Flynt v. Lombardi, No. 16-1295 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of intervenor's motion to unseal certain judicial records. The underlying litigation involved an omnibus Eighth Amendment challenge to Missouri's execution protocol where state government agencies filed documents under seal in order to be able to carry out executions. The court held that, under common law, the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that the documents at issue should remain sealed and that there was not way to redact the information to preserve certain identities. The court also held that intervenor has not established a First Amendment right to unseal the information where there was no historic tradition of accessibility, and public access to the documents in the instant case would not play a significant positive role in the function of Missouri's execution protocol. Finally, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in electing to review the supplemental briefing in camera, and denying intervenor's subsequent request to review it.
Court Description: Beam, Author, with Loken and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Death Penalty - Access to Records. Intervenor Larry Flynt sought to unseal documents relating to Missouri's death penalty protocol litigation under common law and First Amendment right of access to judicial records and to unseal supplemental brief sealed for in camera review. Under common law right, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the balance of interests lies in favor of the execution team members' right to privacy and the State's right to carry out its executions and did not abuse its discretion in finding Flynt's request on behalf of the public would lead to uncovering the identity of the execution team members and result in harm to the individuals and the State and in finding redaction was not possible. Under First Amendment analysis, this court has not ruled that an execution constitutes the kind of proceeding to which the public enjoys a qualified right of access under the First Amendment, as there is not a historical tradition of accessibility and public access to documents would not play a significant positive role in the functioning of the process. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely the motion to review the supplemental briefing or in conducting an in camera review of the information to determine if a less restrictive method would be available to protect the information. Judge Kelly concurs.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.