FAC filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit in support of The Center for Investigative Reporting (“CIR”), which is seeking to unseal federal wiretap applications and orders.
This case arises from a 1990s FBI investigation into the possible theft of approximately $180 million worth of precious gems and metals belonging to the Russian government by Golden ADA, Inc. (“Golden ADA”), a San Francisco-based diamond importing company. During the investigation, the FBI sought and obtained wiretap orders from a federal district court. Now closed, the investigation has been reported in the media, and some of its targets have been identified.
CIR sought access to the wiretap applications, orders, and related materials for a long-form audio documentary it is producing about the Golden ADA case. CIR believes the investigation, and our government’s interaction with the Russian government in the investigation, illustrates the nature of our early post-Soviet Union relationship with Russia.
The federal district court denied CIR’s request, holding, in an order emphasizing privacy interests, that CIR had not shown “good cause” for the disclosure of any of the records, even in part, and that CIR did not have a First Amendment right to access the records.
On appeal, CIR is arguing that the records must be disclosed, at least in part, under the Wiretap Act, which provides that sealed wiretap applications and orders shall be disclosed “upon a showing of good cause.” 18 U.S.C. § 2518. CIR contends that, due to the passage of time, diminished privacy interests, and the present newsworthiness of the Golden ADA investigation, there is good cause to unseal the records at issue here. CIR also argues the records are subject to disclosure under the First Amendment.
FAC’s brief surveys the public interest in disclosure, especially in light of historical wiretapping abuses, discusses what should be the legal test for “good cause” to disclose sealed records under the Wiretap Act, and explains why CIR’s motion should have been granted, at least in part, under the appropriate “good cause” analysis.