FEDERAL COURT / BRIDGEPORT, June 17 —
Federal courts are supposed to be public; there is case
law about the public's right to access courtroom and
documents. But some Districts, some Judges, throw up
hurdles which undermine the right of access.
When Inner City Press submitted a letter to
Judge Kari A. Dooley of the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut opposing the government's
motion to seal sentencing exhibits in United States v.
Sakal, No. 3:25-cr-00222 (KAD), the response from chambers
was swift and revealing: under Local Rule 57.1(f), a
non-party wishing to oppose sealing in a criminal case
must file a formal motion for leave to intervene. A letter
is not enough.
Inner City Press neither seeks to
intervene nor will pay for counsel to file such a motion -
it only wants Second Circuit court openness law to be
applied in the District of Connecticut which is part of
the Second Circuit.
Judge Dooley's law clerk wrote on June 15:
"Under the District of Connecticut's Local Rule 57.1(f),
any non-party who seeks to oppose a motion to seal a case
or document, may move for leave to intervene in a criminal
case for the limited purpose of pursuing that relief."
While seeming a needless - or
intentional - runaround, Inner City Press on June 17 ran
around and served a motion on the Clerk of Court and again
by email to the US Attorney's Office and both defense
counsel (none of the four deigned to e-confirm receipt -
must be a Connecticut thing, though one of the defense
lawyers is from New York). Inner City Press attached
a copy of the email from law clerk Anastasia Lacina as
explanation.
We note the Dictrict's Rule 5(e) 6.
"Any party may oppose a motion to seal or may move to
unseal a case or document subject to a sealing order. Any
non-party who either seeks to oppose a motion to seal or
seeks to unseal a case or document subject to a sealing
order, may move for leave to intervene in a civil action
for the limited purpose of pursuing that relief. Motions
for leave to intervene for purposes of opposing sealing,
objections to motions to seal, and motions to unseal shall
be decided expeditiously by the Court."
Expeditiously...
All counsel of record in the Sakal
case were copied on the email — meaning Inner City Press'
unsealing letter had, at that point, already been
transmitted to the defense and the government, even if not
yet formally docketed.
Inner City Press is familiar with the
intervention procedure in many federal district courts. It
is not, however, what courts in the same Second Circuit
require. In the Southern District of New York — where Lee
v. Greenwood, 145 F.4th 248 (2d Cir. 2025) was decided,
recognizing the First Amendment right of non-party media
organizations to be heard on sealing motions — Inner City
Press sends a letter to chambers, and it is docketed and
the parties given time to respond.
The same is true in the District of
Massachusetts, where ICP's letter opposing sealing in UMG
Recordings v. Suno was docketed as Docket 233 without any
formal motion to intervene being required. In the District
of Maryland, Judge Matthew J. Maddox recently docketed
ICP's letter opposing wholesale sealing of a sentencing
memorandum the same day it was received. In the District
of Colorado, Local Rule 7.2(d) expressly invites "any
interested party" to file a response to a restriction
motion — no intervention motion required. Inner City Press
has a Zoom hearing there on June 24 on an application to
unseal.
The District of Connecticut's Local Rule
57.1(f) is different. It requires a formal motion for
leave to intervene. That motion must be docketed — which
for a non-attorney means appearing at the Clerk's Office
in Bridgeport or navigating the court's CM/ECF system,
which requires special authorization. The motion must then
be briefed and opposed, and the court must rule on the
intervention question before even reaching the sealing
question. The practical consequence is a meaningful
procedural barrier that does not exist in other courts in
the same circuit.
Lee v. Greenwood is binding precedent in
the District of Connecticut — the Second Circuit governs
both SDNY and CTD. The First Amendment right recognized in
that case, including Inner City Press's right to be heard
on sealing motions, applies with equal force in Bridgeport
as in Manhattan. But the procedural path to exercising
that right is substantially longer and more burdensome in
Bridgeport. The underlying case illustrates why this
matters.
Salim Sakal, 55, a Brooklyn jeweler who
pleaded guilty to conspiring with a Colombian burglary
ring to fence more than $4.4 million in stolen jewelry
from mall-based kiosks in six states, is scheduled for
sentencing before Judge Dooley. The government moved to
seal three sentencing exhibits: Sakal's financial
statement submitted to the US Attorney's Office, and
police reports of crimes committed against Sakal and his
jewelry business. Those police reports — government
documents describing crimes against the defendant — are
among the most public-facing law enforcement records that
exist. That they are being sealed in a sentencing
proceeding, and that the procedure to oppose that sealing
requires more steps in Connecticut than in any neighboring
federal district, is a major problem.
Watch this site.
