SDNY COURTHOUSE, May 27 – 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 District for the District of Columbia of
the Libya / Pan Am 103 case against Abu Agila Mohammad
Mas'ud Kheir Al-Marimi. On May 27, citing recent docketing
of Press emailed unsealing requests in the District
of Massachusetts, EDNY,
SDNY and even DDC
- this
judge - in the past, Inner City Press wrote to Judge
Dabney L. Friedrich challenging
"the sealing of the unredacted Motion to
Exclude or Limit Testimony of Proffered Metallurgy Expert
filed under seal at Docket 447-1, pursuant to the Court's
Minute Order of May 15, 2026... The admissibility of
metallurgy expert testimony goes directly to the core of
the government's proof at trial — the physical evidence
linking the defendant to the bomb's construction. The
public, the victims' families, and the press have a
compelling interest in understanding the evidentiary
disputes that will shape the trial's outcome."
Not this or the rest of the letter,
but only this was docketed: "The Court has received via
email an unsealing request from Inner City Press as to the
government's Motion to Exclude or Limit the Testimony of
Proffered Metallurgy Expert, a redacted copy of which
already appears on the public docket. See Dkt. 446. The
request is DENIED because the Court does not accept
letters. See Local Civil Rule 5.1(a). So Ordered by Judge
Dabney L. Friedrich on May 27, 2026."
That rule says "Except when
requested by a judge, correspondence shall not be directed
by the parties or their attorneys to a judge, nor shall
papers be left with or mailed to a judge for filing. (b)
FACSIMILE OR EMAIL. No document shall be transmitted to
the Clerk for filing by means of electronic facsimile or
email transmission except with express leave of Court."
Having excluded the Press and public, later on May 27 a filing went in. The government filed on May 27 its opposition (Dkt. 471) to the defense's motion to limit or exclude its metallurgy expert, Dr. Yu-Lung Chiu of the University of Birmingham. The central issue: a fragment of printed circuit board known as PT/35(b), which the government says originated from a MEBO timer — the same type used in the Lockerbie bomb. Scottish authorities commissioned metallurgical testing in 2012 and 2013; Dr. Chiu personally analyzed the raw data and independently concluded that PT/35(b) did originate from a MEBO timer. That testimony, if admitted, is a pillar of the government's case. The defense says he is a surrogate witness barred by Bullcoming v. New Mexico. Judge Friedrich will decide - but the public will not fully see why.
The case has continued to develop. On June
3, 2026, the government filed its reply brief (Dkt. 477)
in support of its motion to exclude the defense's
metallurgy expert, Dr. Elizabeth Buc. The government's
core argument: Dr. Buc's expert notice fails to state what
her actual opinions are. She has been noticed to testify
about whether the government expert's analysis "conformed
to the principle" of independent analysis and whether it
"reflects confirmation bias" — but the notice never says
what her conclusion is. Did she find confirmation bias or
not? The government argues that stating a topic without
stating an opinion is not a "complete" statement under
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(G)(iii), and
the Court should not permit a mid-trial amendment of the
notice.
The PT/35(b) fragment — the piece of
printed circuit board the government says came from a MEBO
timer, making it a physical link between the defendant and
the Lockerbie bomb — is at the center of the dispute. The
defense has argued that "a question arose regarding the
provenance" of PT/35(b) following the Scottish trial. The
government's reply calls that framing misleading: the
defense has had the government's metallurgy notice since
October 8, 2025, sought and received an extension of its
responsive notice deadline, and has had "ample
opportunity" to draft a notice stating any affirmative
opinions it actually intends to elicit. The government is
asking Friedrich to hold the line — no new opinions, no
mid-trial amendments.
All of this is being litigated in the
public courtroom — orally, on the record — while the
written motion papers remain sealed or redacted. Inner
City Press's unsealing request, which Friedrich denied
because DDC does not accept letters, sought exactly the
unredacted written arguments now being argued in open
court. The public can hear the lawyers argue but cannot
read what they wrote. That asymmetry — oral argument
public, written record sealed — is what the LCrR 57.6
Miscellaneous filing process is designed to correct
Inner City Press wrote to Judge
Friedrich seeking the unredacted version — and Friedrich
docketed a denial, saying DDC does not accept letters. The
District of Columbia — home to the most consequential
federal prosecutions in America — turns out to be less
accessible to the press than Massachusetts, SDNY, EDNY, or
even DDC itself in past years. See, e.g, days ago in the
District of Massachusetts, this.
If the Press can't similarly
challenge oversealing in DDC, by email, then how?
Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqi told Inner City Press to raise
it with Chief Judge James Boasberg's special assistant
Lisa Klem, and it did. Twice by letter - no answer - and
once by phone - a promise to revert, never fulfilled.
But there is another DDC rule:
LCrR 57.6 APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF IN A CRIMINAL CASE OR MATTER BY PERSONS NOT PARTIES TO THE CASE Any news organization or other interested person, other than a party or a subpoenaed witness, who seeks relief relating to any aspect of the proceedings in a criminal case, or relief relating to a criminal investigative or grand jury matter, shall file an application for such relief in the Miscellaneous Docket of with the Court. The application shall include a statement of the applicant's interest in the matter as to which relief is sought, a statement of facts, and a specific prayer for relief. An application that pertains to a criminal case or matter to which a judge has been assigned The application shall be served on the parties to the criminal case and shall be referred by the Clerk to the trial assigned judge assigned to the criminal case for determination. An application that pertains to a criminal investigative or grand jury matter to which no judge has been assigned shall be referred by the Clerk to the Chief Judge for determination.
Sounds good - but is Judge
Friedrich, and by implication Ms. Klem and Chief Judge
Boasberg saying that unless a news organization pays to
have on retained a DDC admitted lawyer with filing
privileges, the right of access is meaningless?
In DDC, Inner City Press noted 50 "sz"
(seizure) cases, and asked Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui
who had said he'd unseal one of his cases - it hasn't
happened yet - to do so. Judge Faruqui to his credit
referred Inner City Press to the Special Assistant to
Chief Judge James E. Boasberg, Lisa Klem, with whom it has
spoken by phone, first about the January 6 cases and now
about these "sz" cases.
Magistrate Judge Matthew J. Sharbaugh
has recently unsealed
three cases. But more than 70 remain, some of them sure to
relate to ships and other items already
seized.
Inner City Press will not rest. Watch
this site.
