United States v. Rony Maurival ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •           Case: 18-14693    Date Filed: 11/21/2019   Page: 1 of 6
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 18-14693
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 2:14-cr-14014-DMM-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff–Appellee,
    versus
    RONY MAURIVAL,
    Defendant–Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    ________________________
    (November 21, 2019)
    Case: 18-14693     Date Filed: 11/21/2019    Page: 2 of 6
    Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Rony Maurival appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to seal. In
    particular, the district court refused to seal (1) a magistrate judge’s report and
    recommendation (“R&R”)—which was filed in response to Maurival’s untimely
    Criminal Justice Act (“CJA”) voucher seeking the payment of attorney’s fees to his
    defense counsel, Robert Stickney—and (2) his response to the R&R.
    Maurival asserts that the filings disclose sensitive information that, contrary
    to the Guide to Judiciary Policy § 510.30, could reasonably be expected to
    compromise the following: (1) defense strategies and investigative procedures
    (e.g., how Stickney prepared for trial, his efforts to cross-examine government
    witnesses, or the number of witnesses that he was prepared to call at trial); (2)
    attorney work product; (3) attorney-client privileged material (e.g., summations or
    specific details of Maurival’s communications with Stickney); (4) other privileged
    information; and (5) the private information pertaining to the internal operation and
    administrative challenges of Stickney’s law office (e.g., how Stickney’s
    administrative duties were neglected due to his work representing other clients).
    Further, he argues that the court failed to reasonably apply the Guide to Judiciary
    Policy to the facts of his case and clearly erred by finding that he had not provided
    a legal or factual basis for his motion.
    2
    Case: 18-14693       Date Filed: 11/21/2019       Page: 3 of 6
    * * *
    We review the district court’s denial of a motion to seal portions of the
    record for abuse of discretion. See Perez Guerrero v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 
    717 F.3d 1224
    , 1235 (11th Cir. 2013). 1 In reviewing for an abuse of discretion, we review
    questions of law de novo, and the district court’s factual findings for clear error.
    Scott v. Roberts, 
    612 F.3d 1279
    , 1289 (11th Cir. 2010). After review, we conclude
    that the court’s decision violated neither its own local rules nor the Guide to
    Judiciary Policy.
    First, pursuant to the local rules for the Southern District of Florida,
    proceedings are public and court filings are “matters of public record.” S.D. Fla.
    L.R. 5.4(a). Where a party seeks to seal documents in a criminal case, he must set
    forth “the factual and legal basis for departing from” the court’s open-access
    policy. 
    Id. 5.4(c)(1). “We
    give great deference to a district court’s interpretation
    of its local rules and review a district court’s application of [its] local rules for an
    1
    The government argues that Maurival waived his argument that the district court’s denial of his
    motion to seal was in contravention of the Guide to Judiciary Policy. In particular, the
    government says, Maurival failed to raise that argument until his motion for reconsideration, the
    denial of which he has not appealed; accordingly, the government continues, this Court should
    review Maurival’s argument only for plain error, rather than abuse of discretion. Parties can
    “waive positions and issues on appeal, but not individual arguments” or authorities. Sec’y, U.S.
    Dep’t of Labor v. Preston, 
    873 F.3d 877
    , 883 n.5 (11th Cir. 2017). Maurival therefore contends
    that his failure to cite the Guide to Judiciary Policy did not constitute waiver because it is an
    argument, rather than a position or issue. We need not determine whether plain-error review is
    appropriate because Maurival has failed to show that the district court erred under the more
    lenient abuse-of-discretion standard that ordinarily governs the review of denials of motions to
    seal.
    3
    Case: 18-14693        Date Filed: 11/21/2019       Page: 4 of 6
    abuse of discretion.” Reese v. Herbert, 
    527 F.3d 1253
    , 1267 n.22 (11th Cir. 2008)
    (quotation marks and citations omitted).
    There is no indication that the district court improperly applied or interpreted
    Local Rule 5.4 with respect to the facts of Maurival’s case. Maurival’s cursory
    reference to his privacy concerns or matters related to Stickney’s representation of
    him or other clients do not provide a legal justification for why those concerns
    should overcome the presumption of public access to the R&R and Maurival’s
    response. Nothing in the record suggests, nor has Maurival argued, that there is
    likely to be any significant public attention to the documents that would lead to
    their widespread publication and undue intrusions on his or Stickney’s privacy
    interests if those documents were to remain publicly available. S.D. Fla. L.R.
    5.4(a), (c)(1). 2 In short, the mere assertion that the R&R referenced “private”
    matters does not constitute an argument that those private matters were unduly
    infringed such that the presumption of public access is overcome.
    Maurival’s motion provided only superficial, non-specific references to
    potentially private or protected information, and it was not clearly erroneous for
    the district court to find that these assertions did not provide a sufficient factual
    2
    In fact, it is possible that the public interest might be served by keeping the documents publicly
    accessible, since the R&R’s discussion of Stickney’s delinquent CJA voucher could bear on
    future payments to Stickney, were he again to submit a delinquent CJA voucher. Maurival even
    points out that such a situation has already occurred, insofar as the R&R has been cited in
    connection with another of Stickney’s cases in which CJA-related matters were raised.
    4
    Case: 18-14693     Date Filed: 11/21/2019   Page: 5 of 6
    basis to adequately demonstrate his interests related to his criminal proceedings or
    his counsel Stickney’s privacy concerns. 
    Scott, 612 F.3d at 1289
    .
    Second, the court’s decision is not contrary to the Guide to Judiciary Policy,
    Maurival’s principal source of authority. The Guide to Judiciary Policy provides
    that CJA-related information that is not otherwise routinely available to the public
    should be made available unless it, among other things: “could reasonably be
    expected to unduly intrude upon the privacy of attorneys or defendants” or “could
    reasonably be expected to compromise defense strategies, investigative procedures,
    attorney work product, the attorney-client relationship or privileged information
    provided by the defendant or other sources.” Vol. 7A, § 510.30(b)–(c).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Maurival’s motion
    to seal the R&R and his response because he failed to specify how the public
    availability of those documents would compromise his case, interfere with
    Stickney’s representation of other defendants, or unduly intrude on either his or
    Stickney’s privacy. The contents of the R&R and Maurival’s response are
    substantively unrelated to his conviction or sentence, which were finalized years
    before the R&R was filed, and his cursory references to broad categories of
    protected classes of information did not provide the court with a specific factual
    basis justifying the motion to seal. Similarly, Maurival failed to indicate how
    Stickney’s privacy would be unduly infringed or how the public availability of
    5
    Case: 18-14693      Date Filed: 11/21/2019       Page: 6 of 6
    non-specific information regarding Stickney’s workload or professional priorities
    would harm him professionally, or otherwise affect his privacy or ability to
    adequately serve as defense counsel. See Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 7A, §
    510.30(b).3
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    The government’s motion to dismiss Maurival’s appeal on the ground that it is moot is
    DENIED.
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-14693

Filed Date: 11/21/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/21/2019