United States v. Abu Agila Mohammad Mas’ud Kheir Al-Marimi

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia grants the parties’ unopposed proposals to use a redacted transcript and portions of an audio recording of a sealed Rule 15 deposition at a suppression hearing. The court concludes that the proposal is permissible under either the First Amendment access framework or the common-law Hubbard factors because it protects fair-trial, safety, and witness-related interests while preserving public access. The court orders the parties to propose necessary redactions and file a redacted transcript by the conclusion of the suppression hearing.

Holdings

1. The court may substitute a redacted, non-video transcript and audio recording of the Rule 15 deposition for duplicative live testimony at the suppression hearing when the procedure is narrowly tailored to protect compelling fair-trial, presumption-of-innocence, safety, and witness-availability interests while preserving meaningful public access.
2. The proposed partial closure satisfied the First Amendment standard because it served compelling interests, those interests faced a substantial probability of harm absent closure, and no less restrictive alternative would adequately protect them.
3. Alternatively, the proposed partial sealing satisfied the six-factor balancing test for sealing judicial records under United States v. Hubbard.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court could admit a redacted transcript and audio recording of a sealed Rule 15 deposition in lieu of duplicative live testimony at a suppression hearing consistent with the public’s First Amendment right of access.
2. Whether the proposed redactions and partial sealing satisfied the First Amendment closure test.
3. Alternatively, whether the proposed treatment of the deposition materials satisfied the common-law judicial-records sealing factors identified in United States v. Hubbard.

Disposition

other