SDNY COURTHOUSE, May 8 – Unsealing wrongful
hidden court filings is a task Inner City Press has
undertaken first in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, most recently in the Live
Nation trial,
and in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in the OneCoin
/ Sebastian Greenwood case.
Now, Inner City Press has sought unsealing in the Northern District of Illinois where it has come across entirely sealed dockets. On May 8, this:
Subject: Press Access — 1:25-mc-00506
USA v. Suppressed — Motion to Unseal is Itself Sealed
Dear Magistrate Judge Appenteng, This
is a request to unseal the docket and underlying orders in
the above-captioned matter, or in the alternative, provide
a written explanation of the legal basis for continued
sealing. This docket came to ICP's
attention through public court records:
Docket entry 4 filed May 8, 2026
reflects a government "Motion to Unseal the Search Warrant
Nunc Pro Tunc."
When a member of the public — or a journalist — attempts
to access that motion on PACER, the system returns: "You
do not have permission to view this document."
The result is an absurdity the public right
of access is designed to prevent: a motion asking this
Court to unseal a record is itself sealed, leaving the
public unable to read the government's own stated reasons
for unsealing, or to assess whether any unsealing
ultimately granted will be complete. I respectfully
request that docket entry 4 — the motion to unseal — be
made publicly accessible immediately, and that this press
request and any order on that motion be publicly docketed
as well.
Watch this site.
Last week Inner City Press wrote to NDIL
Magistrate Judges Maria G. Valdez a bout the case before
her, US v. Suppressed, 1:24-mc-00319:
"The pattern of filings is as follows: a
sealed motion and order were entered on May 6, 2024;
renewed on October 31, 2024; renewed again on May 1, 2025;
renewed again on October 28, 2025; and most recently
renewed on April 24 and 28, 2026. Publicly, every docket
entry is sealed."
The response was that the request
will not (yet?) be considered, it must be "filed on the
public docket" --
"Judge Valdez does not respond to ex parte
communications. Any requests for judicial action must be
made by motion on the public
docket. Michelle
D. Mills Law Clerk Chambers of Magistrate
Judge Maria Valdez "
First, the docket is entirely sealed, with
no name or public items. Two, only a lawyer admitted in
the NDIL with with filings privileges can file a request
to unseal. Pro hac vice costs hundreds of dollars. This is
not an acceptable system for public access to the courts.
In the interim, Inner City Press is
seeking Illinois pro bono counsel to make the filing. But
in the long run, this is unacceptable court opacity and,
it seems, lack of accountability.
Inner City Press will not rest. Watch
this site.
