Media Intervention and Unsealing of Judicial Records: Establishing the Right to Unseal Sealed Settlement Proceedings

Introduction

This commentary examines the Fifth Circuit’s April 18, 2025 decision in 8fig, Inc. v. Stepup Funny, L.L.C., where Newsweek Digital, LLC sought to intervene in a privately sealed district‐court action and unseal the judicial record. The underlying dispute involved alleged RICO violations and related state‐law claims by 8fig, a technology finance company, against a group of e-commerce entities that funneled payments to a religious movement. After the parties jointly moved to seal the docket to facilitate settlement, Newsweek moved to intervene and unseal the record under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. The district court granted intervention and ordered unsealing; the defendants appealed.

Summary of the Judgment

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. It held (1) Newsweek had standing and met all four criteria for intervention as of right; (2) defendants waived personal‐jurisdiction and service‐of‐process objections through active participation; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in unsealing. The appellate court reaffirmed the strong presumption of public access to judicial records and the liberal construction of Rule 24.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 – Governs intervention by right (Rule 24(a)) and permissive intervention (Rule 24(b)). The court emphasized the four‐part test for intervention as of right and the low burden on an intervenor.
Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. (435 U.S. 589 (1978)) – Establishes the common‐law right of public access to judicial records and warns against sealing merely to gratify private spite or promote scandal.
Sierra Club v. Espy (18 F.3d 1202 (5th Cir. 1994)) – Affirms that intervention should be allowed where no party is harmed and “greater justice” is served.
La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott (29 F.4th 299 (5th Cir. 2022)) – Reinforces the liberal construction of Rule 24 and the intervenor’s burden.
Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp. (990 F.3d 410 (5th Cir. 2021)) – Requires district courts to perform document-by-document, line-by-line balancing when sealing records.
June Med. Servs., L.L.C. v. Phillips (22 F.4th 512 (5th Cir. 2022)) – Restates the high bar for sealing and the necessity of detailing reasons sufficient for appellate review.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Fifth Circuit’s reasoning can be distilled into three core points:

a. Intervention as of Right

Under Rule 24(a), Newsweek had to show: (i) a timely motion; (ii) interest in the subject matter; (iii) impairment of that interest; and (iv) inadequate representation by existing parties. The court found:

Timeliness: Newsweek moved to intervene within one week of the sealing order, before any final settlement filings.
Interest: Newsweek’s interest in reporting on the litigation was “clearly articulated” and cognizable under the First Amendment.
Impairment: The sealing order directly hindered Newsweek’s ability to gather and publish newsworthy information.
Inadequate representation: Neither 8fig nor the defendants would oppose the seal; Newsweek’s position was unique.

b. Waiver of Personal Jurisdiction and Service Defects

Defendants argued lack of service under Rule 4 and absence of personal jurisdiction. The court held that by appearing to seek and obtain the sealing order, filing status reports, and negotiating settlement, they made a "general appearance" and waived those objections (see Cactus Pipe & Supply Co. v. M/V Montmartre, 756 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir. 1985)).

c. Unsealing Judicial Records

The Fifth Circuit reaffirmed that:

There is a strong common-law presumption favoring public access (Nixon).
Sealing orders are disfavored and must be justified document-by-document when sealing (Binh Hoa Le).
Unsealing motions require district courts to balance public access against countervailing interests, but no line-by-line analysis is strictly demanded when the result is unsealing.
Allegations of media spite do not, without more, justify maintaining a seal on inherently newsworthy material.

3. Impact

This decision strengthens the press’s ability to challenge sealing orders that impede news gathering. It clarifies that:

Rule 24’s intervention standard is to be liberally construed in favor of media access.
Active participation in litigation (even limited to settlement discussions) waives personal‐jurisdiction and service defenses.
Sealed dockets to facilitate private settlement cannot remain closed if a third party establishes a clear right to unseal.

Lower courts will likely cite this case when balancing confidentiality against open justice, especially in RICO and white-collar contexts where public interest is high.

Complex Concepts Simplified

1. Intervention as of Right vs. Permissive Intervention: Intervention as of right (Rule 24(a)) requires a specific interest that will be harmed if intervention is denied; it is mandatory if the four‐part test is met. Permissive intervention (Rule 24(b)) is discretionary, requiring a shared question of law or fact and no undue delay.

2. General Appearance and Waiver: A party can waive jurisdictional defenses if it takes steps in the case—filing motions, appearing at hearings, negotiating settlement—beyond merely contesting jurisdiction.

3. Presumption of Public Access: Courts start with the assumption that judicial records are public. To seal, a judge must demonstrate specific, document-level reasons that outweigh transparency.

Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit’s ruling in 8fig v. Stepup Funny cements a robust right for the press to intervene and unseal sealed court records when confidentiality threatens legitimate news gathering. By reaffirming the liberal intervention standard, the waiver doctrine for jurisdictional objections, and the strong presumption of public access, this decision underscores that private settlement interests cannot override the public’s right to know. The case thus advances the principles of transparency and accountability at the heart of the justice system.