Tw (cial officer in determining whether to issue a warrant, and are) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.33 Tw (available in a subsequent proceeding if sufficiency is chal-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (lenged\).) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10) Tj 54.1105 0 Td (In Re: A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (PPLICATION) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (OF) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (THE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 92 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td 2.25 Tw 0 Tc (Because we conclude that ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.25 Tw (2703\(d\) orders) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (7) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( are "judicial) Tj -12 -13 Td 1.26 Tw (records," the common law presumption of access attaches to) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.71 Tw (these documents. However, we next examine whether, in) Tj 0 -13 Td .45 Tw (addition to the common law presumption, a First Amendment) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (right of access to these documents also exists.) Tj 145.164 -26 Td (ii.) Tj -133.164 -26 Td 3.47 Tw (To determine whether the First Amendment provides a) Tj -12 -13 Td 1 Tw (right to access ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1 Tw (2703\(d\) orders and proceedings, we employ) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.46 Tw (the "experience and logic" test, asking: "\(1\) `whether the) Tj 0 -13 Td .27 Tw (place and process have historically been open to the press and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .07 Tw (general public,' and \(2\) `whether public access plays a signifi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.14 Tw (cant positive role in the functioning of the particular process) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .58 Tw (in question." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Goetz) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 886 F.2d at 64 \(quoting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Press-Enterprise) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .27 Tw (Co. v. Superior Court) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 478 U.S. 1, 8-10 \(1988\)\). Here, neither) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (prong is satisfied. ) Tj 12 -26 Td .11 Tw (Subscribers concede that there is no long tradition of access) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 3.16 Tw (specifically for ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 3.16 Tw (2703\(d\) orders, given that the SCA was) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.67 Tw (enacted in 1986.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (8) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( However, they argue that under ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Press-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.14 Tw (Enterprise) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, where a relatively new process is at issue, courts) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .21 Tw (focus on the logic prong. Our post-) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Press Enterprise) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( precedent) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.71 Tw (makes clear that both the experience and logic prongs are) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.74 Tw (required. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Goetz) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 886 F.2d at 64 \(stating a conjunctive) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .26 Tw (test\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see also ) Tj (United States v. Gonzales) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 150 F.3d 1246, 1258) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.7 Tw (\(10th Cir. 1998\) \(citing ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Goetz) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( for the proposition that some) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .14 Tw (courts adopt the approach that ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Press-Enterprise) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( requires satis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (faction of ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (both) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( prongs\).) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -25.8 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.72 Tw (7) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (From here, ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.72 Tw (2703 orders refers to Other ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.72 Tw (2703 Orders, and subse-) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (quent related motions and orders. ) Tj 10 -13.9 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 2.71 Tw (8) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Subscribers alternatively argue that a ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.71 Tw (2703\(d\) order is a judicial) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .42 Tw (order, and there is "an exceedingly long history of access to judicial opin-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 2.51 Tw (ions and orders." This interpretation of the First Amendment right of) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.78 Tw (access is too broad, and directly contrary to our holding that this right) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.1 Tw (extends only to "`) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (particular) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( judicial records and documents.'" ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Va. Dep't) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .65 Tw (of State Police) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 386 F.3d at 575 \(quoting ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Stone v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys.) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (Corp.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 855 F.2d 178, 180 \(4th Cir. 1988\)\). ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -385.55 m 300 -385.55 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 445 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (11) Tj -234.8895 0 Td (In Re: A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (PPLICATION) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (OF) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (THE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 93 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td .73 Tw 0 Tc (Even assuming only the logic prong is required, this prong) Tj -12 -12.8 Td .63 Tw (is not met.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (9) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The logic prong asks whether public access plays) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 2.18 Tw (a significant role in the process in question. The ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.18 Tw (2703\(d\)) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.25 Tw (process is investigative, and openness of the orders does not) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 2.7 Tw (play a significant role in the functioning of investigations.) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 2.25 Tw (Section 2703\(d\) proceedings consist of the issuance of and) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 2.46 Tw (compliance with ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.46 Tw (2703\(d\) orders,) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (10) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( are ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (ex parte) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( in nature,) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.1 Tw (and occur at the investigative, pre-grand jury, pre-indictment) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .18 Tw (phase of what may or may not mature into an indictment. Pre-) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 7.76 Tw (indictment investigative processes "where privacy and) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .96 Tw (secrecy are the norm" "are not amenable to the practices and) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 2.14 Tw (procedures employed in connection with other judicial pro-) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.91 Tw (ceedings." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (In re Sealed Case) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 199 F.3d 522, 526 \(D.C.) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.2 Tw (Cir. 2000\).) Tj 12 -25.5 Td 1.61 Tw (Subscribers contend that transparency of ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.61 Tw (2703\(d\) orders) Tj -12 -12.8 Td 1.67 Tw (and motions, which are "the very foundation of our judicial) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .8 Tw (system," "would ensure fairness, decrease bias, improve pub-) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .96 Tw (lic perception of the justice system, and enhance the chances) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.23 Tw (that the orders are well-justified and not overbroad." We are) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.24 Tw (not persuaded by this argument because in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Press-Enterprise) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.2 Tw (the Supreme Court noted:) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -25.4 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 2.34 Tw (9) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The experience prong also fails because ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.34 Tw (2703\(d\) orders are most) Tj -10 -10.9 Td 1.78 Tw (analogous to sealed or unexecuted search warrants and grand jury pro-) Tj 0 -10.9 Td .86 Tw (ceedings for which traditionally, there is no history of access. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Goetz) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -11 Td 1.62 Tw (886 F.2d at 64-65. Moreover, where the Government "has always been) Tj 0 -11 Td .97 Tw (able to restrict access" to ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .97 Tw (2703\(d\) orders by requesting a sealing order,) Tj 0 -11 Td 1.09 Tw (regardless of the statutory default, the lack of historical access argument) Tj 0 -11 Td .36 Tw (is not undermined. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Times Mirror Co. v. United States) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 873 F.2d 1210,) Tj 0 -11 Td 1.08 Tw (1214 \(9th Cir. 1989\) \("Th[e] general availability [of post-execution war-) Tj 0 -11 Td 1.78 Tw (rant materials], does not undermine the government's claim [where the) Tj 0 -11 Td 1.11 Tw (government] has always been able to restrict access to warrant materials) Tj 0 -11 Td 1.71 Tw (by requesting a sealing order, which courts have granted freely upon a) Tj 0 -11 Td 1.15 Tw (showing that a given criminal investigation requires secrecy."\). As such,) Tj 0 -11 Td 1 Tw (there is no history of access to ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1 Tw (2703\(d\) orders. ) Tj 10 -13.7 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.64 Tw (10) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Section ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.64 Tw (2703\(d\) proceedings may also consist of a motion by the) Tj -10 -11 Td 4.1 Tw (recipient electronic communications provider to quash or modify a) Tj 0 -11 Td 1.98 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.98 Tw (2703\(d\) order, "if the information or records requested are unusually) Tj 0 -11 Td 2.43 Tw (voluminous in nature or compliance with such order otherwise would) Tj 0 -11 Td 1 Tw (cause an undue burden on such provider." 18 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1 Tw (2703\(d\). ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -288.55 m 300 -288.55 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (12) Tj 54.1105 0 Td (In Re: A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (PPLICATION) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (OF) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (THE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 94 0 obj <>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 53 0 obj <> endobj 95 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 22 -8.4 Td .46 Tw 0 Tc (Although many governmental processes best operate) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.28 Tw (under public scrutiny, it takes little imagination to) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.85 Tw (recognize that there are some kinds of government) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.9 Tw (operations that would be totally frustrated if con-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .76 Tw (ducted openly. A classic example is that "the proper) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.47 Tw (functioning of our grand jury system depends upon) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (the secrecy of grand jury proceedings.") Tj -22 -26.5 Td .26 Tw (478 U.S. at 8-9 \(quoting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Nw.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.25 Tw (441 U.S. 211, 218 \(1979\)\). Section 2703\(d\) proceedings can) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.12 Tw (be likened to grand jury proceedings. In fact, they are a step) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.37 Tw (removed from grand jury proceedings, and are perhaps even) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.34 Tw (more sacrosanct. Proceedings for the issuance of ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.34 Tw (2703\(d\)) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.55 Tw (orders are also like proceedings for the issuance of search) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.1 Tw (warrants, which we have noted are not open. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Goetz) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 886) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .81 Tw (F.2d at 64 \(observing that the Supreme Court has twice "rec-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.33 Tw (ognized that proceedings for the issuance of search warrants) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.91 Tw (are not open"\). Because secrecy is necessary for the proper) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.75 Tw (functioning of the criminal investigations at this ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.75 Tw (2703\(d\)) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.45 Tw (phase, openness will frustrate the government's operations.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (11) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.3 Td 4.57 Tw (Because ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 4.57 Tw (2703\(d\) orders and proceedings fail the logic) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.83 Tw (prong, we hold that there is no First Amendment right to) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (access them.) Tj 143.496 -26.4 Td (iii.) Tj -131.496 -26.4 Td .41 Tw (We next consider whether the common law presumption of) Tj -12 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (access to ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (2703\(d\) orders requires access. This presumption) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.22 Tw (is not insurmountable, and access may be denied if certain) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 3.28 Tw (substantive and procedural preconditions are satisfied. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.3 Tw (Goetz) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 886 F.2d at 65 \("[T]he press and the public have a) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.76 Tw (common law ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (qualified) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( right of access to judicial records.") Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26.2 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .12 Tw (11) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Further evidence that the logic prong favors sealing is that prior notice) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 1.16 Tw (to the subscriber or customer is not statutorily required, and the govern-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .49 Tw (ment can request a gag order to prevent the recipients of ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .49 Tw (2703\(d\) orders) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.05 Tw (from disclosing the existence of the orders and investigations. 18 U.S.C.) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1 Tw (2703\(c\) & 2705\(b\). ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -432.85 m 300 -432.85 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 445 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (13) Tj -234.8895 0 Td (In Re: A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (PPLICATION) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (OF) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (THE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 96 0 obj <>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 97 0 obj <>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 98 0 obj <>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 99 0 obj <>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 100 0 obj <>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 101 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.58 Tw 0 Tc (\(emphasis added\)\). In undertaking this inquiry, we note that) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 1.44 Tw (the common law right of access to judicial records is "com-) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 3.22 Tw (mitted to the sound discretion of the judicial officer who) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 1.2 Tw (issued the [) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (2703\(d\) orders]." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 145.5 -27.1 Td (1.) Tj -133.5 -27 Td 2 Tw (To substantively overcome the common law presumption) Tj -12 -13.7 Td 1.3 Tw (of access to ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.3 Tw (2703\(d\) orders, a court must find that there is) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 2.74 Tw (a "significant countervailing interest" in support of sealing) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 1.53 Tw (that outweighs the public's interest in openness. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Under Seal) Tj 0 -13.7 Td .05 Tw (v. Under Seal) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 326 F.3d 479, 486 \(4th Cir. 2003\) \(citing ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Rush-) Tj 0 -13.7 Td .73 Tw (ford) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj ( 846 F.2d at 253\).) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (12) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( In balancing the government's inter-) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 1.02 Tw (est and the public's right to access, a court may consider the) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 3.13 Tw (following factors: "[1] whether the records are sought for) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 3.81 Tw (improper purposes, such as promoting public scandals or) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 3 Tw (unfairly gaining a business advantage; [2] whether release) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 2.9 Tw (would enhance the public's understanding of an important) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.74 Tw (historical event; and [3] whether the public has already had) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 3.08 Tw (access to the information contained in the records." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In re) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.2 Tw (Knight) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 743 F.2d at 235.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26.7 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (12) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (We reject Subscribers' contention that the magistrate judge erred by) Tj -10 -11.5 Td .06 Tw (applying an "outweigh" standard, as opposed to a "heavily outweigh" stan-) Tj 0 -11.5 Td 1.13 Tw (dard in determining whether the common law right of access must yield) Tj 0 -11.5 Td 1.04 Tw (to the government's interest. Subscribers rely on ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Virginia Department of) Tj 0 -11.5 Td .48 Tw (State Police) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( where we stated: "`This presumption of access, however, can) Tj 0 -11.5 Td .15 Tw (be rebutted if countervailing interests ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (heavily) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( outweigh the public interests) Tj 0 -11.5 Td .25 Tw (in access,' and `[t]he party seeking to overcome the presumption bears the) Tj 0 -11.5 Td .95 Tw (burden of showing some significant interest that outweighs the presump-) Tj 0 -11.5 Td 1.77 Tw (tion.'" 386 F.3d at 575 \(quoting ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Rushford) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 846 F.2d at 253\) \(emphasis) Tj 0 -11.5 Td .53 Tw (added\)\). Neither ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Goetz) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (In re Knight) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, nor ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Moussaoui) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (which all relied on) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 -11.5 Td 3.22 Tw (Nixon) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (use a "heavily outweigh" standard. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Rushford) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, which ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Virginia) Tj 0 -11.5 Td 2.25 Tw (Department of State Police) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( relies on, also relied on ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Nixon) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (. Moreover,) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 -11.5 Td 1.92 Tw (Rushford) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( subsequently states: "The party seeking to overcome the pre-) Tj 0 -11.5 Td 1.05 Tw (sumption bears the burden of showing some significant interest that ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (out-) Tj 0 -11.5 Td 4.17 Tw (weighs) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( the presumption." ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Rushford) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 846 F.2d at 253. As such, to) Tj 0 -11.5 Td .12 Tw (overcome the common law presumption of access, the government's inter-) Tj 0 -11.5 Td 1 Tw (ests must merely outweigh the public's interest. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -293.35 m 300 -293.35 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (14) Tj 54.1105 0 Td (In Re: A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (PPLICATION) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (OF) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (THE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 102 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td .32 Tw 0 Tc (Subscribers contend that the Government lacks a legitimate) Tj -12 -13.5 Td 2.1 Tw (interest in continued sealing, and the magistrate judge "im-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .87 Tw (properly relegated," and failed to weigh the public's "strong") Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.11 Tw (interest in having access to the ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.11 Tw (2703 orders and motions.) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.85 Tw (Among the identified public interests, Subscribers state an) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.03 Tw (interest in: participating in a matter of national importance,) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.57 Tw (which is the ongoing debate about WikiLeaks' publications;) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .58 Tw (understanding the nature and scope of the government's elec-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .92 Tw (tronic surveillance of internet activities; and to the extent the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.75 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.75 Tw (2703 orders have not been complied with, providing Sub-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.03 Tw (scribers with an opportunity to challenge the orders to pre-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (clude a violation of their constitutional rights.) Tj 12 -26.7 Td 1.28 Tw (Subscribers' contentions fail for several reasons. First, the) Tj -12 -13.5 Td 1.41 Tw (record shows that the magistrate judge considered the stated) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.25 Tw (public interests and found that the Government's interests in) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .38 Tw (maintaining the secrecy of its investigation, preventing poten-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.66 Tw (tial subjects from being tipped off, or altering behavior to) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.12 Tw (thwart the Government's ongoing investigation, outweighed) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (those interests.) Tj 12 -26.6 Td .87 Tw (Further, we agree with the magistrate judge's findings that) Tj -12 -13.4 Td 2 Tw (the common law presumption of access to ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2 Tw (2703 orders is) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .24 Tw (outweighed by the Government's interest in continued sealing) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.33 Tw (because the publicity surrounding the WikiLeaks investiga-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.39 Tw (tion does not justify its unsealing. The mere fact that a case) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.33 Tw (is high profile in nature does not necessarily justify public) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .23 Tw (access. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (United States v. McVeigh) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 119 F.3d 806 \(10th Cir.) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.32 Tw (1997\) \(upholding the sealing of documents in the Oklahoma) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.7 Tw (City bombing trial\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Moussaoui) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 65 F. App'x at 887 n.5) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .61 Tw (\(upholding sealed classified documents related to the terrorist) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.6 Tw (attacks on September 11, 2001\). Additionally, Subscribers') Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.55 Tw (contention that the balance of interests tips in the public's) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .67 Tw (favor because the Government approved the disclosure of the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.58 Tw (existence of its investigation by moving the district court to) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .25 Tw (unseal the Twitter Order is adequately counterbalanced by the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .47 Tw (magistrate judge's finding that the "sealed documents at issue) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 445 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (15) Tj -234.8895 0 Td (In Re: A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (PPLICATION) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (OF) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (THE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 103 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.12 Tw 0 Tc (set forth sensitive nonpublic facts, including the identity of) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (targets and witnesses in an ongoing criminal investigation.") Tj 12 -26 Td 1.47 Tw (The magistrate judge also found that "there are legitimate) Tj -12 -13 Td 2.41 Tw (concerns that publication of the documents at this juncture) Tj 0 -13 Td .26 Tw (will hamper the investigatory process." Regardless of the exe-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .7 Tw (cution of, or compliance with, the Other ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .7 Tw (2703\(d\) Orders, to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .4 Tw (allow the public or Subscribers access to the orders after such) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.44 Tw (a finding is an improper means of circumventing the SCA's) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .53 Tw (clear assessment that in some instances, non-disclosure of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.83 Tw (existence of the orders is warranted. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Accord) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( 18 U.S.C.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.22 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.22 Tw (2705\(b\). As such, the magistrate judge did not abuse her) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (discretion in finding that the Government's interests are sig-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.05 Tw (nificantly countervailing, and outweigh the public's common) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.52 Tw (law presumption of access. Hence, the substantive require-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (ments to sealing are met.) Tj 145.5 -26 Td (2.) Tj -133.5 -26 Td 3.83 Tw (Turning to the procedural requirements, in determining) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .56 Tw (whether to seal judicial records, a judicial officer "`must con-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.18 Tw (sider alternatives to sealing the documents' which may) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .73 Tw (include giving the public access to some of the documents or) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .07 Tw (releasing a redacted version of the documents that are the sub-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .75 Tw (ject of the government's motion to seal." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Media Gen. Opera-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.1 Tw (tions, Inc. v. Buchanan) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 417 F.3d 424, 429 \(4th Cir. 2005\)) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .2 Tw (\(quoting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Goetz) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj ( 886 F.2d at 6566\). "Adherence to this proce-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.47 Tw (dure serves to ensure that the decision to seal materials will) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.18 Tw (not be made lightly and that it will be subject to meaningful) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .61 Tw (appellate review." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Va. Dep't of State Police) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 386 F.3d at 576.) Tj 12 -26 Td 1 Tw (Subscribers' procedural contentions are that the magistrate) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .41 Tw (judge failed to: \(1\) provide individualized sealing analysis for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (each document; and \(2\) consider alternatives to sealing such) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.5 Tw (as redactions. These arguments belie the record. The magis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .77 Tw (trate judge made a measured and specific determination as to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .3 Tw (sealing, and in the memorandum opinion, "order[ed] that only) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.26 Tw (documents specified below shall be unsealed." Later in the) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (16) Tj 54.1105 0 Td (In Re: A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (PPLICATION) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (OF) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (THE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 104 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .03 Tw 0 Tc (opinion, the magistrate judge outlined the rationale for unseal-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.16 Tw (ing certain documents, while refusing to unseal others, and) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.24 Tw (approved certain redactions and permitted the disclosure of) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.38 Tw (redacted documents. As such, the magistrate judge individu-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .05 Tw (ally considered the documents, and redacted and unsealed cer-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.28 Tw (tain documents, satisfying the procedural requirements for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (sealing.) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.45 Tw (Because both the substantive and procedural requirements) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 4.1 Tw (are met, the magistrate judge did not err in sealing the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.77 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.77 Tw (2703\(d\) orders. Since we conclude that there is no First) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (Amendment right to access ) Tj ( ) Tj (2703\(d\) orders, and the common) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .77 Tw (law right of access is outweighed by the Government's inter-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .57 Tw (est in maintaining the ongoing investigation, Subscribers lack) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.73 Tw (a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. Thus, we) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (deny the petition for mandamus.) Tj 144.498 -26 Td (C.) Tj -132.498 -26 Td 0 Tw (Subscribers next proceed with their challenge to the docket-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .14 Tw (ing procedures in the Eastern District of Virginia, arguing that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.09 Tw (the docket sheets for cases on the EC docket fail to identify,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .22 Tw (through individual docket entries, the type and date of matters) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .55 Tw (occurring in each case. Docket sheets exist to "provide a map) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .78 Tw (of proceedings in the underlying case," ensuring "meaningful) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .26 Tw (access" to criminal proceedings. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Hartford Courant Co. v. Pel-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.03 Tw (legrino) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 380 F.3d 83, 95 \(2d Cir. 2004\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (United States v.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .25 Tw (Valenti) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 987 F.2d 708, 715 \(11th Cir. 1993\). Hence, Subscrib-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.62 Tw (ers essentially seek notice and an opportunity to participate,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (or be heard, in ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (2703\(d\) related proceedings.) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.3 Tw (As we stated above, there is no First Amendment right of) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.28 Tw (access to ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.28 Tw (2703\(d\) proceedings. While "[w]e agree that . . .) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .62 Tw (the public must ordinarily be given notice and an opportunity) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .31 Tw (to object to sealing of public documents," ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Media Gen. Opera-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .6 Tw (tions) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 417 F.3d at 429, we have never held, nor has any other) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4 Tw (federal court determined, that pre-indictment investigative) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .83 Tw (matters such as ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .83 Tw (2703\(d\) orders, pen registers, and wiretaps,) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 445 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (17) Tj -234.8895 0 Td (In Re: A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (PPLICATION) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (OF) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (THE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 105 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (which are all akin to grand jury investigations, must be pub-) Tj 0 -13 Td .54 Tw (licly docketed. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (In re Sealed Case) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 199 F.3d at 525 \(citing) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.33 Tw (federal public docketing cases and noting that none has) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.18 Tw (required such in the grand jury context\). In fact, none of the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .28 Tw (cases Subscribers cite supports such a proposition. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (United) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (States v. Ochoa-Vasquez) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 428 F.3d 1015, 1029-30 \(11th Cir.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 7.14 Tw (2005\) \() Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (post-indictment) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( secret docketing procedures are) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.47 Tw (unconstitutional\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Pellegrino) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 380 F.3d at 95 \(public docket-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.67 Tw (ing is required where there is a First Amendment right to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.24 Tw (access the related criminal proceeding\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (In re StateRecord) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.77 Tw (Co.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 917 F.2d 124, 12829 \(4th Cir. 1990\) \(per curiam\)) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.57 Tw (\(secret docketing of criminal proceedings related to ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (indicted) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td .21 Tw (public officials violates First Amendment right to access\). We) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .4 Tw (refuse to venture into these uncharted waters, and as such, we) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.41 Tw (refrain from requiring district courts to publicly docket each) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .83 Tw (matter in the ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .83 Tw (2703\(d\) context. We therefore deny Subscrib-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (ers' petition for mandamus.) Tj 142.17 -26 Td (IV.) Tj -130.17 -26 Td .07 Tw (For the reasons above, we conclude that Subscribers are not) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .27 Tw (entitled to the relief they seek. Accordingly, we deny the peti-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.03 Tw (tion for mandamus. We note that Subscribers are not forever) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .66 Tw (barred from access to the Other ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .66 Tw (2703\(d\) Orders and deriva-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .83 Tw (tive documents because at some point in the future, the Gov-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.33 Tw (ernment's interest in sealing may no longer outweigh the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.22 Tw (common law presumption of access. At such point, the Sub-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (scribers may seek to unseal these documents.) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 101.424 -26 Td (PETITION FOR MANDAMUS DENIED) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -101.424 -26 Td (WILSON, District Judge, concurring:) Tj 12 -26 Td .27 Tw (I concur in the opinion in all respects except the conclusion) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 3.6 Tw (that there is a presumed common law right of access to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .37 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .37 Tw (2703\(d\) judicial orders and motions separate and apart from) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.78 Tw (a subscriber's individual right of access. Courts cannot pre-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.11 Tw (sume common law rights and remedies that conflict with a) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (18) Tj 54.1105 0 Td (In Re: A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (PPLICATION) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (OF) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (THE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 106 0 obj <>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 54 0 obj <> endobj 107 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .63 Tw 0 Tc (statutory scheme or a statute's essential purpose. In my view,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.47 Tw (the presumption here of a common law right of access does) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (precisely that.) Tj 12 -26 Td 3.85 Tw ("[A]brogation of common law principles is appropriate) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.6 Tw (when a contrary statutory purpose is evident." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Zeran v. Am.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3 Tw (Online, Inc.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 129 F.3d 327, 334 \(4th Cir. 1997\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see also) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.48 Tw (United States v. Texas) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 507 U.S. 529, 534 \(1993\) \("In order) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.28 Tw (to abrogate a common-law principle, the statute must `speak) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.67 Tw (directly' to the question addressed by the common law.") Tj 0 -13.1 Td .17 Tw (\(quoting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 436 U.S. 618, 625) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .75 Tw (\(1978\)\)\). Here, the challenged orders and documents all arise) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (under Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .73 Tw (of 1986, which is commonly known as the Stored Communi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .21 Tw (cations Act.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (1) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The Act was intended "to update and clarify fed-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.83 Tw (eral privacy protections and standards in light of dramatic) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.55 Tw (changes in new computer and telecommunications technolo-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.34 Tw (gies." S. Rep. No. 99-541, at 1 \(1986\). Congress recognized) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .24 Tw (that technological advancements had "expanded dramatically") Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (the opportunity for the government to intrude in the lives of) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.37 Tw (its citizens. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 2. Constitutional jurisprudence, however,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.25 Tw (afforded little protection to the privacy interests of persons) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.12 Tw (whose information and records were "subject to control by a) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.9 Tw (third party computer operator." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 3. Congress was con-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .24 Tw (cerned that information in the hands of third parties might "be) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.73 Tw (open to possible wrongful use and public disclosure by law) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.77 Tw (enforcement authorities as well as unauthorized private par-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (ties." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.1 Td 5.62 Tw (In the face of rapidly evolving technology, the Act) Tj -12 -13.2 Td .9 Tw (attempted to establish a framework governing the acquisition) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .12 Tw (and dissemination of this often highly private information, not) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.82 Tw (only by government officials but by private individuals and) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .06 Tw (entities as well. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( 18 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .06 Tw (2701. It prohibits service pro-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .88 Tw (viders from voluntarily disclosing stored customer communi-) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.74 Tw (1) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The Act amended Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (Streets Act of 1968the federal wiretap law. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -466.55 m 300 -466.55 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 445 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (19) Tj -234.8895 0 Td (In Re: A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (PPLICATION) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (OF) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (THE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 108 0 obj <>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 109 0 obj <>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 110 0 obj <>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 111 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.46 Tw 0 Tc (cations and records except as specifically authorized, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( 18) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.32 Tw (U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.32 Tw (2702\(a\)\(b\), and details the procedures the govern-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.28 Tw (ment may employ to obtain stored information from a third-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.57 Tw (party provider, depending upon whether the government is) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.78 Tw (seeking the contents of a stored communication, or non-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .07 Tw (content information. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( 18 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .07 Tw (2703\(a\)\(c\). A "content") Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.4 Tw (inquiry to a provider that is not itself authorized to access) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .34 Tw (content requires either a warrant or advance notice to the sub-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.9 Tw (scriber when the content is 180 days old or less.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (2) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( 18) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.6 Tw (U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.6 Tw (2703\(b\). The advance-notice requirement expressly) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.88 Tw (applies to administrative subpoenas, grand jury subpoenas,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.71 Tw (trial subpoenas, and court orders for disclosure under 18) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .57 Tw (U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .57 Tw (2703\(d\). 18 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .57 Tw (2703\(b\). But despite the seem-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.5 Tw (ingly broad advance-notice requirement, the statute provides) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.41 Tw (that the court may delay notice pursuant to ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.41 Tw (2705 if, in the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .42 Tw (case of a court order, the court determines that there is reason) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .02 Tw (to believe that the notification of the existence of a court order) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.16 Tw (may have an "adverse result" \(as that term is further defined) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.81 Tw (by the statute\) or, in the case of an administrative or grand) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.46 Tw (jury subpoena, a supervisory official certifies in writing that) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.15 Tw (advance notification may have such an effect. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( 18 U.S.C.) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.47 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.47 Tw (2705\(a\)\(1\)\(A\)\(B\). The government also may apply to the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .34 Tw (court under specified circumstances for an order commanding) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.85 Tw (a provider "to whom a warrant, subpoena, or court order is) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.3 Tw (directed, for such period as the court deems appropriate, not) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .06 Tw (to notify any other person of the existence of the warrant, sub-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (poena, or court order." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( 18 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (2705\(b\).) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.38 Tw (When the government seeks something other than content) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 1.94 Tw (from a provider, it may do so if it obtains a warrant, court) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .3 Tw (order, or consent of the subscriber or customer; submits a for-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.42 Tw (mal written request relevant to a law enforcement investiga-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 7.78 Tw (tion concerning telemarketing fraud; or simply seeks) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.32 Tw (essentially billing-related or business records from the pro-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .75 Tw (vider \(such as names, addresses, local and long-distance tele-) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .19 Tw (2) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ("Under the [Act], an email is presumed to be abandoned after 180 days) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (. . . ." S. Rep. No. 112-258, at 3 \(2012\). ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -466.55 m 300 -466.55 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (20) Tj 54.1105 0 Td (In Re: A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (PPLICATION) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (OF) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (THE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 112 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 5.45 Tw 0 Tc (phone connection records, service periods, telephone or) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.53 Tw (instrument numbers, or means of payment\). ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( 18 U.S.C.) Tj 0 -13 Td .14 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .14 Tw (2703\(c\)\(1\)\(2\). When the government seeks what are essen-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.16 Tw (tially business records, it is not required to provide notice to) Tj 0 -13 Td 4.81 Tw (the subscriber or customer. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( 18 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 4.81 Tw (2703\(c\)\(3\).) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.52 Tw (Finally, to obtain a court order the government must offer) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.31 Tw ("specific and articulable facts showing that there are reason-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.97 Tw (able grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or elec-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.14 Tw (tronic communication, or the records or other information) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.87 Tw (sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (investigation." 18 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (2703\(d\). ) Tj 12 -26 Td .41 Tw (The motions that support these ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .41 Tw (2703\(d\) orders, the orders) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.53 Tw (themselves, and the very existence of these orders implicate) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .5 Tw (or directly convey highly private information and confirm the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .37 Tw (existence of a criminal investigation. Yet an essential purpose) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.16 Tw (of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act is the protec-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.41 Tw (tion of the privacy interests of subscribers or customers in) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.48 Tw (their electronically stored information and records. To pre-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .94 Tw (sume a common law right of access to these records because) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 6 Tw (the government has obtained an order from a federal) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (courtwhich acts in these cases as a limited backstop against) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.33 Tw (government overreachingstrikes at the Act's essential pur-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.71 Tw (pose. The government's monitored intrusion of the citizen's) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.94 Tw (private interests would thereby justify privacy intrusions by) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.22 Tw (others. Rather than serving as a check against invasions of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .53 Tw (privacy, the Act would serve to magnify them. Consequently,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.27 Tw (I believe that a common law right of access is squarely at) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (odds with the Act's essential purpose. ) Tj 12 -26 Td 1.46 Tw (Not only does the presumption of a common law right of) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .88 Tw (access strike at the Act's essential purpose, it entangles itself) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.22 Tw (with the Act in incongruous ways. The Act provides, for) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.57 Tw (example, when notice will be given to an account holder or) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.2 Tw (subscriber, when it need not be given at all, and when the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.81 Tw (court may delay notice. But when there is a public right of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.48 Tw (access, this court has prescribed very particular procedures) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.41 Tw (that the district court must follow when sealing docu-) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 445 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (21) Tj -234.8895 0 Td (In Re: A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (PPLICATION) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (OF) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (THE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 113 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 4.9 Tw 0 Tc (mentsincluding the provision of some form of public) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .67 Tw (notice, a consideration of less drastic alternatives, and factual) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.14 Tw (findings to the effect that the circumstances of the case war-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.46 Tw (rant overriding the public's presumptive right of access. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .58 Tw (Media Gen. Operations, Inc. v. Buchanan) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 417 F.3d 424, 429) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.16 Tw (\(4th Cir. 2005\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 218 F.3d 282, 288) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.66 Tw (\(4th Cir. 2000\). Congress has, however, within the confines) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .5 Tw (of the Act, specified when notice to the subscriber is required) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .6 Tw (and when it is not. Surely Congress did not intend that courts) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 0 Tw (wrestle in every instance in the course of an investigation with) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.7 Tw (public notice and sealing alternatives in spite of the Act's) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.47 Tw (detailed individual notice provisions. Surely the public can) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .94 Tw (have no greater right of access than the subscriber to matters) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (involving the subscriber's own electronic information. ) Tj 12 -26.2 Td 2.25 Tw (I think it indisputable that Congress' primary concern in) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 1.28 Tw (passing the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.23 Tw (is revealed by the Act's very name. Congress sought to pro-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .08 Tw (tect the privacy interests of individuals in electronically stored) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.83 Tw (information. It sought to do so by placing a judicial officer) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .5 Tw (between law enforcement and the acquisition of that informa-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.1 Tw (tion. It is, to say the least, an unintended consequence that) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .3 Tw (when Congress inserted a judicial officer into the mix, a com-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.2 Tw (mon law right of access resulted that would require a sub-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3 Tw (scriber to fight publicly to safeguard that which Congress) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.67 Tw (deemed private. In my view, a common law right of access) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .5 Tw (irreconcilably conflicts with the statutory scheme of the Elec-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (tronic Communications Privacy Act. ) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (22) Tj 54.1105 0 Td (In Re: A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (PPLICATION) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (OF) Tj 1.95 Tw ( ) Tj .79 Tw (THE) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 114 0 obj <> endobj xref 0 115 0000000000 65535 f 0000010586 00000 n 0000000015 00000 n 0000010400 00000 n 0000010962 00000 n 0000011038 00000 n 0000011224 00000 n 0000011300 00000 n 0000011487 00000 n 0000011563 00000 n 0000011748 00000 n 0000011825 00000 n 0000012013 00000 n 0000012090 00000 n 0000012276 00000 n 0000012353 00000 n 0000012538 00000 n 0000012615 00000 n 0000012802 00000 n 0000012879 00000 n 0000013067 00000 n 0000013144 00000 n 0000013331 00000 n 0000013408 00000 n 0000013596 00000 n 0000013673 00000 n 0000013860 00000 n 0000013937 00000 n 0000014123 00000 n 0000014200 00000 n 0000014387 00000 n 0000014464 00000 n 0000014652 00000 n 0000014729 00000 n 0000014915 00000 n 0000014992 00000 n 0000015178 00000 n 0000015255 00000 n 0000015443 00000 n 0000015520 00000 n 0000015707 00000 n 0000015784 00000 n 0000015972 00000 n 0000016049 00000 n 0000016237 00000 n 0000016314 00000 n 0000016500 00000 n 0000016577 00000 n 0000016765 00000 n 0000016793 00000 n 0000016840 00000 n 0000017165 00000 n 0000051082 00000 n 0000079557 00000 n 0000104645 00000 n 0000016949 00000 n 0000017267 00000 n 0000020926 00000 n 0000022102 00000 n 0000023274 00000 n 0000024442 00000 n 0000029728 00000 n 0000029924 00000 n 0000030130 00000 n 0000030344 00000 n 0000030540 00000 n 0000025613 00000 n 0000026649 00000 n 0000026889 00000 n 0000027925 00000 n 0000028165 00000 n 0000028223 00000 n 0000028449 00000 n 0000029485 00000 n 0000030756 00000 n 0000033919 00000 n 0000037418 00000 n 0000041241 00000 n 0000043699 00000 n 0000047339 00000 n 0000042419 00000 n 0000043455 00000 n 0000050866 00000 n 0000051184 00000 n 0000055263 00000 n 0000055479 00000 n 0000055695 00000 n 0000055901 00000 n 0000056116 00000 n 0000056333 00000 n 0000060561 00000 n 0000065389 00000 n 0000069769 00000 n 0000074421 00000 n 0000079340 00000 n 0000079660 00000 n 0000083645 00000 n 0000083863 00000 n 0000084071 00000 n 0000084277 00000 n 0000084485 00000 n 0000084694 00000 n 0000089559 00000 n 0000093337 00000 n 0000097043 00000 n 0000100716 00000 n 0000104426 00000 n 0000104737 00000 n 0000108845 00000 n 0000109064 00000 n 0000109273 00000 n 0000109482 00000 n 0000113908 00000 n 0000117755 00000 n 0000120757 00000 n trailer <]/Info 114 0 R/Size 115>> startxref 120940 %%EOF