The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Total Eclipse of the Court: Buckert v. Volokh Going up to Fifth Circuit
There's a case just docketed in the Fifth Circuit, under the name Buckert v. Volokh, and, no, the second party isn't Maria Volokh—it's me. Thankfully, I'm not actually the defendant, but rather the intervenor and appellee: The case below is Buckert v. Traynor; I moved to intervene and unseal, and prevailed; and now plaintiff is appealing that decision.
But the district court record, including the unsealing order that's being appealed from, remains entirely under seal, except for the docket. (Think of the docket as the corona, which shines out from behind the sealing moon, even when the sun of the actual court filings and decisions is eclipsed. And, true to the metaphor, the eclipsed court materials don't lack power—just as the eclipse of the sun, thankfully, doesn't strip the sun of its gravitational force—but are rendered largely invisible.)
I had only learned about the case because some of the earlier decisions in the case had been posted on Westlaw, perhaps erroneously. Apparently all the documents in the case were sealed; I moved to intervene and unseal; and six months after my motion, the District Court issued an unsealing order:
140 Aug 3, 2022 ORDER VACATING ORDER TO SEAL, re 9 Order on Motion to Seal, DENIED AS MOOT 117 MOTION to Intervene filed by Eugene Volokh. The Court DIRECTS the Clerks Office to unseal all filings in this case. The Court further DIRECTS the Clerks Office to no longer seal future filings. All filings in this case will be available to the general public. Signed by Judge Xavier Rodriguez. (wg) (Entered: 08/04/2022)
But then when plaintiff appealed and moved for a stay pending appeal, the District Court sealed everything—including the text of its sealing order, which it had originally issued as a publicly accessible document—though note again that the docket entries, which I quote are not sealed:
144 Aug 8, 2022 ORDER GRANTING re 141 MOTION to Stay MOTION FOR STAY OF COURTS AUGUST 3, 2022 ORDER PENDING APPEAL filed by Amanda Reimherr Buckert. The Clerks Office is DIRECTED to seal all existing and future filings in this case until further Court order. Only the parties attorneys onrecord and Defendant Zachary Traynor, who is proceeding pro se, may access the filings. The Clerks Office is further DIRECTED to mail a copy of this order to Eugene Volokh. Signed by Judge Xavier Rodriguez. (wg) (Entered: 08/08/2022)
Now I think that the sealing order doesn't bar me from distributing the material that I had gotten when it was unsealed (such as the Aug. 3 order) or that had been erroneously released by the court (such as the item I saw on Westlaw), see Florida Star v. B.J.F. But out of respect for the court, and out of an excess of caution, my current plan is not to quote any such documents, so long as they are sealed.
But I do feel comfortable saying that there are likely to be interesting and important free speech issues in this case, even apart from the questions related to the right of access to court records. I can also say that the case appears to include some legal claims related to "sexually explicit images of Plaintiff" (to quote docket entry 7), but I don't think it's limited to that—and in any event, while plaintiff's privacy interests might justify redacting exhibits (if any) containing any such images, I don't think they justify complete sealing.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Thank you, thank you, thank you, for not using the phrase, "out of an abundance of caution". Which, as near as I can tell, is legal-speak for "Over-reacting".
Is an excess better than an abundance?
How does one get standing to intervene?
Also curious as to why you would and were allowed to intervene.
IIRC, any member of the public can intervene to request public records be unsealed.
And while there's no justification required for the request, Prof. Volokh usually includes he is a law professor specializing in public proceedings and open access to public records (or something like that).
Simply being a member of the public allows one to request access to public records.
Well, I wanted to intervene because there are interesting features of the case that I wanted to write about; I learned about from the erroneously released earlier opinions, and wanted to get more information from other record documents. I was allowed to intervene because everyone has a presumptive right of access to court records, and courts therefore generally allow people who want to write about the court records (usually the media, though sometimes others as well) to intervene to assert their rights of access.
Thanks for that. Learn something new almost everyday on VC.
The trial court docket is on courtlistener.com: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15817448/buckert-v-traynor/
One document there gives some context:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1038891/gov.uscourts.txwd.1038891.5.0.pdf
Thank you. Will review it and report back.
Zachary Traynor seems a thoroughgoing jerk and loser, at least preliminarily.
It may be interesting to observe this blog's interest in his case.
Sounds like a lot of work just to get a few nude pictures, but to each his own
How mad must plaintiff's counsel be about this whole situation? Here you are, doing a case with probably little more than local attention. You got it under seal and looks like was in the middle of discovery. Then, boom, you get a motion to unseal from some guy you never heard of half way across the country who has apparently decided to use your case to make his points about the public's right to access court documents. Now you are before the Fifth Circuit to try to preserve that seal.....
I'm not saying that using cases like this to demonstrate the importance of a right or call out judicial misuse of tools, but man, I sort of feel for the guy who got that unsolicited service one day....
Jimmy the Dane: I totally appreciate your point; it must be an unwelcome surprise, and unpleasant to explain to your client.
At the same time, total sealing of a case is a truly extraordinary remedy, and generally very much frowned on outside a few narrow categories (chiefly national security matters and juvenile justice cases). If you get this remedy, you ought to understand that it's a windfall, and one that you might have gotten just because there wasn't anyone effectively opposing it. (Here, I think the defendant did oppose sealing in some measure, but he's pro se, and likely would have found it hard to articulate the clear legal arguments against sealing.) And I think you ought to recognize that the result is potentially precarious.
Looking at the solar allusions, I am grateful the Professor didn't stoop to invoking umbrae and penumbrae. Although he was certainly orbiting around the subject.
That could be a global comment.
"Think of the docket as the corona, which shines out from behind the sealing moon, even when the sun of the actual court filings and decisions is eclipsed."
Oh, yeah!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jJkdRaa04g
If you're going to link to YouTube, do this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcOxhH8N3Bo
No, no, this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsgWUq0fdKk.
Yes, thank you, I forgot about that one.