A curious order yesterday, from U.S. v. Teixeira (a case involving Jack Teixeira, a national guard member “who pleaded guilty to leaking highly classified military documents about the war in Ukraine”):
147 Oct 29, 2024 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. All non-parties who accessed or obtained copies of Defendant’s sentencing memorandum or attachments thereto are ORDERED to destroy all electronic and print copies of these documents. The filings are sealed documents in accordance with this court’s prior order 141. (Talwani, Indira) (Entered: 10/29/2024)
That can’t be right, I think. (Disclosure: After seeing this order, I tried to figure out what was going on, and in the process obtained what appears to be a copy, from the CourtListener site, so the order would have technically bound me, alongside anyone else who likewise accessed the order.) Apparently, not long before, the court granted a motion to file defendant’s full sentencing memorandum under seal; that motion read,
Counsel for defendant, Jack Teixeira, respectfully moves that this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1 and Local Rule 7.2, allow the defendant to file its full Sentencing Memorandum, as well as Exhibits A and C thereto, under seal until further order of the Court.
As grounds, counsel states that Exhibit A to the Sentencing Memorandum is a neuropsychological assessment containing protected health information about Mr. Teixeira that should not be publicly available; Exhibit C is a copy of a report of the Inspector General of the Department of the Air Force, which was disclosed under seal as “Sensitive” discovery material pursuant to this Court’s Stipulated Protective Order, dated, October 3, 2023 (Dkt. No. 111); and Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum contains quotations from these two exhibits. Counsel has conferred with the Government who assents to this request.
Consistent with the parties’ discussion, Mr. Teixeira will thereafter file a redacted version of his Sentencing Memorandum, which will redact any information subject to the protective order except that which is publicly available from other sources. The parties intend to discuss and quote the findings of the neuropsychological assessment and its basis in their submissions but agree that the report itself should remain under seal until further order of the Court.
Somehow, though, the memorandum wasn’t filed under seal or with redactions (though Exhibits A and C were apparently filed under seal).
But we won’t get to hear more, I expect, about whether the order was permissible, because today the following order was issued:
148 Oct 30, 2024 Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER vacating Electronic Order 147 . The clerk shall update the docket text at 142, inserting the bracketed notations 142 [Redacted] SENTENCING MEMORANDUM, [142-1] [Cover Page] Exhibit A (Expert Report) Filed Under Seal, [142-3] Exhibit C [Cover Page] Exhibit C (Unredacted IG Report) Filed Under Seal. Docket entries 142, [142-1], [142-2], and [142-3] may then be unsealed. The remaining attachments to 142 shall remain under seal. (Cook, Savannah) (Entered: 10/30/2024)
I would have loved to know the backstory ….
