United States v. Allison Marie Baver Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Unseal (No. 2:21-cr-00520, D. Utah, Doc. 159)
Summary
Memorandum decision and order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, dated June 22, 2023, granting the government's motion to unseal filings in United States v. Allison Marie Baver and Allison Baver Entertainment, LLC. The filings include Baver's motions to release grand jury transcripts, to dismiss counts 1-8 and to exclude witness Nick Patel, with the related briefs. Judge Jill N. Parrish ordered most of them unsealed, with EIN numbers and third-party names redacted from some exhibits. A few exhibits remain sealed.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
Case 2:21-cr-00520-JNP Document 159 Filed 06/22/23 PageID.1987 Page 1 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
Plaintiff, UNSEAL
v.
Case No. 2:21-cr-00520-JNP
ALLISON MARIE BAVER and ALLISON
BAVER ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, District Judge Jill N. Parrish
Defendants.
Before the court is a motion filed by Plaintiff, the United States of America requesting the
court unseal the following pleadings: Defendant’s Motion to Release Grand Jury Transcripts,
Defendant’s Amended Motion to Release Grand Jury Transcripts, Motion to Dismiss Counts 1–8,
Motion in Limine to Exclude Witness Nick Patel, Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Involving
Neighbor and HOA, and Motion in Limine to Admit Supporting Documentation. ECF Nos. 79, 82,
83, 91, 102, and 104. The court GRANTS the motion.
On October 19, 2022, a grand jury indicted Defendants Allison Marie Baver (“Ms. Baver”)
and Allison Baver Entertainment, LLC (“ABE”) on eight counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1014,
one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1957, and one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). Second
Superseding Indictment, ECF No. 47. A trial date has been set for June 26, 2023. In the interim,
Ms. Baver has filed several motions and reply briefs under seal. See ECF Nos. 79, 82, 83, 87, 91,
98, 100, 102, and 104. The United States has filed its responses to these motions under seal. See
ECF Nos. 84, 96.
Case 2:21-cr-00520-JNP Document 159 Filed 06/22/23 PageID.1988 Page 2 of 6
LEGAL STANDARD
“Courts have long recognized a common-law right of access to judicial records.” United
States v. Pickard, 733 F.3d 1297, 1302 (10th Cir. 2013) (quoting Colony Ins. Co. v. Burke, 698
F.3d 1222, 1241 (10th Cir. 2012)).
The records of the court are presumptively open to the public. The
sealing of cases, pleadings, motions, memoranda, exhibits, and
other documents or portions thereof (Documents) is generally
discouraged. Unless restricted by statute, case law, court order, the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, or these local rules, the
public will have access to all Documents filed with the court and to
all court proceedings. Counsel are encouraged to publicly file
Documents and to redact personal identifiers, as set forth in Fed. R.
Crim. P. 49.1, and confidential portions of a Document when they
are not directly pertinent to the issues before the court.
DUCrimR 49-2(a).
However, the “right is not absolute.” Colony Ins. Co., 698 F.3d at 1241. “Documents
containing sensitive, confidential, or personal information for or about a defendant . . . may be
sealed without a motion or prior approval from the court.” DUCrimR 49-2(c)(3). The party
seeking to seal the documents, “bears the burden of showing some significant interest that
outweighs the presumption.” Pickard, 733 F.3d 1297, 1302 (10th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation
omitted). “On a motion of any party and a showing of good cause, or on the court’s own
initiative, the court may order that all or a portion of a Document . . . be unsealed after providing
the parties with an opportunity to justify the continued sealing of the Document or case.”
DUCrimR 49-2(d).
2
Case 2:21-cr-00520-JNP Document 159 Filed 06/22/23 PageID.1989 Page 3 of 6
ANALYSIS
As a preliminary matter, Ms. Baver has withdrawn the motions corresponding to ECF Nos.
102 and 104 and filed unsealed versions of these motions as ECF Nos. 113 and 117. Thus, the
court finds that the United States’ request with respect to unsealing these two motions is MOOT.
Ms. Baver argues that the court should continue to seal the pleadings because they contain
information that Ms. Baver has a substantial interest in keeping private, and because unsealing the
documents “has the strong likelihood of preventing Ms. Baver from receiving a fair trial, if the
case is argued in the press prior to actually going to trial.” ECF No. 115 at 4. The court is not
persuaded by either of Ms. Baver’s arguments.
The court addresses Ms. Baver’s fair trial argument first. Ms. Baver cites United States v.
McVeigh, 119 F.3d 806 (10th Cir. 1997) for the proposition that a court may seal judicial records
in a criminal trial where the documents will “produce ‘[a] substantial likelihood of denial of the
right of any person to a fair trial.’” Id. at 809 n.3 (quoting 28 C.F.R. § 50.9(c)(6)). However,
McVeigh was an “extraordinary” “high-profile case” concerning the Oklahoma City bombings. Id.
at 813. And even under the circumstances in McVeigh, the district court did not seal the entirety of
the motions, but rather redacted inadmissible or overly prejudicial materials referenced therein. Id.
at 813–15.
The court is not persuaded that this case, which involves Paycheck Protection Program
fraud, warrants the same kind of consideration as McVeigh. Id. at 813. Even if this were the case,
“parties must articulate a real and substantial interest that justifies depriving the public of access
to the records that inform our decision-making process.” Helm v. Kansas, 656 F.3d 1277, 1292
(10th Cir. 2011). Ms. Baver has not met this burden by simply asserting that her right to a fair trial
may be impacted.
3
Case 2:21-cr-00520-JNP Document 159 Filed 06/22/23 PageID.1990 Page 4 of 6
Alternatively, Ms. Baver argues that the pleadings should remain sealed because they
contain “personal financial and bank information, confidential settlement agreements and
negotiations, and the personal information and statements of third parties unrelated to this case
who have privacy interests at stake in unsealing.” ECF No. 115 at 4. However, the entire pleading
does not need to be sealed in order to protect the relevant privacy interests. Identifying information
can be redacted. In short, the court is not persuaded that Ms. Baver has met the “high burden”
necessary to overcome the presumption in favor of public disclosure. Jonna v. GIBF GP, Inc., No.
22-10208, 2023 WL 3244832, at *1 (E.D. Mich. May 4, 2023).
Having concluded that the pleadings should be unsealed, the court addresses Ms. Baver’s
requests regarding specific documents referenced in the pleadings. First, Ms. Baver requests that
the court continue to seal ABE’s bank records. As there is a “compelling government interest in
preserving the secrecy of personal financial records,” the court grants Ms. Baver’s request. In re
Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., Inc., 723 F.2d 470, 477 (6th Cir. 1983). ECF Nos. 79-3, 79-4, 79-
11–14, 82-3, 82-4, 82-11–14 are to remain sealed.
Next, Ms. Baver requests that documents containing ABE’s EIN number remain sealed.
Having reviewed the exhibits, the court believes that Defendants’ privacy interests can be
protected by redacting the EIN number from the relevant documents. See Jonna, 2023 WL
3244832, at *3 (“The only potential private information—the credit card information—can be
redacted without sealing the entirety of the document.”). Ms. Baver is instructed to file a redacted
copy of the documents that include ABE’s EIN number in accordance with DUCrimR 49.1-1(a).
Third, Ms. Baver requests that the court seal any documents provided by Ms. Baver’s
former counsel to the United States as part of Ms. Baver’s reverse proffer. See ECF Nos. 79-15,
4
Case 2:21-cr-00520-JNP Document 159 Filed 06/22/23 PageID.1991 Page 5 of 6
82-15, 91-1, 91-3, 100-1. 1 “[A] statement made during plea discussions with an attorney for the
prosecutor authority” that does not end in a guilty plea is inadmissible against the defendant. Fed.
R. Evid. 410(a)(4); State v. Pearson, 818 P.2d 581, 584 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (“[P]arties’ plea
negotiations were inadmissible evidence.”). “[C]ourts have steadfastly safeguarded against
disclosure of lawyers’ mental impressions and legal theories.” Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449
U.S. 383, 400 (1981). As the documents in question were provided to the United States by Ms.
Baver’s former counsel as part of the reverse proffer and contain former counsel’s legal theories,
the court is convinced to continue to seal these exhibits.
Finally, Ms. Baver requests that the court redact the names of third parties and unrelated
individuals contained in ECF Nos. 79-16–22, 82-16–22.
When a motion to unseal is filed and granted or a seal is set to
expire, at least 10 days before the seal expires, the filing party must
provide to the Clerk’s Office a copy of the document that redacts
the personal identifiers listed in Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1. The redacted
copy will be added to the docket and become available to the
public at the time the seal expires.
DUCrimR 49.1-1(a)(2). As Ms. Baver initially filed the documents that contain the names of the
third parties, she is instructed to file a redacted copy of these documents to the Clerk’s Office.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
For the aforementioned reasons, the court orders the following:
1) The Motion to Release Grand Jury Transcripts (ECF No. 79) and the Amended Motion to
Release Grand Jury Transcripts (ECF No. 82) shall be unsealed. Exhibits corresponding
to ECF Nos. 79-3, 79-4, 79-11–79-14, 82-3, 82-4, 82-11–82-14 are to remain sealed. Ms.
1
Ms. Baver requests to withdraw exhibit 91-4 and substitute it with a one-page exhibit from the
same document. As the request is unopposed, the court GRANTS it.
5
Case 2:21-cr-00520-JNP Document 159 Filed 06/22/23 PageID.1992 Page 6 of 6
Baver shall file a copy of the exhibits corresponding to ECF Nos. 79-5, 79-16–22, 82-5,
82-16–22, with the EIN number and names of third parties redacted. The response filed
by the United States (ECF No. 84) and the reply filed by Ms. Baver (ECF No. 87) shall
be unsealed.
2) The Motion to Dismiss Counts 1–8 (ECF No. 83) shall be unsealed.
3) The Motion to Exclude Witness Nick Patel (ECF No. 91), the response brief filed by the
United States (ECF No. 96), the reply brief filed by Ms. Baver (ECF No. 98), and the
notice of supplemental exhibit (ECF No. 100), shall be unsealed. Ms. Baver may
substitute a one-page exhibit as ECF No. 91-4. ECF Nos. 79-15, 82-15, 91-1, 91-3, and
100-1 shall remain sealed.
4) The brief filed by the United States in response to Ms. Baver’s motion to sever count 10
(ECF No. 106) shall be unsealed.
DATED June 22, 2023.
BY THE COURT
______________________________
Jill N. Parrish
United States District Court Judge
6
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.utd.132922.159.0.pdf
- Size
- 197,374 bytes
- SHA-256
- 1d971d0f6e550d4d21c4ed45d467f7ac3d6a3314488d5f5c9888924944d8e097
- Original
- archive.org