from Pre-U.S. relations. Oberg and Carmorne v. Nelnet, Inc.Yesterday, the Fourth Circuit issued its decision, following an opinion by Judges Julius Richardson, Barbara Milano Keenan, and District Judge Elizabeth Dillon (D-Va.):
In 2007, Jon Oberg filed a False Claims Act lawsuit against several student loan companies, including Nelnet, Inc., Nelnet Education Loan Funding, Inc., Brazos Higher Education Services, Inc., and Brazos Higher Education Brazos High Education Authority, Inc. (collectively, Nernet and Brazos). Oberg claims the companies submitted false statements to the Department of Education to inflate their loan portfolios that were eligible for interest subsidies. The parties agreed that the case would be decided by a magistrate….
The parties filed various documents under seal and the case was ultimately settled, while summary judgment motions are pending. Then, “[o]On March 31, 2023, Michael Camoin—a documentary filmmaker who reports on the student loan industry—filed a pro se letter with the District Court seeking access to Oberg’s conviction for opposing summary The submitted information will be sealed for judgment.
[T]The First Amendment protects the right to inspect summary judgment motions and documents filed “in connection with those motions.” We begin by acknowledging that the First Amendment does not prohibit district courts from restricting discovery of pretrial discovery products. But we explain “[o]Once these documents become part of a dispositive motion, such as a motion for summary judgment, they “lose their status as the original fruits of discovery.” Unlike discovery, “summary judgment adjudicates substantive rights and serves as a substitute for a trial.” “And because the public has a First Amendment right to attend criminal trials, we find that the public also has an equal right to obtain documents related to civil summary judgment motions….
Nernet and Brazos… argue[e] The First Amendment right of inspection does not apply when the district court expressly finds that the documents play no adjudicatory role in the litigation.
but… [o]Our precedents make clear that the First Amendment right to summary judgment materials does not depend on judicial resolution of a motion for summary judgment or judicial reliance on documents that resolve the motion. Instead,…the First Amendment rights attach “[o]Once these files become part of the file [summary judgment] motion” and no later than. That is, as soon as the document”submit For summary judgment motions in civil cases, “more stringent First Amendment standards” must be met before public access is denied…
The public has an interest in ensuring basic fairness and deterring officer misconduct, not only in the outcome of certain proceedings, but also in the proceedings themselves. We protect this interest by allowing the public to participate in these proceedings. A “corollary” to the right to participate in protected proceedings is the ability to obtain documents filed with those proceedings, since only then can the public truly understand what is happening in them.
Nernette and Brazos argued that because the original case was settled before the summary judgment award, the documents were of little value in understanding what happened in the litigation. But it’s up to the public to decide “why this case was filed (and fought)”[ ] The arguments advanced in the appeal demonstrate how access to these sealed documents could help answer these questions. Next, Carmoine noted that they may have settled because of the arguments and evidence presented in the summary judgment proceeding, but without access to sealed materials, it would be impossible for the public to know which view was correct. Upon a motion for summary judgment, the public has a presumptive First Amendment right to inspect documents filed in connection therewith….
The circuit court remanded the district court to decide “whether a compelling governmental interest requires that the seal of the requested document be preserved.”[ ] and…tailored specifically to serve that interest,” which would overcome the First Amendment right of access.
Nandan M. Joshi of Public Citizen Litigation Group represented Camoin.
