CT Judge Unseals After DOJ Defended Sealing Exhibits in Jewel Fencing Case Submitted 4 Inner City Press Articles

FEDERAL COURT / BRIDGEPORT, July 10 — Federal courts are supposed to be public; there is case law about the public's right to access courtroom and documents.

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 that 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.

  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). 

  On July 8, long after the sentencing which took place without any ruling on the motion to unseal, on July 8 the US Attorney's Office docketed opposition to unsealing - with four Inner City Press articles meant to show "criticism of this Court," and one still-sealed exhibit.

  Inner City Press has immediately replied - by email - [and, before the mailed version arrived, it was docketed]
  
  Now on July 10, Judge Kari Dooley has ruled — granting Inner City Press's motion to intervene and directing the Clerk to unseal the government's redacted sentencing exhibits (ECF Nos. 57 through 57-3) and strip their ex parte designation. The redacted versions the government had filed "under seal for the Court's examination" — an oxymoron Inner City Press flagged, since the entire office of a redacted version is to be public — should now go on the public docket, where the prosecutors pointedly put Inner City Press' stories in this series. 

And the order leaves the door open, not closed: the Court "will address the Intervenor's remaining arguments as to the additional information sought to be unsealed in due course," noting that it has not yet entered a Restitution Order, "the structure of which may well impact adjudication" of the sealing dispute. That is precisely Inner City Press's point — convicted Salim Sakal's actual balances, expenditures and assets are what let the public judge whether victims' restitution is set to match his real ability to pay. Watch this site.

Inner City Press is becoming familiar with the varied intervention procedure in many federal district courts. 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. But it can still work.

The case: 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.

Salim Sakal was sentenced by Judge Dooley on June 22, 2026 — then the US Attorney's office notified Inner City Press that the Court would take no action until the motion was docketed. A press release emailed to Inner City Press by US Attorney's Office (thanks, but see below): "David X. Sullivan, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, announced that SALIM SAKAL, 55, of Brooklyn, New York, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Kari A. Dooley in Bridgeport to 24 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release for buying and selling jewelry stolen from mall-based stores and kiosks across the country.  According to court documents and statements made in court, between May 2023 and April 2024, an organized jewelry theft ring of Colombian nationals burglarized jewelry stores and kiosks in malls in Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, Ohio, and Virginia.  The total losses from the burglaries exceed $4.4 million.  Members of the conspiracy also cased additional jewelry stores and kiosks in Iowa, Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Delaware.              Sakal was the co-owner of Ramoun Jewelry, located in Corona, New York."

Watch this site.

More on X for Subscribers here and Substack here