ÿWPCÑ j7Ôp1>1!+ !ÚJ@XB™J4 m(^¾¤ÈÆ3ÅeP¶ºfõS瀘#ÏÎzt½&o—:Ù˜À¬ 2Ú³ë±×Ë]]ì΀ØáÍÈLyé._L•åSé5r˜ekìUŠ@}$K/¨¼ž¤h¤ïbÈØ.X Š[$M‰²{DÂ[Íß Ëè±³Žü¢š_<â(`+>Ü|å¯3£º«tã‚ÿ©ߊ|)ALN+ƒ6H„“øgw´•ó† lMLñ§§rí\ ÅôwDVvF ×÷Ajeâw'+À#Ñ1¯Lb÷íA˜ AqÇÖòÐFÓ~'}Õ¿_gU›àÉ5 h’>'jþ}î‚Þˆò@•’)!Paó›ç9i)—•éo:`„@ñÐÄ&û4>²v5ç9AŸ…Í4K;~Œb?¤†Í±Féä(#Á0 %ñ 0D÷ 0(;(c 0Æ‹ 4Q Q ^ … w‘ 4• © ¸ mº º bÑ EÙ fÛ aÝ Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý Ý œñ ’’’’UFšdààUFDžŠUN(U>v B´˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0#X(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó($¡¡ Ý ƒd[$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€ ï} XÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€holding€comports€with€case€law€from€our€sister€circuits.€Ð ° ÐòòE.g.óó,€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔBiaggiÔ_Ôóó€(òòIn€re€N.Y.€Timesóó),€828€F.2d€110,€114Ð †Ö Ð(2d€Cir.€1987);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔSoussoudisÔ_Ôóó€(òòIn€re€Wash.€Post€Co.óó),Ð \¬ Ð807€F.2d€383,€389„90€(4th€Cir.€1986).€€We€note,€however,€that€theÐ 2‚ ÐSupreme€Court€has€not€yet€passed€upon€whether€the€constitutionalÐ X Ðright€of€access€in€criminal€proceedings€extends€to€judicialÐ Þ. Ðrecords.(d:2d[$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€ ú¥ XÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó *Ý ƒd[$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€ ï} XÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAlong€with€its€mandamus€petitions,€òòTheóó€òòJournalóó€prudently€filedÐ ° Ða€protective€appeal.€€In€view€of€our€decision€to€exercise€mandamusÐ †Ö Ðjurisdiction,€we€will€follow€the€course€charted€in€òòIn€re€GlobeÐ \¬ ÐNewspaper€Co.óó,€920€F.2d€at€90,€and€enter€a€separate€orderÐ 2‚ Ðdismissing€that€appeal€as€moot.Û Ì,s ¶YÆ,6XrtyBar¨ª†3|x$ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù-øÀTABLE A ’Ý ƒd[$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€ ï} XÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€the€non„dissemination€order€applied€to€more€thanÐ ° Ðlegal€memoranda€(e.g.,€it€imposed€stringent€restrictions€onÐ †Ö Ðextrajudicial€statements€by€the€parties€and€their€counsel),€òòTheóóÐ \¬ ÐòòJournalóó€has€only€challenged€the€order€insofar€as€it€pertains€to€theÐ 2‚ Ðtreatment€of€legal€memoranda.€€Consequently,€we€express€no€opinionÐ X Ðanent€any€other€feature€of€the€non„dissemination€order. ûÝ ƒd[$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€ ï} XÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€the€Supreme€Court€has€not€established€whether€theÐ ° Ðconstitutional€right€of€access€attaches€to€civil€cases€in€general,Ð †Ö Ðthe€common„law€right€of€access€extends€to€judicial€records€in€civilÐ \¬ Ðproceedings.€€òòStandard€Fin.€Mgmt.óó,€830€F.2d€at€408€&€n.4.€€As€said,Ð 2‚ Ðthat€right€encompasses€legal€memoranda.€€Because€none€of€theÐ X Ðrespondent's€rationales€for€rendering€legal€memoranda€presumptivelyÐ Þ. Ðnonpublic€rise€to€the€level€of€a€compelling€reason€sufficient€toÐ ´  Ðjustify€the€nondisclosure€of€those€documents,òòóó€our€invalidation€ofÐ Š Ú Ðthe€District€of€Rhode€Island's€blanket€nonfiling€policy€vis„„visÐ ` ° Ðlegal€memoranda€applies€in€civil€as€well€as€criminal€proceedings. ¤.Courier New Regular ZÝ ƒd[$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€ ï} XÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€understand€that€written€transcripts€of€the€tapes€have€beenÐ ° Ðmarked€as€exhibits€for€identification€in€the€Cianci€trial.òòóó€€AtÐ †Ö Ðfirst€blush,€it€would€seem€that€providing€the€media€with€copies€ofÐ \¬ Ðthese€transcripts€might€represent€a€relatively€straightforwardÐ 2‚ Ðmeans€of€furthering€access€without€imposing€any€significant€burdenÐ X Ðupon€the€district€court€or€the€litigants.€€òòTheóó€òòJournalóó,€however,€didÐ Þ. Ðnot€raise€the€matter€of€the€transcripts€in€either€of€its€mandamusÐ ´  Ðpetitions,€and,€therefore,€we€decline€to€order€this€relief.€€òòCf.óóÐ Š Ú ÐòòPrattóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€129€F.3d€54,€62€(1st€Cir.€1997)€("It€isÐ ` ° Ðfirmly€settled€in€this€circuit€that€arguments€not€advanced€andÐ 6 †  Ðdeveloped€in€an€appellant's€brief€are€deemed€waived.").<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular ”Ý ƒd[$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€ ï} XÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€was€not€òòTheóó€òòJournalóó's€first€expression€of€dissatisfactionÐ ° Ðwith€the€district€court's€handling€of€access€to€documents€in€theÐ †Ö ÐCianci€case.€€òòTheóó€òòJournalóó€earlier€had€sought€access€to€an€FBI€agent'sÐ \¬ Ðaffidavit€submitted€in€support€of€a€request€for€a€search€warrant.€Ð 2‚ ÐBased€upon€its€determination€that€public€disclosure€of€theÐ X Ðaffidavit's€contents€prior€to€trial€would€prejudice€the€defendants'Ð Þ. ÐSixth€Amendment€rights,€the€district€court€denied€òòTheóó€òòJournalóó'sÐ ´  Ðmotion.€€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòCiancióó,€175€F.€Supp.€2d€194,€198,€205Ð Š Ú Ð(D.R.I.€2001).(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular&Courier Regular dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTRY,3Ø'Xà3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ ? ÑÙ*ƒ !Ùò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡#°"µ°X#XÔÔ‡%°æ=°°#°"µÔUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÐ ° ÐÔ#†%X!ÍX°%°æ=Å#ÔÔ‡%„JP„X%X!ÍÔFor€the€First€CircuitÔ#†%X!ÍX„%„JPY#ÔÔ#†#Xï}XX%X!Íä#Ôó óÐ „Ô ÐÓ¹ÓÌßA€') °°` dE<¹` AßÐ º  ÐÌNos.€02„1329Ð Ÿ ï Ðà  à02„1475Ð u Å ÐÌà@È È ìàIN€RE€PROVIDENCE€JOURNAL€COMPANY,€INC.,ˆÐ ! q ÐÌà@XX%ìàPetitioner.ˆÐ Í   Ðà@<< ìà____________________ˆÐ £ó  ÐÌà@ô ô ìàON€PETITIONS€FOR€WRITS€OF€MANDAMUSˆÐ OŸ  Ðà@¸ ¸ ìàTO€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÐ %u  ÐÌà@l l ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€RHODE€ISLANDˆÐ Ñ! ÐÌà@œ œ ìà[Hon.€Ernest€C.€Torres,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ }Í ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<(` AßÐ )y ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÐ ^ ÐÌÓ  Óà@@((ìà€Boudin,€òòChief€Judgeóó,Ð º  ÐSelya€and€Lipez,€òòCircuit€Judgesóó.Ð à ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<;` AßÐ <Œ ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòHoward€A.€Ô_ÔMertenÔ_Ôóó,€with€whom€òòGordon€P.€Ô_ÔClearyÔ_Ôóó€and€òòÔ_ÔVetterÔ_Ô€&Ð !q ÐWhite,€Inc.óó€were€on€brief,€for€petitioner.Ð ÷G Ðà  àòòJerry€Elmeróó€and€òòÔ_ÔGoldenbergÔ_Ô€&€Ô_ÔMuriÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔLLPÔ_Ôóó€on€brief€for€RhodeÐ Í ÐIsland€Affiliate€ð"ð€American€Civil€Liberties€Union,€amicus€curiae.Ð £ó  Ðà  àòòLucy€A.€Ô_ÔDalglishÔ_Ôóó€on€brief€for€The€Reporters€Committee€forÐ yÉ! ÐFreedom€of€the€Press,€American€Society€of€Newspaper€Editors,€TheÐ O Ÿ" ÐSociety€of€Professional€Journalists,€Radio„Television€NewsÐ %!u# ÐDirectors€Association,€and€Newspaper€Association€of€America,€amiciÐ û!K$ Ðcuriae.Ð Ñ"!% Ðà  àòòWilliam€L.€Pattonóó,€with€whom€òòJoan€Ô_ÔMcPheeÔ_Ôóó,€òòMichele€T.€Ô_ÔPerilloÔ_Ôóó,Ð §#÷& Ðand€òòRopes€&€Grayóó€were€on€brief,€for€respondent€(Hon.€Ernest€C.Ð }$Í' ÐTorres).Ð S%£ ( ÐÌÌÔ*‹ƒ'ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ Õ'%#+Õ'%# ‹‹ÐÓ ÓÐ SI9(‰#, @Eâ@37418„„‰@Eâ@‰‹‹SÐÌJune€12,€2002Ð )_$. ÐÐ RHCå)5%/" @Eâ@37418 @Eâ@ ‹‹RÐÐ(9(‰#0  (ÐÓ  ÓÙ* !ÙÌÌÓ  ÓÌÐ  m-½(3? ÐÑ  ÑÓÓÑ8€&Ê‚&X XdÈdÈ8ÑÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*Óà ` àò òSELYA,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.ó ó€€This€proceeding€is€an€outgrowth€ofÐ ° Ðthe€widely€publicized€political€corruption€case€brought€by€theÐ xÈ Ðfederal€government€against€Providence€mayor€Vincent€A.€("Buddy")Ð $t ÐCianci,€Jr.,€and€several€Ô_ÔcodefendantsÔ_Ô.€€During€the€trial,€a€dailyÐ Ð  Ðnewspaper€filed€serial€mandamus€petitions€seeking€to€Ô_ÔremediateÔ_ÔÐ | Ì Ðperceived€violations€of€First€Amendment€and€common„law€rights€ofÐ ( x  Ðaccess€to€documents,€videotapes,€and€other€materials€that€compriseÐ Ô$  Ðpart€of€the€court€record.€€These€petitions€present,€in€essence,Ð €Ð  Ðthree€important€questions€(some€of€novel€impression).Ð ,|  Ðà ` àThe€first€question€pertains€to€public€access€to€memorandaÐ Ø( Ðof€law€that€counsel€are€required€by€local€rule€to€submit€inÐ „Ô Ðconnection€with€motions.€€These€memoranda€contain€the€substance€ofÐ 0€ Ða€movant's€argument€or€a€nonmovant's€opposition:€€pertinent€facts,Ð Ü, Ðcase€law,€statutory€references,€and€legal€reasoning.€€As€to€thisÐ ˆØ Ðquestion,€we€conclude€that€the€District€of€Rhode€Island'sÐ 4„ Ðlongstanding€practice€of€refusing€to€place€these€memoranda€in€theÐ à0 Ðcase€file,€available€for€public€perusal,€violates€the€FirstÐ ŒÜ  ÐAmendment.€€The€second€question€pertains€to€the€manner€in€which€theÐ 8!ˆ" Ðdistrict€court€has€handled€such€memoranda€in€the€Cianci€case.€€WeÐ ä"4$ Ðuphold€most€ð"ð€though€not€all€ð"ð€aspects€of€the€praxis€employed€byÐ $à& Ðthe€district€court.€€The€third€question€involves€the€newspaper'sÐ <&Œ!( Ðrequest€for€copies€of€videotape€and€audiotape€evidence€introducedÐ è'8#* Ðâ âat€the€trial.€€Given€the€circumstances,€we€conclude€that€theÐ ”)ä$, Ðdistrict€court's€refusal€to€accede€to€this€request€did€notÐ ° Ðconstitute€an€abuse€of€discretion.Ð \¬ Ðâ âò òI.€€BACKGROUNDó óÐ X Ðà ` àAlthough€the€two€petitions€share€a€common€nucleus€ofÐ Ð  Ðoperative€fact,€they€constitute€discrete€requests€for€relief.€Ð | Ì ÐAccordingly,€we€describe€each€petition€separately.Ð ( x  Ðà@ˆˆìàò òA.€€òòThe€First€Petitionóó.ó óˆÐ Ô$  Ðà ` àOn€April€2,€2001,€a€federal€grand€jury€indicted€MayorÐ œì  ÐCianci,€along€with€five€other€individuals,€on€a€variety€of€charges.€Ð H˜  ÐThe€linchpin€of€the€indictment€was€a€RICO€conspiracy€count€that,€inÐ ôD Ðeffect,€charged€the€defendants€with€operating€City€Hall€as€aÐ  ð Ðracketeering€enterprise€that€demanded€bribes,€sometimes€thinlyÐ Lœ Ðdisguised€as€"campaign€contributions,"€as€a€prerequisite€to€doingÐ øH Ðbusiness€with€the€municipality€and€its€agencies.€€The€indictmentÐ ¤ô Ðitself€came€as€no€surprise:€€some€details€of€the€federal€probe,Ð P  Ðdubbed€"Operation€Plunder€Dome,"€had€surfaced€earlier,€and€a€numberÐ üL Ðof€other€persons€already€had€been€indicted€on€related€charges.Ð ¨ø  Ðà ` àBoth€before€and€after€the€Cianci€indictment,€OperationÐ T!¤" ÐPlunder€Dome€received€pervasive€publicity.€€During€the€grand€juryÐ #P$ Ðinvestigation€that€culminated€in€this€indictment,€leakedÐ ¬$ü& Ðinformation€proved€to€be€a€persistent€problem.€€To€cite€oneÐ X&¨!( Ðexample,€a€local€television€station€broadcast€a€videotape€that€hadÐ (T#* Ðâ âbeen€presented€to€the€grand€jury€as€evidence.€€To€cite€another,€anÐ °)%, ÐAssistant€United€States€Attorney€(AUSA)€played€an€FBI€surveillanceÐ ° Ðtape€for€several€of€his€friends.Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àThe€Cianci€indictment€brought€heightened€attention€to€theÐ X Ðscandal.€€Determined€to€ensure€the€protagonists'€right€to€a€fairÐ ´  Ðtrial,€the€district€court€sanctioned€the€wayward€AUSA,€appointed€aÐ ` ° Ðspecial€prosecutor€to€investigate€whether€criminal€contempt€chargesÐ  \  Ðshould€be€brought€against€whomever€was€responsible€for€the€grandÐ ¸  Ðjury€leaks,€and€reminded€counsel€of€their€obligation€to€refrainÐ d´  Ðfrom€publicly€disseminating€information€that€threatened€theÐ `  Ðintegrity€of€the€upcoming€trial.€€òòSeeóó€D.R.I.€R.€39€(precludingÐ ¼  Ðrelease€of€information€if€there€exists€a€"reasonable€likelihoodÐ h¸ Ðthat€it€imposes€a€serious€and€imminent€threat€of€interference€withÐ d Ða€trial€or€action");€R.I.€R.€Prof'l€Conduct,€R.€3.6€(precludingÐ À Ðextrajudicial€statements€that€have€a€"substantial€likelihood€ofÐ l¼ Ðmaterially€prejudicing€an€adjudicative€proceeding").Ð h Ðà ` àThe€capstone€of€the€court's€efforts€was€the€issuance,€onÐ Ä ÐMay€15,€2001,€of€a€non„dissemination€order.€€Citing€the€"intenseÐ pÀ  Ðmedia€coverage"€surrounding€the€Cianci€case,€the€court€foresaw€"aÐ !l" Ðsubstantial€risk€of€prejudicing€the€parties'€right€to€a€fairÐ È"$ Ðtrial."€€To€diminish€that€risk,€the€court€prohibited€theÐ t$Ä& Ðdissemination€of,€inter€alia,€any€information€regarding€theÐ  &p!( Ðtestimony,€character,€credibility,€or€reputation€of€any€witness;Ð Ì'#* Ðany€information€presented€to€the€grand€jury;€and€any€informationÐ x)È$, Ðconcerning€plea€negotiations.€€The€order€(which€contained€anÐ $+t&. Ðexception€for€information€"presented€at€trial€or€during€the€courseÐ ° Ðof€any€hearing€conducted€in€open€court")€was€to€remain€in€effectÐ \¬ Ðpending€the€disposition€of€all€charges€against€all€defendants.Ð X Ðà ` àIn€the€same€order,€the€court€instituted€a€procedure€withÐ ´  Ðrespect€to€the€filing€of€any€documents€that€might€containÐ ` ° Ðreferences€to€restricted€information.€€Each€such€document€was€to€beÐ  \  Ðfiled€under€seal,€accompanied€by€a€separate€descriptive€documentÐ ¸  Ðthat,€inter€alia,€stated€the€reasons€why€the€submitted€documentÐ d´  Ðshould€be€sealed.€€The€court,€acting€sua€sponte€or€on€the€motion€ofÐ `  Ðany€party,€could€order€any€document€to€be€unsealed€if€it€determinedÐ ¼  Ðthat,€notwithstanding€any€references€to€restricted€information,Ð h¸ Ðinsufficient€justification€existed€for€keeping€that€documentÐ d Ðconfidential.Ð À Ðà ` àOn€May€23,€2001,€the€district€court€issued€an€orderÐ l¼ Ðamending€this€procedure€(we€henceforth€refer€to€the€May€15€order,Ð h Ðas€modified€by€the€May€23€order,€as€the€non„dissemination€order).€Ð Ä ÐThe€May€23€order€changed€the€ground€rules€in€three€respects.€Ð pÀ  ÐFirst,€counsel€were€instructed€to€refrain€from€making€any€referenceÐ !l" Ðto€restricted€information€in€motions€or€oppositions€to€motions.€Ð È"$ ÐSecond,€the€author€of€any€legal€memorandum€submitted€in€connectionÐ t$Ä& Ðwith€a€motion€was€directed€to€file€a€certification€as€to€whetherÐ  &p!( Ðthe€memorandum€contained€information€subject€to€the€non„Ð Ì'#* Ðdissemination€order.€€Third,€the€order€stated€that€if€the€court'sÐ x)È$, Ðsubsequent€review€of€any€particular€legal€memorandum€revealed€thatÐ $+t&. Ðthe€memorandum€contained€no€restricted€information,€it€would€beÐ ° Ðplaced€on€file€in€the€clerk's€office€and€made€available€for€publicÐ \¬ Ðinspection.€€The€order€made€clear,€however,€that€the€court€wouldÐ X Ðnot€undertake€to€"redact€or€edit€any€memorandum."Ð ´  Ðà ` àThe€district€court's€treatment€of€legal€memoranda€in€theÐ ` ° ÐCianci€case€represented€a€departure€from€the€prevailing€practice€inÐ  \  Ðthe€District€of€Rhode€Island.€€Although€the€court's€local€rulesÐ ¸  Ðseem€to€provide€for€the€filing€in€the€clerk's€office€of€legalÐ d´  Ðmemoranda€supporting€or€opposing€motions,€òòseeóó€D.R.I.€R.€12(a)(1)„Ð `  Ð(2),€the€District€of€Rhode€Island€has€a€longstanding€practice€ð"ðÐ ¼  Ðdating€back€to€the€early€1980s€ð"ð€of€docketing€such€memoranda€butÐ h¸ Ðnot€placing€them€in€the€case€files€maintained€by€the€clerk'sÐ d Ðoffice.€€Instead,€they€are€transmitted€directly€to€the€judge€toÐ À Ðwhom€the€case€is€assigned€and€kept€in€the€judge's€chambersÐ l¼ Ð(inaccessible€to€public€scrutiny€except€upon€request).€€We€discussÐ h Ðthe€propriety€of€this€practice€òòinfraóó.Ð Ä Ðà ` àThe€Cianci€case€generated€a€blizzard€of€paper,€andÐ pÀ  Ðnumerous€documents€were€submitted€to€the€court€in€accordance€withÐ !l" Ðthe€procedures€established€by€the€non„dissemination€order.€€TheÐ È"$ Ðstate's€major€newspaper,€òòThe€Providence€Journalóó€(òòTheóó€òòJournalóó),€chafedÐ t$Ä& Ðunder€this€regime.€€On€February€19,€2002,òòóó€òòThe€Journalóó€filed€a€motionÐ  &p!( Ðâ âseeking€access€to€42€previously€filed€memoranda€that€it€claimed€hadÐ Ì'#* Ðnot€yet€been€made€public.׃$×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€the€same€motion,€òòTheóó€òòJournalóó€soughtÐ ° Ðâ âfurther€modifications€of€the€non„dissemination€order,€assertingÐ \¬ Ðthat€the€district€court's€general€practice€of€denying€access€toÐ X Ðlegal€memoranda€reversed€the€presumption€of€openness€applicable€toÐ ´  Ðjudicial€records.€€òòTheóó€òòJournalóó€implored€the€court€to€deem€all€suchÐ ` ° Ðmemoranda€public€when€filed€unless,€in€a€particular€instance,€aÐ  \  Ðmotion€to€seal€was€docketed€and€the€court,€after€individualizedÐ ¸  Ðinquiry,€made€specific€record€findings€justifying€confidentiality.€Ð d´  ÐòòTheóó€òòJournalóó€also€asked€the€court€to€consider€redaction€on€a€document„Ð `  Ðby„document€basis€as€a€less€restrictive€means€of€balancing€the€needÐ ¼  Ðfor€confidentiality€against€the€public's€right€to€know.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð h¸ Ðà ` àShortly€before€the€start€of€trial,€the€district€courtÐ d Ðdenied€virtually€all€of€òòTheóó€òòJournalóó's€requests.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€StatesóóÐ À Ðv.€òòCiancióó,€Crim.€No.€00„083„T,€slip€op.€at€14€(D.R.I.€Mar.€15,Ð l¼ Ð2002)€(unpublished)€[hereinafter€"D.€Ct.€Op."].€€After€outliningÐ h Ðthe€traditional€treatment€of€legal€memoranda€in€the€District€ofÐ ° ÐRhode€Island,€òòid.óó€at€1„4,€the€court€described€the€specialÐ \¬ Ðprocedures€that€it€had€instituted€in€the€Cianci€case€and€noted€thatÐ X Ð11€of€the€42€memoranda€at€issue€already€had€been€placed€on€file€inÐ ´  Ðthe€clerk's€office,òòóó€òòid.óó€at€4„5.€€Of€the€remaining€31€memoranda,€17Ð ` ° Ð(related€to€discovery€motions)€had€been€referred€to€a€magistrateÐ  \  Ðjudge;€3€dealt€with€mundane€matters€that€the€court€believed€were€ofÐ ¸  Ðno€conceivable€interest€to€òòTheóó€òòJournalóó;€and€the€final€11€could€notÐ d´  Ð"properly€be€made€part€of€the€public€record€before€trial"€becauseÐ `  Ðthey€referred€to€"grand€jury€matters€and/or€matters,€theÐ ¼  Ðdissemination€of€which€would€prejudice€the€parties'€rights€to€aÐ h¸ Ðfair€trial."€€òòId.óó€at€6„7.Ð d Ðà ` àThe€district€court€then€denied€most€aspects€of€òòTheóóÐ À ÐòòJournalóó's€request€to€modify€the€non„dissemination€order.€€The€courtÐ l¼ Ðcharacterized€its€treatment€of€legal€memoranda€in€the€Cianci€caseÐ h Ðas€"perfectly€consistent"€with€òòTheóó€òòJournalóó's€proposal€to€make€allÐ Ä Ðlegal€memoranda€public€unless€otherwise€directed€by€the€court.€€òòId.óóÐ pÀ  Ðat€9.€€It€rejected€the€suggested€Ô_ÔreinstitutionÔ_Ô€of€formal€motions€toÐ !l" Ðseal€on€the€ground€that€the€suggestion€already€had€provenÐ È"$ Ðunworkable.€€òòId.óó€€Relatedly,€the€court€expressed€its€unwillingnessÐ t$Ä& Ðto€rely€exclusively€on€counsel's€representations€in€determiningÐ  &p!( Ðwhether€to€place€legal€memoranda€on€file€in€the€clerk's€office.€Ð Ì'#* ÐòòId.óó€at€11„12.€€The€court€reiterated€that€redaction€was€infeasibleÐ x)È$, Ðboth€because€the€forbidden€matters€were€"almost€invariablyÐ $+t&. Ðdispersed€throughout€the€memoranda€and€inextricably€intertwinedÐ ° Ðwith€the€references€to€applicable€legal€authority,"€and€because€theÐ \¬ Ðmechanics€of€redaction€would€squander€scarce€judicial€resources.€Ð X ÐòòId.óó€at€13.€€Finally,€the€court€agreed€to€amend€the€non„Ð ´  Ðdissemination€order€to€furnish€a€specific,€on„the„record€finding€inÐ ` ° Ðsupport€of€any€subsequent€decision€to€withhold€a€particularÐ  \  Ðmemorandum.€€òòId.óó€at€14.Ð ¸  Ðà ` àTrial€commenced€on€March€23,€2002.€€Two€days€later,€òòTheóóÐ d´  ÐòòJournalóó€filed€a€mandamus€petition€with€this€court€seeking:€€(1)Ð `  Ðaccess€to€legal€memoranda€previously€submitted€in€the€Cianci€caseÐ ¼  Ðbut€not€yet€made€public;€(2)€a€directive€requiring€all€futureÐ h¸ Ðmemoranda€to€be€placed€on€file€in€the€clerk's€office€on€the€date€ofÐ d Ðsubmission;€and€(3)€modification€of€the€non„dissemination€order€toÐ À Ðrequire€redaction€when€feasible€(as€a€less€restrictive€alternativeÐ l¼ Ðto€sealing).Ð h Ðà@LLìàò òB.€€òòThe€Second€Petitionóó.ó óˆÐ Ä Ðà ` àThe€second€mandamus€petition€centers€on€71€videotapes€andÐ ŒÜ  Ðaudiotapes€of€secretly€recorded€conversations€with€variousÐ 8!ˆ" Ðbureaucrats€(including€some€of€the€defendants).€€Putting€thisÐ ä"4$ Ðpetition€into€perspective€requires€an€understanding€of€how€theÐ $à& Ðparties€presented€these€videotapes€and€audiotapes€during€the€CianciÐ <&Œ!( Ðtrial.Ð è'8#* Ðà ` àIn€preparation€for€trial,€the€government€transferred€theÐ ”)ä$, Ðentire€contents€of€the€71€tapes€onto€CD„ROMs.€€After€loading€theÐ @+&. ÐCD„ROMs€onto€the€hard€drive€of€a€laptop€computer,€the€governmentÐ ° Ðemployed€a€software€program€called€Sanctions€to€excerptÐ \¬ Ðconversations€for€playback.€€Using€this€technology,€the€governmentÐ X Ðintroduced€selected€passages€from€these€conversations€into€evidenceÐ ´  Ðin€the€course€of€trial.€€As€the€excerpts€were€played€on€theÐ ` ° Ðgovernment's€laptop€computer,€they€were€simultaneously€broadcastÐ  \  Ðvia€the€district€court's€state„of„the„art€audiovisual€system€toÐ ¸  Ðmonitors€in€both€the€courtroom€and€a€remote€viewing€room€(theÐ d´  Ðoverflow€room).€€As€a€taped€excerpt€was€played,€a€transcript€wasÐ `  Ðsimultaneously€scrolled€across€the€bottom€of€the€screen.Ð ¼  Ðà ` àBefore€trial,€the€media€sought€copies€of€the€videotapeÐ h¸ Ðand€audiotape€evidence.€€Discussions€ensued€between€representativesÐ d Ðof€the€press€and€David€Ô_ÔDiMarzioÔ_Ô,€the€clerk€of€court,€regardingÐ À Ðpossible€methods€by€which€the€tapes€could€be€copied€and€distributedÐ l¼ Ðto€the€media€after€they€had€been€introduced€into€evidence.€€TheÐ h Ðclerk€initially€suggested€that€the€parties€could€be€required€toÐ Ä Ðsubmit€an€extra€copy€of€each€tape€and€the€associated€transcript€forÐ pÀ  Ðdelivery€to€the€media€at€an€appropriate€time.€€The€district€courtÐ !l" Ðvetoed€this€suggestion.€€Next,€the€media€representatives€proposedÐ È"$ Ðthat€the€clerk's€office€copy€the€exhibits€for€the€media.€€The€clerkÐ t$Ä& Ðrebuffed€this€proposal€on€the€ground€that€copying€might€damage€theÐ  &p!( Ðoriginal€tapes.€€At€that€point,€the€negotiations€stalled.Ð Ì'#* Ðà ` àShortly€after€theòòóó€trial€began,€òòTheóó€òòJournalóó€moved€for€accessÐ x)È$, Ðto€copies€of€the€videotape€and€audiotape€evidence.€€The€court€heldÐ $+t&. Ða€hearing€that€focused€on€the€practicalities€of€complying€with€thatÐ ° Ðrequest.€€òòTheóó€òòJournalóó€argued€that€other€courts,€in€other€criminalÐ \¬ Ðtrials,€had€provided€copies€of€taped€evidence€to€the€media€in€oneÐ X Ðof€three€ways:€€(1)€by€requiring€court€staff€to€copy€the€tapes;€(2)Ð ´  Ðby€requiring€the€parties€to€submit€duplicates;€or€(3)€byÐ ` ° Ðrerecording€the€tapes€as€they€were€being€played€to€the€jury€in€openÐ  \  Ðcourt.Ð ¸  Ðà ` àRuling€from€the€bench,€the€district€court€scotched€allÐ d´  Ðthree€options.€€The€court€rejected€the€first€based€on€concernsÐ `  Ðexpressed€by€the€clerk.€€It€rejected€the€second€because€it€wasÐ ¼  Ðunwilling€to€impose€upon€the€parties€the€"significant€undertaking"Ð h¸ Ðof€creating€and€supplying€extra€copies€of€the€taped€evidence.€€ItÐ d Ðrejected€the€third€option€based€upon€the€clerk's€representationÐ À Ðthat€there€was€no€feasible€way€to€rerecord€the€tapes€as€they€wereÐ l¼ Ðbeing€played€over€the€court's€evidence€presentation€system.€€In€aÐ h Ðwritten€addendum,€the€court€delineated€an€additional€reason€for€itsÐ Ä Ðdecision:Ð pÀ  ÐÓÓà8 ` àThe€recordings€being€presented€are€in€the€formÐ !l" Ðof€audio€and€video€tapes€that€include€not€onlyÐ ò!B# Ðthe€conversations€that€have€been€played€forÐ È"$ Ðthe€jury;€but,€also,€additional€conversationsÐ ž#î% Ðthat€have€not€and€may€not€be€admitted€intoÐ t$Ä& Ðevidence.€€Moreover,€the€Court€is€informedÐ J%š ' Ðthat€the€same€is€true€with€respect€to€the€CDÐ  &p!( ÐROM's€being€used€by€counsel.€€Thus,€providingÐ ö&F") ÐòòThe€Providence€Journalóó€with€recordings€of€theÐ Ì'#* Ðconversations€played€for€the€jury€wouldÐ ¢(ò#+ Ðrequire€both€editing€and€duplication€of€theÐ x)È$, Ðtapes€being€offered€in€order€to€createÐ N*ž%- Ðsomething€that€does€not€presently€exist.Ð$+t&.` x` x ÐÐ ú+J'/ ÐÓÓà ` àOn€April€26,€2002,€òòTheóó€òòJournalóó€filed€its€second€petitionÐ ° Ðfor€a€writ€of€mandamus.€€This€petition€sought€to€require€theÐ \¬ Ðdistrict€court€to€supply€the€press€with€copies€of€all€videotape€andÐ X Ðaudiotape€evidence€played€to€the€jury€during€the€Cianci€trial€on€aÐ ´  Ðcontemporaneous€basis.€€We€consolidated€òòTheóó€òòJournalóó's€two€mandamusÐ ` ° Ðpetitions€for€hearing.€€The€district€judge,€through€counsel,€filedÐ  \  Ðan€opposition€to€each€petition.€€We€heard€oral€argument€while€theÐ ¸  ÐCianci€trial€was€ongoing€(the€district€court€sent€the€Cianci€caseÐ d´  Ðto€the€jury€on€June€12,€2002).Ð `  Ðò òII.€€APPELLATE€JURISDICTIONó óÐ ¼  Ðà ` àThere€is€a€threshold€question€as€to€whether€òòTheóó€òòJournalóóÐ „Ô Ðshould€be€proceeding€by€appeal€or€by€mandamus.€€òòCompareóó,€òòe.g.óó,ò òó óÐ 0€ ÐòòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòLaddóó€(òòIn€re€Associated€Pressóó),€162€F.3d€503,€507Ð Ü, Ð(7th€Cir.€1998)€(appeal),€òòwithóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòOregonian€Publ'g€Co.óó€v.Ð ˆØ ÐòòUnited€States€Dist.€Ct.óó,€920€F.2d€1462,€1464„65€(9th€Cir.€1990)Ð 4„ Ð(mandamus).€€In€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€however,€all€roadsÐ à0 Ðlead€to€Rome.Ð ŒÜ  Ðà ` àUnder€the€All€Writs€Act,€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1651,€"[a]€federalÐ 8!ˆ" Ðcourt€of€appeals€has€the€power€to€treat€an€attempted€appeal€from€anÐ ä"4$ Ðunappealable€(or€possibly€unappealable)€order€as€a€petition€for€aÐ $à& Ðwrit€of€mandamus."€€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòHornóó,€29€F.3d€754,€769€(1stÐ <&Œ!( ÐCir.€1994).€€On€this€basis,€we€exercised€mandamus€jurisdiction€inÐ è'8#* ÐòòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòHurleyóó€(òòIn€re€Globe€Newspaper€Co.óó),€920€F.2d€88Ð ”)ä$, Ð(1st€Cir.€1990).€€In€that€case,€a€newspaper€sought€access€toÐ @+&. Ðrecords€relating€to€a€criminal€trial.€€The€district€court€rejectedÐ ° Ðboth€the€newspaper's€demand€for€access€and€its€motion€to€intervene.€Ð \¬ ÐòòId.óó€at€90.€€The€newspaper€pursued€an€appeal€and€simultaneouslyÐ X Ðpetitioned€for€a€writ€of€mandamus.€€òòId.óó€€We€declined€to€decide€theÐ ´  Ðjurisdictional€question,€but,€rather,€granted€relief€under€theÐ ` ° Ðaegis€of€the€All€Writs€Act€and€dismissed€the€appeal€as€moot.€€òòId.óóÐ  \  Ðà ` àThe€petitions€now€before€us€are€of€the€same€generalÐ ¸  Ðcharacter€as€the€petition€in€òòIn€re€Globe€Newspaper€Co.óó€€Here,€asÐ d´  Ðthere,€the€petitions€pose€important€questions€bearing€upon€theÐ `  Ðconstitutional€and€common„law€rights€of€public€access€to€judicialÐ ¼  Ðrecords€in€criminal€proceedings.€€Here,€as€there,€the€petitions€areÐ h¸ Ðconsonant€with€the€historic€use€of€mandamus€as€a€means€to€checkÐ d Ðostensible€judicial€usurpations€of€power.€€òòSeeóó€òòIn€re€Pearsonóó,€990Ð À ÐF.2d€653,€656€(1st€Cir.€1993).€€Because€we€believe€that€the€issuesÐ l¼ Ðraised€by€òòTheóó€òòJournalóó€are€worthy€candidates€for€mandamus€review,€weÐ h Ðexercise€our€discretion€to€entertain€both€petitions€under€ourÐ Ä Ðmandamus€jurisdiction.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð pÀ  Ðò òIII.€€THE€LEGAL€LANDSCAPEó óÐ !l" Ðà ` àWe€next€discuss€the€case€law€concerning€rights€of€accessÐ ä"4$ Ðâ âto€judicial€records.€€We€begin€with€first€principles.Ð $à& Ðà ` àCourts€long€have€recognized€"that€public€monitoring€ofÐ ° Ðâ âthe€judicial€system€fosters€the€important€values€of€quality,Ð \¬ Ðhonesty€and€respect€for€our€legal€system."€€òòSiedleóó€v.€òòPutnam€Inv.,Ð X ÐInc.óó,€147€F.3d€7,€10€(1st€Cir.€1998)€(citation€and€internalÐ ´  Ðquotation€marks€omitted).€€This€recognition€has€given€rise€to€aÐ ` ° Ðpresumption€that€the€public€has€a€common„law€right€of€access€toÐ  \  Ðjudicial€documents.€€òòNixonóó€v.€òòWarner€Communications,€Inc.óó,€435€U.S.Ð ¸  Ð589,€597€(1978).€€This€presumptive€right€of€access€attaches€toÐ d´  Ðthose€materials€"which€properly€come€before€the€court€in€the€courseÐ `  Ðof€an€adjudicatory€proceeding€and€which€are€relevant€to€thatÐ ¼  Ðadjudication."€€òòFTCóó€v.€òòStandard€Fin.€Mgmt.€Corp.óó,€830€F.2d€404,Ð h¸ Ð412„13€(1st€Cir.€1987).€€It€follows,€then,€that€the€common„lawÐ d Ðright€of€access€extends€to€"materials€on€which€a€court€relies€inÐ À Ðdetermining€the€litigants'€substantive€rights."€€òòAndersonóó€v.Ð l¼ ÐòòÔ_ÔCryovacÔ_Ô,€Inc.óó,€805€F.2d€1,€13€(1st€Cir.€1986).Ð h Ðà ` àApart€from€the€prerogatives€attendant€to€the€common„lawÐ Ä Ðright€of€access€to€judicial€records,€the€public€and€the€press€enjoyÐ pÀ  Ða€constitutional€right€of€access€to€criminal€proceedings€under€theÐ !l" ÐFirst€and€Fourteenth€Amendments.€€òòGlobe€Newspaper€Co.óó€v.€òòSuper.Ð È"$ ÐCt.óó,€457€U.S.€596,€603„06€(1982);€òòRichmond€Newspapers,€Inc.óó€v.Ð t$Ä& ÐòòVirginiaóó,€448€U.S.€555,€575„80€(1980)€(plurality€op.).€€TheÐ  &p!( Ðconstitutional€right€of€access€is€not€limited€to€the€actual€trialÐ Ì'#* Ðitself,€but€also€encompasses€most€pretrial€proceedings.€€òòSeeóó€òòPress„Ð x)È$, ÐEnterprise€Co.óó€v.€òòSuper€Ct.óó,€478€U.S.€1,€11„13€(1986)€(òòPress„Ð $+t&. ÐEnterprise€IIóó);€òòIn€re€Globe€Newspaper€Co.óó,€729€F.2d€47,€52€(1stÐ ° ÐCir.€1984);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòAndersonóó,€805€F.2d€at€11€(collecting€cases).€Ð \¬ ÐWe€have€held€that€this€constitutional€right€ð"ð€which€serves€toÐ X Ðensure€a€"full€understanding"€of€criminal€proceedings,€therebyÐ ´  Ðplacing€the€populace€in€a€position€"to€serve€as€an€effective€checkÐ ` ° Ðon€the€system"€ð"ð€extends€to€documents€and€kindred€materialsÐ  \  Ðsubmitted€in€connection€with€the€prosecution€and€defense€ofÐ ¸  Ðcriminal€proceedings.Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€òòóó€òòGlobe€Newspaper€Co.óó€v.€òòÔ_ÔPokaskiÔ_Ôóó,€868€F.2dÐ d´  Ð497,€502€(1st€Cir.€1989)€(citation€and€internal€quotation€marksÐ `  Ðomitted).Ð ¼  Ðà ` àAlthough€the€two€rights€of€access€are€not€coterminous,Ð h¸ Ðcourts€have€employed€much€the€same€type€of€screen€in€evaluatingÐ d Ðtheir€applicability€to€particular€claims.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòUnited€StatesóóÐ À Ðv.€òòÔ_ÔSoussoudisÔ_Ôóó€(òòIn€re€Wash.€Post€Co.óó),€807€F.2d€383,€390€(4th€Cir.Ð l¼ Ð1986).€€This€overlap€is€understandable€because€the€jurisprudenceÐ h Ðdiscussing€the€First€Amendment€right€of€access€to€criminalÐ Ä Ðproceedings€has€been€derived€in€large€measure€from€theÐ pÀ  Ðjurisprudence€that€has€shaped€the€common„law€right€of€access.€€òòSeeóóÐ !l" ÐòòAndersonóó,€805€F.2d€at€13.Ð È"$ ÐÐ t$Ä& Ðò òIV.€€ANALYSIS:€€THE€FIRST€PETITIONó óÐ ° Ðà ` àThe€first€mandamus€petition€attacks€both€the€District€ofÐ xÈ ÐRhode€Island's€overall€treatment€of€legal€memoranda€and€the€trialÐ $t Ðcourt's€handling€of€those€memoranda€in€the€Cianci€case.€€We€addressÐ Ð  Ðthese€points€separately.€€First,€however,€we€focus€on€theÐ | Ì Ðapplicable€standards€of€review.Ð ( x  Ðà@LLìàò òA.€€òòStandards€of€Reviewóó.ó óˆÐ Ô$  Ðà ` àDespite€the€common€ancestry€shared€by€the€two€rights€ofÐ œì  Ðaccess,€the€standards€of€review€referable€to€those€rights€differ.€Ð H˜  ÐOn€the€one€hand,€the€denial€of€a€claimed€right€of€access€under€theÐ ôD Ðcommon€law€engenders€review€for€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòId.óó€at€13.€Ð  ð ÐA€district€court€can€abuse€its€discretion€by€"ignoring€a€materialÐ Lœ Ðfactor€that€deserves€significant€weight,€relying€on€an€improperÐ øH Ðfactor,€or,€even€if€it€mulls€only€the€proper€mix€of€factors,€byÐ ¤ô Ðmaking€a€serious€mistake€in€judgment."€€òòSiedleóó,€147€F.3d€at€10.€Ð P  ÐSince€"only€the€most€compelling€reasons€can€justify€non„disclosureÐ üL Ðof€judicial€records"€that€come€within€the€scope€of€the€common„lawÐ ¨ø  Ðright€of€access,€òòStandard€Fin.€Mgmt.óó,€830€F.2d€at€410€(citationÐ T!¤" Ðomitted),€this€review€is€more€rigorous€than€garden„variety€abuse€ofÐ #P$ Ðdiscretion€review.Ð ¬$ü& Ðà ` àOn€the€other€hand,€constitutional€access€claims€engenderÐ X&¨!( Ðde€novo€review.€€òòIn€re€State„Record€Co.óó,€917€F.2d€124,€127€(4thÐ (T#* ÐCir.€1990).€€In€such€cases,€the€presumption€in€favor€of€access€canÐ °)%, Ðonly€be€overcome€"by€an€overriding€interest€based€on€findings€thatÐ \+¬&. Ðclosure€is€essential€to€preserve€higher€values€and€is€narrowlyÐ ° Ðtailored€to€serve€that€interest."€€òòPress„Enterprise€Co.óó€v.€òòSuper.Ð \¬ ÐCt.óó,€464€U.S.€501,€510€(1984)€(òòPress„Enterprise€Ióó).€€This€lastÐ X Ðrequirement€adds€a€new€dimension€and€makes€the€First€AmendmentÐ ´  Ðstandard€even€more€stringent€than€the€common„law€standard.€€Thus,Ð ` ° Ðcourts€have€tended€to€employ€the€First€Amendment€standard€inÐ  \  Ðsituations€in€which€both€rights€of€access€are€implicated.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòInÐ ¸  Ðre€Wash.€Post€Co.óó,€807€F.2d€at€390.Ð d´  Ðà ` àAgainst€this€backdrop,€we€turn€to€the€legal€memorandaÐ `  Ðthat€parties€are€required€to€file€in€conjunction€with€motionsÐ ¼  Ðsubmitted€in€the€District€of€Rhode€Island.€€The€local€rules€specifyÐ h¸ Ðthat€those€memoranda€must€contain€the€critical€elements€of€theÐ d Ðparties'€arguments.€€òòSeeóó€D.R.I.€R.€12(a)(1)„(2).€€It€follows€thatÐ À Ðthose€memoranda€constitute€materials€on€which€a€court€is€meant€toÐ l¼ Ðrely€in€determining€the€parties'€substantive€rights.€€In€a€criminalÐ h Ðcase,€therefore,€they€are€subject€to€both€common„law€and€FirstÐ Ä ÐAmendment€rights€of€access.€€€Accordingly,€we€review€the€districtÐ pÀ  Ðcourt's€treatment€of€them€under€the€First€Amendment's€heightenedÐ !l" Ðstandard€of€review.ò òó óÐ È"$ Ðà@ ìàò òB.€€òòThe€Traditional€Practiceóó.ó óˆÐ t$Ä& Ðà ` àò òòòóóó óThe€respondent€notes,€correctly,€that€legal€memoranda€inÐ <&Œ!( Ðthe€Cianci€case€have€been€made€available€to€the€public€so€long€asÐ è'8#* Ðthey€do€not€contain€restricted€information.€€Building€on€thatÐ ”)ä$, Ðfoundation,€he€argues€that€the€District€of€Rhode€Island'sÐ @+&. Ðtraditional€method€of€treating€memoranda€is€not€properly€before€us.€Ð ° ÐWe€do€not€agree.Ð \¬ Ðà ` àThe€district€court€has€made€clear€that€its€handling€ofÐ X Ðlegal€memoranda€in€the€Cianci€case€represents€an€ad€hoc€exceptionÐ ´  Ðto€the€District€of€Rhode€Island's€standard€practice.€€AbsentÐ ` ° Ðmandamus€review,€the€constitutional€questions€stemming€from€thisÐ  \  Ðstandard€practice€ð"ð€a€practice€that€amounts€to€a€blanket€nonfilingÐ ¸  Ðpolicy€ð"ð€are€likely€to€recur€and€to€evade€effective€resolution.€Ð d´  ÐMoreover,€an€immediate€adjudication€of€the€matter€will€clarifyÐ `  Ðmatters€for€judges,€litigants,€lawyers,€and€òòóójournalists€in€a€wideÐ ¼  Ðrange€of€cases.Ð h¸ Ðà ` àOn€suitable€occasions,€we€have€employed€advisory€mandamusÐ d Ðto€resolve€issues€"which€are€both€novel€and€of€great€publicÐ À Ðimportance."€€òòIn€re€Recticel€Foam€Corp.óó,€859€F.2d€1000,€1005€n.4Ð l¼ Ð(1st€Cir.€1988).€€The€considerations€enumerated€above€lead€us€toÐ h Ðconclude€that€the€blanket€nonfiling€policy€is€a€suitable€candidateÐ Ä Ðfor€advisory€mandamus.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòÔ_ÔSchlagenhaufÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòHolderóó,€379€U.S.€104,Ð pÀ  Ð109„12€(1964);€òòHornóó,€29€F.3d€at€769„70.Ð !l" Ðà ` àHaving€concluded€that€we€have€an€institutional€interestÐ È"$ Ðin€oversight€of€the€District€of€Rhode€Island's€standard€practiceÐ t$Ä& Ðvis„„vis€the€handling€of€legal€memoranda,€we€turn€to€the€validityÐ  &p!( Ðof€that€practice.€€Motions€and€objections€filed€in€the€District€ofÐ Ì'#* ÐRhode€Island€typically€become€part€of€the€case€file€(and,€thus,Ð x)È$, Ðavailable€for€public€inspection)€at€the€moment€they€are€filed€inÐ $+t&. Ðthe€clerk's€office.€€Legal€memoranda€submitted€in€conjunction€withÐ ° Ðsuch€motions€are€treated€differently:€€those€memoranda€do€notÐ \¬ Ðbecome€part€of€the€case€file,€but,€rather,€go€directly€to€the€judgeÐ X Ðto€whom€the€case€is€assigned.€€This€leaves€the€question€of€accessÐ ´  Ðsolely€in€the€discretion€of€the€trial€judge€and€places€on€personsÐ ` ° Ðdesiring€access€the€onus€of€initiating€action.€€Whether€viewed€asÐ  \  Ða€restriction€on€access€or€as€a€practical€inconvenience,€thisÐ ¸  Ðprotocol€reverses€the€constitutional€presumption€of€public€accessÐ d´  Ðto€documents€submitted€in€conjunction€with€criminal€proceedings.€Ð `  ÐòòCf.óó€òòPokaskióó,€868€F.2d€at€507€(indicating€that€a€statute€thatÐ ¼  Ðrestricts€public€access€to€judicial€records€in€criminal€cases€byÐ h¸ Ð"Ô_Ôplac[ingÔ_Ô]€on€the€public€the€burden€of€overcoming€inertia"€isÐ d Ðimpermissible).Ð À Ðà ` àThe€respondent€attempts€to€justify€the€blanket€nonfilingÐ l¼ Ðpolicy€on€five€bases.€€First,€the€legal€memoranda€are€directed€toÐ h Ðthe€judge.€€Second,€and€relatedly,€routing€memoranda€directly€toÐ Ä Ðthe€judge's€chambers€lessens€the€need€for€the€judge€to€requisitionÐ pÀ  Ðthe€entire€case€file.€€Third,€incorporating€memoranda€into€the€caseÐ !l" Ðfiles€maintained€in€the€clerk's€office€would€"needlessly€burdenÐ È"$ Ð...€already€taxed€storage€facilities."€€Fourth,€a€blanketÐ t$Ä& Ðnonfiling€policy€serves€to€discourage€overzealous€counsel€fromÐ  &p!( Ðattempting€to€gain€an€"unfair€tactical€advantage"€by€improperlyÐ Ì'#* Ðinfluencing€the€public.€€Finally,€memoranda€submitted€in€connectionÐ x)È$, Ðwith€criminal€proceedings€might€disclose€grand€jury€testimony€orÐ $+t&. Ðrefer€to€other€matters€prejudicial€to€a€defendant's€right€to€a€fairÐ ° Ðtrial.€€None€of€these€reasons€justify€the€constitutional€intrusionÐ \¬ Ðthat€results€from€the€District€of€Rhode€Island's€standard€practiceÐ X Ðof€treating€legal€memoranda€as€presumptively€nonpublic.Ð ´  Ðà ` àThe€respondent's€first€asserted€justification€proves€tooÐ ` ° Ðmuch.€€Although€legal€memoranda€are€directed€to€the€judge,€so€areÐ  \  Ðvirtually€all€the€other€papers€filed€in€the€case€(including€motionsÐ ¸  Ðand€objections).€€The€second€asserted€justification€is€noÐ d´  Ðjustification€at€all:€€requiring€legal€memoranda€to€be€filed€in€theÐ `  Ðclerk's€office€would€not€mean€that€the€judge€would€have€to€haul€theÐ ¼  Ðentire€case€file€into€chambers€whenever€he€or€she€wished€to€checkÐ h¸ Ða€particular€point.€€Copying€is€a€routine€exercise€in€most€clerks'Ð d Ðoffices,€and€at€any€rate€the€district€court's€local€rules€requireÐ À Ðcounsel€to€file€memoranda€in€duplicate.€€òòSeeóó€D.R.I.€R.€12(d).€€ThatÐ l¼ Ðwould€permit€placing€one€copy€in€the€case€file€and€routing€theÐ h Ðother€directly€to€the€judge.Ð Ä Ðà ` àNor€does€the€third€asserted€justification€withstandÐ pÀ  Ðscrutiny.€€While€storage€limitations€may€well€have€prompted€theÐ !l" Ðadoption€of€the€blanket€nonfiling€policy€two€decades€ago,€theÐ È"$ Ðrecently„completed€renovation€of€the€Federal€Courthouse€inÐ t$Ä& ÐProvidence,€coupled€with€the€court's€acquisition€of€the€adjacentÐ  &p!( ÐÔ_ÔPastoreÔ_Ô€Building,€have€eliminated€any€intractable€problem€in€thatÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âregard.Ð x)È$, Ðà ` àWe€are€equally€unpersuaded€that€the€court's€policy€ofÐ ° Ðâ âkeeping€all€legal€memoranda€hidden€from€public€view€is€warrantedÐ \¬ Ðbased€upon€hypothetical€concerns€about€overzealous€counsel€behavingÐ X Ðbadly.€€Judges€deal€every€day€with€the€need€to€ensure€that€lawyersÐ ´  Ðplay€fair€and€square,€and€we€are€unwilling€to€assume,€without€hardÐ ` ° Ðevidence,€that€lawyers€who€practice€in€the€District€of€Rhode€IslandÐ  \  Ðare€so€unruly€that€ordinary€antidotes€to€fractiousness€(e.g.,Ð ¸  Ðsanctions,€contempt,€loss€of€the€right€to€practice)€will€proveÐ d´  Ðimpuissant.Ð `  Ðà ` àAs€to€the€district€court's€fifth€concern,€we€acknowledgeÐ ¼  Ðthat€specific€cases€may€pose€greater€risks€of€prejudicialÐ h¸ Ðdisclosures€(and,€thus,€may€warrant€special€treatment).€€But€thereÐ d Ðis€no€need€to€discard€the€baby€with€the€bath€water.€€SafeguardsÐ À Ðagainst€prejudice€can€be€implemented€on€a€case„specific€basis.€Ð l¼ ÐWhere€a€particularized€need€for€restricting€public€access€to€legalÐ h Ðmemoranda€exists,€that€need€can€be€addressed€by€the€tailoring€ofÐ Ä Ðappropriate€relief.€€As€contrasted€with€the€District€of€RhodeÐ pÀ  ÐIsland's€existing€practice€of€treating€all€legal€memoranda€asÐ !l" Ðpresumptively€nonpublic,€this€would€be€a€considerably€lessÐ È"$ Ðrestrictive,€but€equally€effective,€means€for€dealing€with€theÐ t$Ä& Ðspecter€of€potential€prejudice.€€òòCf.óó€òòPokaskióó,€868€F.2d€at€506„07Ð  &p!( Ð(rejecting€blanket€sealing€rule€on€ground€that€case„by„caseÐ Ì'#* Ðevaluation€of€defendants'€sealing€requests€represented€a€viableÐ x)È$, Ðless€restrictive€means).Ð $+t&. Ðà ` àWe€hold,€therefore,€that€the€District€of€Rhode€Island'sÐ ° Ðblanket€nonfiling€policy€ð"ð€its€standard€practice€of€refusing€toÐ \¬ Ðplace€memoranda€submitted€in€conjunction€with€motions€on€file€inÐ X Ðthe€clerk's€office€when€tendered€ð"ð€violates€the€First€Amendment.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ´  Ðà@0 0 ìàò òC.€€òòThe€Procedure€Employed€Hereóó.ó ó€ˆÐ ` ° Ðà ` àIn€the€Cianci€case,€the€trial€court€deviated€from€theÐ ( x  ÐDistrict€of€Rhode€Island's€blanket€nonfiling€policy.€€Thus,€itsÐ Ô$  Ðmethodology€invites€a€separate€analysis.Ð €Ð  Ðà ` àThe€constitutional€right€of€public€access€is€a€qualifiedÐ ,|  Ðright€that€may€be€outweighed€by€competing€interests€in€a€givenÐ Ø( Ðcase.€€òòPress„Enterprise€Ióó,€464€U.S.€at€511€n.10;€òòIn€re€GlobeÐ „Ô ÐNewspaper€Co.óó,€729€F.2d€at€52.€€Certainly,€in€a€case€in€whichÐ 0€ Ðpublic€attention€is€quite€high,€a€court€deliberating€about€whetherÐ Ü, Ðto€restrict€broadly€public€access€to€materials€submitted€inÐ ˆØ Ðconnection€with€criminal€proceedings€ordinarily€ought€to€affordÐ 4„ Ðinterested€parties€an€opportunity€to€be€heard€on€the€question€ofÐ à0 Ðimpoundment.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔAntarÔ_Ôóó,€38€F.3d€1348,€1361Ð ŒÜ  Ðn.18€(3d€Cir.€1994).€€The€court€would€normally€be€expected€toÐ 8!ˆ" Ðidentify€and€balance€the€competing€interests€involved,€and€weighÐ ° Ðreasonable€alternatives€to€sealing,€making€findings€whereÐ \¬ Ðnecessary.€€òòIn€re€State„Record€Co.óó,€917€F.2d€at€127„29;ò òó ó€òòIn€re€Wash.Ð X ÐPost€Co.óó,€807€F.2d€at€391.Ð ´  Ðà ` àHere,€òòTheóó€òòJournalóó€has€not€complained€about€a€lack€ofÐ ` ° Ðnotice,€so€we€turn€to€the€task€of€identifying€and€balancing€theÐ  \  Ðcompeting€interests€involved.€€The€district€court€clearlyÐ ¸  Ðregistered€its€concern€that€the€unrestrained€disclosure€of€certainÐ d´  Ðtypes€of€information€about€the€Cianci€case€would€create€aÐ `  Ðsubstantial€risk€of€prejudicing€the€parties'€right€to€a€fair€trial.€Ð ¼  ÐThis€disquietude€impelled€the€court€to€implement,€and€then€fine„Ð h¸ Ðtune,€the€non„dissemination€order.€€An€accused's€Sixth€AmendmentÐ d Ðright€to€a€fair€trial€plainly€rises€to€the€level€of€a€compellingÐ À Ðinterest.€€òòSeeóó€òòPress„Enterprise€Ióó,€464€U.S.€at€508.€€When€thatÐ l¼ Ðright€collides€head„on€with€the€public's€right€of€access€toÐ h Ðjudicial€records,€the€defendant's€fair€trial€right€takesÐ Ä Ðprecedence.€€òòIn€re€Globe€Newspaper€Co.óó,€729€F.2d€at€53.Ð pÀ  Ðà ` àThat€does€not€mean,€however,€that€the€public's€(and€theÐ !l" Ðmedia's)€right€to€know€can€be€frustrated€by€the€mere€invocation€ofÐ È"$ Ða€threat€to€the€accused's€Sixth€Amendment€right€to€a€fair€trial.€Ð t$Ä& ÐA€court€faced€with€an€impending€collision€between€these€rightsÐ  &p!( Ðmust,€on€a€case„specific€basis,€construct€a€balance.€€òòPress„Ð Ì'#* ÐEnterprise€Ióó,€464€U.S.€at€510„11€&€n.10.€€That€weighing€mustÐ x)È$, Ðproceed€on€the€assumption€that€restrictions€on€access€toÐ $+t&. Ðpresumptively€public€judicial€documents€should€be€imposed€only€ifÐ ° Ða€substantial€likelihood€exists€that€the€accused's€right€to€a€fairÐ \¬ Ðtrial€will€otherwise€be€prejudiced.€€òòPress„Enterprise€IIóó,€478€U.S.Ð X Ðat€14.€€We€caution€that€this€inquiry€requires€specific€findings;Ð ´  Ðthe€First€Amendment€right€of€public€access€is€too€precious€to€beÐ ` ° Ðforeclosed€by€Ô_ÔconclusoryÔ_Ô€assertions€or€unsupported€speculation.€Ð  \  ÐòòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòKirkóó€(òòIn€re€Memphis€Publ'g€Co.óó),€887€F.2d€646,Ð ¸  Ð648„49€(6th€Cir.€1989);€òòIn€re€Wash.€Post€Co.óó,€807€F.2d€at€392„93€&Ð d´  Ðn.9;€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòMartinóó,€746€F.2d€964,€972€(3d€Cir.€1984).Ð `  Ðà ` àPolitical€corruption€cases€tend€to€attract€widespreadÐ ¼  Ðmedia€attention,€and€the€Cianci€case€is€a€paradigmatic€example.€Ð h¸ ÐHere,€moreover,€the€district€court€cited€book€and€verse,Ð d Ðcataloguing€specific€incidents€that€fueled€its€concerns€that€theÐ À Ðdefendants'€ability€to€receive€a€fair€trial€was€in€danger€of€beingÐ l¼ Ðsubstantively€compromised€by€unrestrained€disclosures.€€The€courtÐ h Ðalluded€specifically€to€leaks€of€information€in€violation€of€RuleÐ Ä Ð6(e)€of€the€Federal€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€and€misbehavior€byÐ pÀ  Ðthe€lead€prosecutor.€€In€view€of€the€notoriety€of€the€case€and€theÐ !l" Ðincidents€recounted€by€the€district€court,€we€are€convinced€thatÐ È"$ Ðthe€court's€perception€of€a€threat€to€the€defendants'€fair€trialÐ t$Ä& Ðrights€was€objectively€reasonable.€€òòSeeóó€òòGannett€Co.óó€v.€òòÔ_ÔDePasqualeÔ_Ôóó,Ð  &p!( Ð443€U.S.€368,€392„93€(1979)€(concluding€that€the€trial€courtÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âproperly€appraised€legitimate€concerns€that€open€proceeding€posedÐ x)È$, Ðreasonable€probability€of€prejudice€to€defendants'€fair€trialÐ ° Ðrights).Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àHaving€found€that€the€defendants'€fair€trial€rightsÐ X Ðrepresent€a€compelling€interest,€we€next€must€decide€whether€theÐ ´  Ðnon„dissemination€order€is€drawn€as€narrowly€as€practicable.€€TheÐ ` ° Ðthreshold€question€is€whether€a€trial€court,€in€a€particular€case,Ð  \  Ðcan€adopt€a€procedure€that€reverses€the€presumption€of€publicÐ ¸  Ðaccess€and€òòautomaticallyóó€seals€all€subsequent€filings€until€theÐ d´  Ðjudge€determines€that€a€specific€document€poses€no€undue€risk€toÐ `  Ðthe€defendant's€fair€trial€rights.Ð ¼  Ðà ` àòòTheóó€òòJournalóó€argues€that€the€decision€in€òòAssociated€PressóóÐ h¸ Ðv.€òòUnited€States€Dist.€Ct.óó,€705€F.2d€1143€(9th€Cir.€1983),€requiresÐ d Ðthat€this€question€be€answered€in€the€negative.€€In€that€case,€theÐ À Ðdistrict€court,€responding€to€extensive€press€coverage€of€a€high„Ð l¼ Ðprofile€criminal€matter,€issued€a€sua€sponte€order€directing€theÐ h Ðparties€to€submit€all€future€filings€under€seal€in€order€to€permitÐ Ä Ðthe€court€"to€initially€review€them€and€to€make€a€determinationÐ pÀ  Ðwith€regard€to€disclosure."€€òòId.óó€at€1144.€€The€trial€courtÐ !l" Ðsubsequently€imposed€a€48„hour€time€limit€within€which€it€wouldÐ È"$ Ðrule€upon€the€need€for€a€given€filing€to€remain€sealed.€€òòId.óó€atÐ t$Ä& Ð1145.€€The€Ninth€Circuit€nonetheless€struck€down€the€procedure€andÐ  &p!( Ðdirected€the€district€court€to€vacate€its€order.€€òòId.óó€at€1147.Ð Ì'#* Ðà ` àIn€our€view,€òòAssociated€Pressóó€is€a€horse€of€a€differentÐ x)È$, Ðhue.€€There,€the€court€of€appeals€concluded€that€the€trial€courtÐ $+t&. Ðhad€failed€to€make€specific€findings€showing€that€"access€toÐ ° Ðpretrial€documents€will€create€a€substantial€probability€ofÐ \¬ Ðirreparable€damage€to€defendants'€fair€trial€rights."€€òòId.óó€at€1146.€Ð X ÐThe€presence€of€such€findings€here€readily€distinguishes€this€case.Ð ´  Ðà ` àWe€find€more€helpful€the€opinion€in€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð ` ° ÐòòMcVeighóó,€119€F.3d€806€(10th€Cir.€1997).€€There,€the€courtÐ  \  Ðacknowledged€that€a€high„profile€criminal€case€may€"impose[]€uniqueÐ ¸  Ðdemands€on€the€trial€court,€and€require[]€the€court€to€establishÐ d´  Ðprocedures€for€dealing€effectively,€efficiently€and€fairly€withÐ `  Ðrecurring€issues€such€as€whether€documents€should€be€placed€underÐ ¼  Ðseal€or€redacted."€€òòId.óó€at€813.€€This€is€exactly€what€transpiredÐ h¸ Ðhere.€€In€response€to€a€cognizable€threat€to€the€defendants'€SixthÐ d ÐAmendment€rights,€the€district€court€adopted€a€practical€procedureÐ À Ðthat€enabled€it€effectively€and€efficiently€to€safeguard€thoseÐ l¼ Ðrights.€€Nothing€in€the€case€law€prevents€a€court€from€establishingÐ h Ðthis€sort€of€prophylaxis.€€And€given€the€circumstances€of€thisÐ Ä Ðcase,€the€district€court's€implementation€of€a€general€procedure€toÐ pÀ  Ðseal€all€memoranda€temporarily€appears€narrowly€tailored.Ð !l" Ðà ` àTurning€our€attention€to€the€specifics€of€the€non„Ð È"$ Ðdissemination€order,€we€hold€that€the€district€court's€insistenceÐ t$Ä& Ðon€reviewing€each€memorandum€before€deciding€whether€it€shouldÐ  &p!( Ðremain€under€seal€did€not€constitute€reversible€error.€€Although€weÐ Ì'#* Ðquestion€the€court's€apparent€reluctance€to€rely€on€counsel€toÐ x)È$, Ðseparate€wheat€from€chaff€in€accordance€with€the€non„disseminationÐ $+t&. Ðorder€ð"ð€experience€teaches€that€most€lawyers€will€cooperate€withÐ ° Ðthe€court€and,€in€all€events,€will€be€loath€to€defy€a€court€orderÐ \¬ Ðð"ð€nothing€precludes€the€district€court€from€assuming€that€burden.Ð X Ðà ` àThis€does€not€mean€that€we€regard€the€non„disseminationÐ ´  Ðorder€as€a€textbook€model.€€We€have€four€specific€concerns.€€First,Ð ` ° Ðwhere,€as€here,€a€court€undertakes€to€screen€documents€before€theyÐ  \  Ðare€placed€in€the€case€file,€the€procedure€should€incorporate€aÐ ¸  Ðspecific€timetable€obligating€the€court€to€perform€its€self„imposedÐ d´  Ðscreening€responsibilities€promptly€and€to€render€a€timely€decisionÐ `  Ðas€to€whether€a€particular€document€is€fit€for€public€disclosure.€Ð ¼  ÐSecond,€and€relatedly,€the€court€below€decided€to€refrain€fromÐ h¸ Ðreviewing€each€individual€memorandum€to€decide€whether€it€could€beÐ d Ðmade€available€to€the€public€until€after€the€time€had€expired€forÐ À Ðthe€submission€of€any€possible€reply€memorandum.€€ThisÐ l¼ Ðunnecessarily€prolongs€the€process.€€Each€individual€memorandumÐ h Ðeither€contains€restricted€information€(in€which€case€it€is€subjectÐ Ä Ðto€redaction€or€sealing)€or€it€does€not€(in€which€case€it€does€notÐ pÀ  Ðpose€a€threat€to€the€defendants'€Sixth€Amendment€rights).€€Third,Ð !l" Ðthe€order€contains€no€provision€as€to€whether€the€court€intends€toÐ È"$ Ðunseal€retained€memoranda€at€some€point€after€the€trial€has€endedÐ t$Ä& Ð(and€if€so,€when).Ð  &p!( Ðà ` àFinally,€we€think€that€the€district€court's€refusal€toÐ Ì'#* Ðconsider€redaction€on€a€document„by„document€basis€isÐ x)È$, Ðinsupportable.€€Courts€have€an€obligation€to€consider€allÐ $+t&. Ðreasonable€alternatives€to€foreclosing€the€constitutional€right€ofÐ ° Ðaccess.€€òòIn€re€Globe€Newspaper€Co.óó,€729€F.2d€at€56.€€RedactionÐ \¬ Ðconstitutes€a€time„tested€means€of€minimizing€any€intrusion€on€thatÐ X Ðright.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔAmodeoÔ_Ôóó,€44€F.3d€141,€147€(2d€Cir.Ð ´  Ð1995)€(stating€"that€it€is€proper€for€a€district€court,€afterÐ ` ° Ðweighing€competing€interests,€to€edit€and€redact€a€judicialÐ  \  Ðdocument€in€order€to€allow€access€to€appropriate€portions€of€theÐ ¸  Ðdocument");€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔBiaggiÔ_Ôóó€(òòIn€re€N.Y.€Timesóó),Ð d´  Ð828€F.2d€110,€116€(2d€Cir.€1987)€(rejecting€"wholesale€sealing"€ofÐ `  Ðpapers€partly€because€"limited€redaction€[might]€be€appropriate").Ð ¼  Ðà ` àHere,€moreover,€our€ability€to€assess€whether€theÐ h¸ Ðdistrict€court€was€justified€in€refusing€to€redact€the€11€documentsÐ d Ðthat€remain€sealed€is€hampered€by€a€lack€of€specific€findings.€€òòSeeóóÐ À ÐòòIn€re€Globe€Newspaper€Co.óó,€729€F.2d€at€56€(requiring€a€trial€courtÐ l¼ Ðthat€rejects€alternatives€to€sealing€to€make€specific€findings€toÐ h Ðfacilitate€appellate€review).€€The€court€did€say,€generally,€thatÐ Ä Ð"in€those€rare€cases€where€counsel€find€it€necessary€to€refer€toÐ pÀ  Ðgrand€jury€matters€or€other€matters€not€properly€Ô_ÔdisclosableÔ_Ô,€thoseÐ !l" Ðreferences€are€almost€invariably€dispersed€throughout€the€memorandaÐ È"$ Ðand€inextricably€intertwined€with€the€references€to€applicableÐ t$Ä& Ðlegal€authority."€€D.€Ct.òòóó€Op.€at€13.€€But€the€First€AmendmentÐ  &p!( Ðrequires€consideration€of€the€feasibility€of€redaction€on€aÐ Ì'#* Ðdocument„by„document€basis,€and€the€court's€blanketÐ x)È$, Ðcharacterization€falls€well€short€of€this€benchmark.Ð $+t&. Ðà ` àHaving€pointed€out€these€defects€in€the€non„disseminationÐ ° Ðorder,€we€leave€the€matter€of€correction€to€the€district€court.€Ð \¬ ÐConsistent€with€the€core€purpose€of€advisory€mandamus,€theÐ X Ðprincipal€value€of€our€rulings€is€in€terms€of€future€cases.€€InÐ ´  Ðrespect€to€the€Cianci€case€itself,€the€court€is€at€the€end€of€aÐ ` ° Ðlengthy€trial;€once€the€dust€has€settled,€we€are€confident€that€theÐ  \  Ðdistrict€court€will€set€a€reasonable€timetable€for€determiningÐ ¸  Ðwhether€previously€submitted€memoranda€are€to€be€placed€on€file€inÐ d´  Ðthe€clerk's€office€(with€or€without€redaction);€and,€as€to€anyÐ `  Ðmemorandum€withheld€from€filing,€will€enter€specific€findings€as€toÐ ¼  Ðthe€need€for€that€restriction€and€the€impracticality€of€redactionÐ h¸ Ðas€an€alternative€to€sealing.€€Within€a€reasonable€time€after€theÐ d ÐCianci€case€and€all€related€proceedings€have€ended€ð"ð€there€is€aÐ À Ð"severed"€defendant€yet€to€be€tried€ð"ð€we€anticipate€that€theÐ l¼ Ðdistrict€court€will€consider€the€release€of€all€documents€and€otherÐ h Ðmaterials€then€remaining€under€seal.€€Should€the€district€courtÐ Ä Ðfail€to€act€in€a€timely€manner€to€effectuate€the€principlesÐ pÀ  Ðendorsed€in€this€opinion€ð"ð€a€contingency€that€we€doubt€will€occurÐ !l" Ðð"ð€òòThe€Journalóó€is€free€to€petition€for€ancillary€relief.Ð È"$ Ðò òV.€€ANALYSIS:€€THE€SECOND€PETITIONó óÐ t$Ä& Ðà ` àWe€next€grapple€with€òòTheóó€òòJournalóó's€request€for€copies€ofÐ <&Œ!( Ðthe€videotapes€and€audiotapes€played€at€trial.€€In€òòCox€BroadcastingÐ è'8#* ÐCorp.óó€v.€òòCohnóó,€420€U.S.€469,€494„97€(1975),€the€Supreme€CourtÐ ”)ä$, Ðconcluded€that€the€media€has€a€First€Amendment€right€to€publishÐ @+&. Ðinformation€contained€in€court€records€that€are€open€to€publicÐ ° Ðinspection.€€A€few€years€later,€however,€the€Court€rejected€theÐ \¬ Ðargument€that€the€First€Amendment€right€of€access€allowed€the€mediaÐ X Ðto€obtain€copies€of€tapes€that€had€been€entered€into€evidence€at€aÐ ´  Ðcriminal€trial.€€òòWarner€Communicationsóó,€435€U.S.€at€608„10.€Ð ` ° ÐElaborating€on€this€point,€the€Justices€explained€that€theÐ  \  Ðconstitutional€right€to€attend€criminal€trials€morphed€into€a€rightÐ ¸  Ðto€attend€the€trial€sessions€at€which€the€tapes€were€played€and€toÐ d´  Ðreport€upon€what€was€seen€and€heard€in€the€courtroom,€but€did€notÐ `  Ðconfer€the€right€to€replicate€evidentiary€materials€in€the€custodyÐ ¼  Ðof€the€court.€€òòId.óó€at€609.Ð h¸ Ðà ` àòòWarner€Communicationsóó€is€directly€applicable€here.€€As€inÐ d Ðthat€case,€the€district€court€has€not€restricted€media€access€to,Ð À Ðor€the€publication€of,€any€information€in€the€public€domain.€Ð l¼ ÐIndeed,€the€district€court€has€gone€to€great€lengths€to€facilitateÐ h Ðaccess€to€the€trial€proceedings€by,€for€example,€reserving€seats€inÐ Ä Ðthe€courtroom€for€members€of€the€press€and€providing€an€overflowÐ pÀ  Ðroom€for€remote€viewing.€€By€affording€interested€members€of€theÐ !l" Ðmedia€ample€opportunity€to€see€and€hear€the€tapes€as€they€areÐ È"$ Ðplayed€for€the€jury,€the€court€has€fulfilled€its€pertinent€FirstÐ t$Ä& ÐAmendment€obligations.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòBeckhamóó,€789€F.2d€401,Ð  &p!( Ð407€(6th€Cir.€1986).Ð Ì'#* Ðà ` àThe€demise€of€òòTheóó€òòJournalóó's€First€Amendment€claim€does€notÐ x)È$, Ðend€the€matter.€€The€question€remains€whether€the€common„law€rightÐ $+t&. Ðto€inspect€and€copy€judicial€documents€affords€a€basis€for€relief.€Ð ° ÐAs€said,€this€right€of€access€extends€to€"materials€on€which€aÐ \¬ Ðcourt€relies€in€determining€the€litigants'€substantive€rights."€Ð X ÐòòAndersonóó,€805€F.2d€at€13.€€Thus,€videotapes€and€audiotapes€on€whichÐ ´  Ða€court€relies€in€the€determination€of€substantive€rights€areÐ ` ° Ðwithin€its€reach.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòGrahamóó,€257€F.3d€143,€151„Ð  \  Ð53€(2d€Cir.€2001).€€Because€the€videotapes€and€audiotapes€that€òòTheóóÐ ¸  ÐòòJournalóó€seeks€to€copy€have€been€admitted€into€evidence,€they€fallÐ d´  Ðinto€this€category.Ð `  Ðà ` àViewed€in€this€light,€the€question€reduces€to€whether€theÐ ¼  Ðcommon„law€right€of€access€is€fulfilled€by€permitting€the€press€andÐ h¸ Ðthe€public€to€see€and€hear€such€tapes,€but€not€to€copy€them.€€ToÐ d Ðanswer€this€question,€òòTheóó€òòJournalóó€cites€a€plethora€of€instances€inÐ À Ðwhich€courts€have€allowed€media€outlets€to€obtain€copies€of€tapesÐ l¼ Ðused€in€judicial€proceedings.€€òòE.g.óó,€òòid.óó€at€155„56;€òòUnited€StatesóóÐ h Ðv.€òòMyersóó€(òòIn€re€Application€of€Nat'l€Broad.€Co.óó),€635€F.2d€945,Ð Ä Ð952„54€(2d€Cir.€1980).€€But€this€compendium€only€serves€to€proveÐ pÀ  Ðthat€a€trial€court€òòmayóó€allow€the€media€to€copy€tapes€that€have€beenÐ !l" Ðadmitted€into€evidence;€none€of€the€constituent€cases€stands€forÐ È"$ Ðthe€much€different€proposition€that€a€trial€court€òòmustóó€afford€suchÐ t$Ä& Ðaccess.Ð  &p!( Ðà ` àMoreover,€this€case€offers€a€unique€twist.€€Here,€theÐ Ì'#* Ðgovernment€has€not€merely€played€individual€tapes,€but,€rather,€hasÐ x)È$, Ðused€cutting„edge€technology€(the€Sanctions€software)€to€play€forÐ $+t&. Ðthe€jury€medleys€of€selected€excerpts€from€the€universe€of€tapedÐ ° Ðmaterial€stored€on€its€laptop€computer.€€As€a€result,€there€is€noÐ \¬ Ðelectronic€medium€ð"ð€no€tape€or€CD„ROM€ð"ð€currently€in€existence€thatÐ X Ðcontains€the€precise€medleys€of€taped€excerpts€that€have€beenÐ ´  Ðplayed€in€open€court.€€Consequently,€we€must€decide€whether€theÐ ` ° Ðcommon„law€right€of€access€compels€a€court€to€create€(or€order€theÐ  \  Ðcreation€of)€a€new€medium€that€contains€only€taped€excerpts€thatÐ ¸  Ðhave€been€played€in€open€court.€€This€is€a€question€of€firstÐ d´  Ðimpression€at€the€appellate€level.Ð `  Ðà ` àHistorically,€the€common„law€right€of€access€permittedÐ ¼  Ðthe€public€to€copy€the€contents€of€written€documents.€€òòIn€reÐ h¸ ÐApplication€of€Nat'l€Broad.€Co.óó,€635€F.2d€at€950.€€Over€time,€theÐ d Ðright€has€been€extended€to€accommodate€technological€advancementsÐ À Ðin€document€reproduction€such€as€photography,€photocopying,€and€theÐ l¼ Ðreplication€of€videotapes€and€audiotapes.€€òòId.óó€€Invariably,Ð h Ðhowever,€these€accommodations€have€covered€materials€that€are€"inÐ Ä Ða€form€that€readily€permits€sight€and€sound€reproduction."€€òòId.óó€atÐ pÀ  Ð952.Ð !l" Ðà ` àWhen,€as€now,€the€media€seeks€access€to€materials€that€doÐ È"$ Ðnot€exist€in€readily€reproducible€form,€a€new€variable€enters€theÐ t$Ä& Ðequation.€€We€are€reluctant€to€hold€that€the€common„law€right€ofÐ  &p!( Ðaccess€necessarily€compels€the€creation€(and,€thus,€the€copying)€ofÐ Ì'#* Ðsuch€materials.€€We€prefer€instead€to€leave€this€decision,€likeÐ x)È$, Ðmany€other€decisions€as€to€how€best€to€effectuate€the€common„lawÐ $+t&. Ðright€of€access,€to€the€informed€discretion€of€the€trial€court,€soÐ ° Ðthat€it€may€be€exercised€with€due€regard€for€the€idiosyncraticÐ \¬ Ðfacts€and€circumstances€of€a€specific€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòWarnerÐ X ÐCommunicationsóó,€435€U.S.€at€599;€òòAndersonóó,€805€F.2d€at€13.€€ThisÐ ´  Ðapproach€seems€especially€appropriate€here€because€the€task€ofÐ ` ° Ðassessing€whether€the€creation€of€an€excerpt„only€recording€entailsÐ  \  Ðmere€reproduction€as€opposed€to€extensive€editing€demands€aÐ ¸  Ðparticularized,€fact„intensive€inquiry.Ð d´  Ðà ` àThis€brings€us€to€the€ruling€below.€€The€district€courtÐ `  Ðdenied€òòTheóó€òòJournalóó's€motion,€holding€that€the€common„law€right€ofÐ ¼  Ðaccess€did€not€mandate€the€creation€of€something€not€already€inÐ h¸ Ðexistence€(i.e.,€a€tape€or€CD„ROM€containing€only€those€excerptsÐ d Ðplayed€in€open€court)€and€finding€replication€infeasible.€€In€thisÐ À Ðregard,€the€court€made€a€number€of€specific€findings€highlightingÐ l¼ Ðdifficulties€inherent€in€òòTheóó€òòJournalóó's€proposals€for€physical€accessÐ h Ðto€the€taped€excerpts.€€The€court€concluded,€for€example,€thatÐ Ä Ðediting€the€source€material€to€create€a€tape€or€CD„ROM€containingÐ pÀ  Ðonly€those€excerpts€played€at€trial€was€a€far€more€daunting€taskÐ !l" Ðthan€merely€duplicating€existing€source€materials.€€The€court€alsoÐ È"$ Ðfound€that€the€editing€required€to€create€tapes€or€CD„ROMsÐ t$Ä& Ðcontaining€only€the€hundreds€of€taped€conversations€being€played€inÐ  &p!( Ðopen€court€would€impose€an€appreciable€burden€on€the€court's€staff,Ð Ì'#* Ðâ âthe€parties,€or€both.Ð x)È$, Ðà ` àWe€decline€òòTheóó€òòJournalóó's€invitation€to€second„guess€theseÐ ° Ðâ âfindings.€€In€the€first€place,€the€parties'€representations€as€toÐ \¬ Ðhow€the€software€operates€and€how€difficult€it€would€be€toÐ X Ðreproduce€the€evidence€seen€and€heard€by€the€jurors€are€sharplyÐ ´  Ðconflicting.€€As€a€result,€the€record€before€us€is€hopelesslyÐ ` ° Ðimprecise€ð"ð€and€the€Sanctions€software€package€is€not€part€of€it.€Ð  \  ÐIn€the€second€place,€the€fact€that€the€public€and€the€press€haveÐ ¸  Ðhad€ample€opportunity€to€see€and€hear€the€evidentiary€tapes€whenÐ d´  Ðthose€tapes€were€played€in€open€court€during€trial€takes€much€ofÐ `  Ðthe€sting€out€of€the€district€court's€decision.€€Given€theseÐ ¼  Ðconsiderations,€we€cannot€say€that€the€district€court€abused€itsÐ h¸ Ðdiscretion€in€denying€òòTheóó€òòJournalóó's€request€to€compel€the€creationÐ d Ðand€production€of€excerpt„only€tapes€or€CD„ROMs€mimicking€theÐ À Ðmaterials€actually€played€to€the€jury.׃!×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòCf.óó€òòValley€Broad.€Co.óó€v.Ð l¼ ÐòòUnited€States€Dist.€Ct.óó,€798€F.2d€1289,€1295€&€n.8€(9th€Cir.€1986)Ð h Ð(explaining€that€substantial€administrative€burdens€alone€mayÐ Ä Ðâ âjustify€denial€of€access).ò òó óÐ pÀ  Ðà ` àòòTheóó€òòJournalóó€has€a€fallback€position.€€It€argues€that€theÐ ° Ðâ âmedleys€of€excerpts€can€be€rerecorded€as€they€are€played€in€openÐ \¬ Ðcourt.€€The€district€court€rejected€this€proposal€based€upon€theÐ X Ðclerk€of€court's€representation€that€it€was€infeasible€to€tap€intoÐ ´  Ðthe€audio/video€feed€to€the€broadcast€monitors€to€rerecord€theÐ ` ° Ðmaterials€as€they€were€being€played€in€open€court.€€The€clerkÐ  \  Ðexplained€that€consultations€with€the€court's€technical€staff€andÐ ¸  Ðrepresentatives€of€the€vendor€that€had€installed€the€courtroomÐ d´  Ðpresentation€system€had€not€yielded€a€practicable€and€cost„Ð `  Ðeffective€method€of€rerecording€the€audio/video€transmission€to€theÐ ¼  Ðoverflow€room.€€The€district€court€accepted€this€representation.Ð h¸ Ðà ` àòòTheóó€òòJournalóó€disputes€the€accuracy€of€the€clerk'sÐ d Ðconclusion.€€Its€position€rests€on€a€supplementary€affidavitÐ À Ðsubmitted€on€the€eve€of€oral€argument€in€this€court.€€ThatÐ l¼ Ðaffidavit€suggests€the€existence€of€what€òòTheóó€òòJournalóó€describes€as€aÐ h Ðtechnologically€feasible€method€of€rerecording€the€audio€and€videoÐ Ä Ðexcerpts€as€they€are€played€in€open€court.€€We€decline€to€considerÐ pÀ  Ðthis€belated€proffer.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòSladeóó,€980€F.2d€27,€30Ð !l" Ð(1st€Cir.€1992)€("It€is€a€bedrock€rule€that€when€a€party€has€notÐ È"$ Ðpresented€an€argument€to€the€district€court,€she€may€not€unveil€itÐ t$Ä& Ðin€the€court€of€appeals.").ò òó ó€€òòTheóó€òòJournalóó€is,€of€course,€free€to€askÐ  &p!( Ðthe€district€court€to€evaluate€this€new€proposal.Ð Ì'#* ÐÌÐ $+t&. Ðò òVI.€€CONCLUSIONó óÐ ° Ðà ` àA€high„profile,€multi„defendant€political€corruption€caseÐ xÈ Ðis€bound€to€test€the€mettle€of€the€most€experienced€trial€judge.€Ð $t ÐWe€admire€the€manner€in€which€Chief€Judge€Torres€has€responded€toÐ Ð  Ðthat€challenge.€€Although€we,€with€a€luxury€of€time€that€districtÐ | Ì Ðjudges€rarely€enjoy,€have€concluded€that€the€court's€non„Ð ( x  Ðdissemination€order€must€be€modified€in€certain€respects,€thatÐ Ô$  Ðconclusion€in€no€way€detracts€from€our€overall€assessment€of€theÐ €Ð  Ðdistrict€court's€exemplary€performance.Ð ,|  Ðà ` àWe€need€go€no€further.€€To€recapitulate,€we€strike€downÐ Ø( Ðthe€District€of€Rhode€Island's€blanket€nonfiling€policy€for€theÐ „Ô Ðhandling€of€legal€memoranda.€€We€uphold€the€district€court's€non„Ð 0€ Ðdissemination€order,€but€direct€the€court,€should€it€enter€suchÐ Ü, Ðorders€in€future€cases,€to€include€certain€specified€safeguards.€Ð ˆØ ÐAs€to€the€Cianci€case€itself,€we€leave€the€specifics€of€correctiveÐ 4„ Ðaction€to€the€district€court,€consistent€with€the€teachings€of€thisÐ à0 Ðopinion.€€Finally,€we€deem€the€district€court's€refusal€to€provideÐ ŒÜ  ÐòòTheóó€òòJournalóó€with€copies€of€videotapes€and€audiotapes€an€appropriateÐ 8!ˆ" Ðexercise€of€the€court's€discretion,€given€the€peculiarÐ ä"4$ Ðcircumstances€of€this€case.Ð $à& ÐÌà ` àò òòòIt€is€so€orderedóó.ó ó