govinfo:USCOURTS-ksd-6_12-cr-10174-17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 
UNITED STATES AMERICA, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. No. 12-10174-JTM 
PHILIP ANDRA GRIGSBY, 
Defendant. 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
This matter is before the court on defendant Philip Grigsby’s request that “all cases 
involving [him] be sealed for his protection.” (Dkt. 302, at 2). He makes the request stating 
that “his safety could be in question ” if he is transferred from his curr ent place of 
imprisonment. 
In the United States, “historically both civil and criminal trials have been 
presumptively open.” Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 580 n. 17 (1980). 
Accordingly, even in civil cases there is “a presumption that the public has a common -
law right of access to judicial documents.” In re Providence Journal Co ., 293 F.3d 1, 9 (1st 
Cir. 2002) (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc ., 435 U.S. 589, 597 –98 (1978)). “This 
presumption ‘stems from the premise that public monitoring of the judicial system fosters 
the important values of ‘quality, honesty and respect for our legal system.’” United States 
v. MasMarques , No. 09 -10304-MLW, 2015 WL 5609957, at *2 (D. Mass. Sept. 22, 2015)
Case 6:12-cr-10174-JWB     Document 303     Filed 12/12/18     Page 1 of 3
2 
 
(quoting Siedle v. Putnam Investments, Inc ., 147 F.3d 7, 9 –10 (1st C ir. 1998)). “[P]ublic 
monitoring of the judicial system fosters the important values of quality, honesty an d 
respect for our legal system.” Siedle v. Putnam Investments, Inc., 147 F.3d 7, 9-10 (1st Cir. 
1998) (quotation omitted). Sealing an entire civil case is justified only in “extraordinary 
circumstances.” Brown v. Advantage Eng'g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992).  
 The rule of access is even stronger in criminal cases, to which the press and public 
enjoy a First Amendment right . Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for the County of 
Norfolk, 457 U.S. 596, 603, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982); Chicago Tribune Co. v. 
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. , 263 F.3d 1304, 1310 (11th Cir.2001).  The Supreme Court has 
recognized that open criminal proceedings are an “indispensable attribute of an Anglo–
American trial” for centuries. Richmond Newspapers , 448 U.S. at 569. Public access is 
“rooted in the ‘principle that justice cannot survive behind walls of silence,’ and in the 
‘traditional Anglo–American distrust for secret trials.’” Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 
368, 412, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 61 L.Ed.2d 608 (1979) (quoting Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 
349, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966), and In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 268, 68 S. Ct. 499, 
92 L.Ed. 682 (1948)) (Blackmun, J. concurring in part); See also Richmond Newspapers, 448 
U.S. at 591 (Brennan, J., concurring) (noting “the universal requirement of our federal and 
state governments that criminal trials be public”) (quoting Oliver, 333 U.S. at 273).  And 
“Congress has recognized a ‘compelling public need’ to keep criminal records publicly 
available.” MasMarques, 2015 WL 5609957 at *2 (quoting United States v. Schnitzer, 567 F.2d 
536, 539 (2d Cir. 1977)). 
Case 6:12-cr-10174-JWB     Document 303     Filed 12/12/18     Page 2 of 3
3 
 
 Grigsby’s motion fails to not this very heavy burden. The only authority cited in 
his motion is a photocopy “Notice to Inmates,” ostensibly issued by the Bureau of 
Prisons, stating that the BOP “does not have the authority to determine whether to seal a 
case,” and stating that inmates “may send a written request to the Court which decided 
their case asking to court to seal their case.” (Dkt. 302, at 4). There is no indication that 
the Notice is an official Bureau of Prisons document, but assuming this to be the case, it 
does nothing more tell inmates the BOP has no authority to seal cases. 
 The motion before the court presents nothing to warrant sealing other generalized 
security concerns which might be present in any case involving child sexual abuse. The 
sealing of judicial records cannot be justified on “generic interests that would apply with 
equal force to every case.” United States v. Apperson, 642 F. App'x 892, 904 (10th Cir. 2016). 
 IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this day of December, that defendant’s Motion 
to Seal (Dkt. 302) is denied. 
   
 
      J. Thomas Marten 
      J. Thomas Marten, Judge 
 
Case 6:12-cr-10174-JWB     Document 303     Filed 12/12/18     Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight