Friday, July 17, 2026

On Fully Sealed EDNY Case Judge Kuntz Opens In re Inner City Press Now US Due Aug 11

EDNY COURTHOUSE, July 13 –   On the Eastern District of New York's public courtroom calendar for July 7 was an entry with no name: "* SEALED *," 2:00 p.m., Courtroom 6H North, before Judge William F. Kuntz, II. On PACER, the case — 18-cr-277 — returns only "Sealed v. Sealed. This case is under seal."

No caption, no parties, no docket entries. A criminal case, apparently opened in 2018, invisible for eight years. Inner City Press, which covers the federal courts, wrote to Judge Kuntz that same day: docket the letter, unseal the docket sheet, and test the continued sealing against the Second Circuit's standards — citing Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2004), in which the Second Circuit held that the press and public have a qualified First Amendment right of access to docket sheets themselves, without which "the public cannot know what it is being denied." Judge Kuntz did not ignore the letter. He did not deny it in a sealed order.

He did something better — and, in Inner City Press's experience across a dozen districts, close to unique: he opened a new, public miscellaneous case, captioned In re Inner City Press [26-cv-4094], docketed Inner City Press's letter as Document 1, and put Assistant United States Attorneys on the case to respond. Consider the elegance of it. The underlying case is sealed; even an order about it, entered on its docket, would be invisible.

 Rather than let the access request disappear into the same black hole it challenges, Judge Kuntz created a public vehicle in which the question of secrecy will itself be litigated publicly, with the government required to appear and be counted. That is Pellegrino's principle made procedure: whatever ultimately remains sealed, the public gets to watch the deciding. Judge Kuntz, appointed in 2011, on senior status since 2022, presumably could have done what some of his colleagues around the country have done with Inner City Press's requests — nothing, or worse. Instead the docket now shows a case named for the press asking the question.

On July 13 Judge Kuntz set a schedule: "ORDER: The Court is in receipt of the request from Inner City Press to unseal the criminal case 18-CR-277. ECF No. 1. The Court DIRECTS Plaintiff and Defendant to submit their responses to the request on ECF on or before Tuesday, August 11, 2026, at 5:00 P.M. The Court further DIRECTS Inner City Press to submit its reply, if any, on or before Tuesday, August 25, 2026, at 5:00 P.M. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order and an updated copy of the docket report for the above-captioned civil action to Mr. Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press. Ordered by Judge William F. Kuntz, II on 7/13/2026."

The contrast is instructive. In the District of Columbia, Judge Dabney Friedrich has had Inner City Press's miscellaneous case on sealed filings in U.S. v. Al-Marimi, 26-mc-89, before her since June 4 — with the government's brief in and nothing since.

More on X for Subscribers here and Substack here