Unsealing During Appeal: Fourth Circuit Confirms First Amendment Access to Summary‑Judgment Video Exhibits and Treats Motions to Unseal as Collateral

Introduction

In Gray Media Group, Inc. v. Loveridge, the Fourth Circuit delivered a forceful reaffirmation of— and added practical clarity to— the public’s and press’s qualified rights of access to judicial records. The Court held that video exhibits filed with a summary-judgment motion in a civil case are subject to the First Amendment right of access and must be unsealed absent specific, narrowly tailored findings showing that sealing is essential to preserve a higher value, such as the right to a fair trial. Of particular procedural significance, the Court also clarified that motions to unseal are “collateral” matters that a district court may adjudicate even while the merits are on appeal. And recognizing the time-sensitivity of access, the Court treated the broadcaster’s appeal as a petition for mandamus and ordered immediate unsealing.

The case arose from the shooting of a police officer by a fellow officer during the execution of a search warrant. The underlying litigation featured sharply divergent narratives, and crucial video evidence (including body-worn camera footage) was filed with a dispositive motion yet sealed by consent. A local television station, WBTV, sought access. The district court denied intervention for lack of jurisdiction and, alternatively, denied unsealing. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of intervention but granted mandamus, vacated the sealing order, and remanded with instructions to unseal the videos.

At a glance: Key holdings

First Amendment access attaches to exhibits filed with a summary-judgment motion; the more rigorous First Amendment standard governs.
Mere generalized fears of pretrial prejudice do not justify sealing; courts must make specific findings and adopt narrowly tailored remedies, considering less restrictive alternatives (notably, voir dire).
Media/pubic need not prove “monumental public interest” to invoke access; the presumption of openness is not contingent on current media attention.
District courts lack jurisdiction to entertain intervention after a notice of appeal but retain jurisdiction to decide motions to unseal because such motions are collateral to the merits appeal.
Mandamus is appropriate to protect First Amendment access where no other adequate means of relief exist; delays themselves can constitute ongoing infringements.

Factual and Procedural Background

The case stems from a November 1, 2019 search of a suspected methamphetamine trafficker’s residence. Officer Clarence Belton participated in the entry; amid gunfire inside, he fell to the ground. Officer Heather Loveridge, encountering Belton on the garage floor, fired at him multiple times. Belton survived but sustained severe injuries and later sued Loveridge (and the City of Charlotte) for excessive force and related tort claims. Loveridge removed to federal court and moved for summary judgment. Both sides filed video exhibits (including body-cam footage) with their briefing and—by consent—moved to seal them. Although the Western District of North Carolina’s Local Rule 6.1(c)(2) requires a particularized showing for sealing and consideration of alternatives, the parties’ motions supplied virtually no reasoning; a magistrate judge nonetheless sealed the exhibits.

The district court denied summary judgment; Loveridge took an interlocutory appeal. While that appeal was pending, WBTV moved to intervene for the limited purpose of unsealing and, alternatively, moved to unseal under Local Rules 6.1(e) and 7.1. Belton supported unsealing. Loveridge opposed, arguing lack of jurisdiction and prejudice to her fair-trial rights. The district court denied intervention (for lack of jurisdiction) and, in the alternative, denied unsealing, concluding there was no common-law or First Amendment right of access and that, even if there were, fair-trial concerns prevailed. WBTV appealed.

Summary of the Opinion

The Fourth Circuit issued a published opinion authored by Judge Berner and joined by Judges Wynn and Richardson. The Court:

Affirmed the denial of WBTV’s motion to intervene: an existing notice of appeal divested the district court of jurisdiction to entertain intervention.
Rejected nonparty appellate standing: WBTV did not actively participate in the proceedings before the sealing order issued.
Construed WBTV’s appeal as a petition for mandamus and granted the writ: WBTV had no other adequate avenue for relief; it had a clear and indisputable First Amendment right of access; and mandamus was appropriate.
Held that exhibits filed with a summary-judgment motion are subject to the First Amendment right of access; the district court erred in concluding otherwise.
Vacated the sealing order and remanded with instructions to unseal the videos: Loveridge’s generalized fair-trial concerns were unsupported by specific findings, not narrowly tailored, and less restrictive alternatives (especially voir dire) were available.
Clarified that motions to unseal are collateral matters that district courts may decide even during a pending merits appeal.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Company Doe v. Public Citizen, 749 F.3d 246 (4th Cir. 2014)
The Court repeatedly invoked Company Doe for bedrock propositions: the public and press possess a qualified right of access to judicial records; the First Amendment standard applies to records filed with dispositive motions; and closure is “unusual” and demands rigorous justification. Company Doe also supplies procedural guidance: notices of appeal generally divest district court jurisdiction (including over intervention) and emphasize the transparency imperative—each day of denial can be a separate, cognizable First Amendment injury.
Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249 (4th Cir. 1988)
Rushford establishes that materials filed with a summary-judgment motion are subject to the “more rigorous” First Amendment right of access. The Court relied on Rushford to reject the district court’s premise that there was no such right in the video exhibits.
Stone v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp., 855 F.2d 178 (4th Cir. 1988)
Stone underscores that the presumptive right of access is overcome “only in unusual circumstances.” This high bar informed the Court’s conclusion that conclusory references to pretrial prejudice cannot justify wholesale sealing.
In re Washington Post Co., 807 F.2d 383 (4th Cir. 1986) and In re Murphy‑Brown, LLC, 907 F.3d 788 (4th Cir. 2018)
These cases confirm mandamus as a proper and necessary vehicle to protect First Amendment access, especially when delay compounds harm. The Court used them to frame the mandamus standard and to justify treating WBTV’s appeal as a petition.
United States ex rel. Oberg v. Nelnet, Inc., 105 F.4th 161 (4th Cir. 2024)
Oberg clarified that nonparties may seek mandamus to vindicate access rights and restated the “experience and logic” test for First Amendment access. The Court leaned on Oberg to confirm standing and the suitability of mandamus.
Press‑Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (Press‑Enterprise I), 464 U.S. 501 (1984) and Press‑Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (Press‑Enterprise II), 478 U.S. 1 (1986)
These Supreme Court decisions supply the doctrinal framework: openness absent specific findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and narrowly tailored to that end. The Fourth Circuit applied this standard directly to reject the district court’s conclusory reliance on fair‑trial concerns.
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982)
Globe reinforces that closure must be justified case‑by‑case with narrow tailoring. It fortified the panel’s insistence on specific, individualized findings here.
Virginia Department of State Police v. Washington Post, 386 F.3d 567 (4th Cir. 2004)
This case confirms that the media’s rights mirror the public’s, that the party seeking closure bears the burden, and that courts must explain why less drastic alternatives to sealing will not suffice. It anchors the panel’s burden analysis and its emphasis on alternatives like voir dire.
In re Providence Journal, 293 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) and United States v. Erie County, 763 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2014)
These persuasive authorities stress that broad, unsupported assertions cannot justify secrecy. The Fourth Circuit cited them to illustrate the nationwide insistence on specificity.
Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982) and FTC v. Lin, 66 F.4th 164 (4th Cir. 2023)
These cases support the jurisdictional holding: a notice of appeal divests the district court of authority over matters involved in the appeal (including intervention), avoiding confusion and inefficiency.
Sharp Farms v. Speaks, 917 F.3d 276 (4th Cir. 2019) and Bridges v. Department of Maryland State Police, 441 F.3d 197 (4th Cir. 2006)
Denials of intervention are final and appealable, shaping how WBTV’s intervention denial was treated on appeal.
Kenny v. Quigg, 820 F.2d 665 (4th Cir. 1987)
Provides the nonparty appellate standing test (interest plus active participation). WBTV failed the “active participation” prong, which steered the Court toward mandamus.
Hirschkop v. Snead, 594 F.2d 356 (4th Cir. 1979) (en banc) (per curiam) and Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965)
These cases underscore the fundamental nature of the fair-trial right—acknowledged but not expanded to authorize sealing without specific, narrowly tailored justifications.
In re Charlotte Observer, 882 F.2d 850 (4th Cir. 1989)
Emphasizes voir dire as the preferred safeguard against pretrial publicity’s effects, directly informing the Court’s less-restrictive-alternative analysis.

Legal Reasoning

1) Jurisdiction and Vehicle

The Court drew a firm jurisdictional line. First, because Loveridge had already noticed an appeal of the summary-judgment denial, the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain WBTV’s motion to intervene. Intervention is not “collateral” to the merits appeal; allowing it would invite confusion and inefficiency.

Second, although the district court suggested it also lacked jurisdiction to consider unsealing, the Fourth Circuit disagreed: motions to unseal are collateral to an appeal on the merits. Indeed, the Western District of North Carolina’s Local Rule 6.1(h) authorizes nonparties to move to unseal, and unsealing did not implicate issues on appeal. Thus, the district court could have adjudicated unsealing during the interlocutory appeal.

Third, because WBTV was neither a party nor an intervenor and did not actively participate before the sealing order, it lacked nonparty appellate standing. The Court therefore treated the appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus, an established avenue for the press to vindicate First Amendment access.

2) Mandamus Standard

No other adequate means: Given the jurisdictional posture (no intervention; no nonparty appellate standing) and the district court’s clear inclination to deny unsealing, mandamus was the only effective route to relief.
Clear and indisputable right: Exhibits filed with summary-judgment briefing are subject to the First Amendment right of access. The district court’s contrary conclusion was legal error. The proponent of sealing bears a heavy burden to overcome this presumption through specific, narrowly tailored findings.
Appropriate under the circumstances: The opinion stressed the institutional values at stake—transparency, accountability, and timely public oversight—and recognized that each day of unnecessary sealing risks compounding First Amendment harm.

3) Substantive Access Analysis

The Court applied the First Amendment framework to the video exhibits attached to a summary-judgment motion. Under Rushford and Company Doe, the First Amendment standard governs, demanding that any closure be “essential to preserve higher values” and narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Here:

Fair-trial concerns were conclusory: Loveridge did not supply evidence or case-specific reasoning demonstrating that unsealing would prejudice jury selection or impair a fair trial. General fears about publicity are not enough.
No narrow tailoring: The district court sealed the videos in full. The Court found no effort to consider partial disclosures, redactions, or staging of release, nor any exploration of how voir dire could mitigate exposure.
Less restrictive alternatives available: The Court characterized voir dire as the preferred safeguard to ensure impartial juries even in high-profile cases. Courts routinely empanel unbiased jurors despite saturation coverage.
No “public interest” threshold: The district court appeared to shift the burden by asking WBTV to show a “monumental” public interest, especially years after the incident. The Fourth Circuit rejected that standard. The First Amendment presumption does not depend on the temperature of current news cycles.
Local Rule compliance matters: The parties’ perfunctory consent motions flouted the local rule’s requirement to explain why sealing is necessary and why no alternatives exist. The magistrate judge’s order did not cure those omissions.

Impact

On access to judicial records and media interventions

Summary-judgment materials—especially video—are presumptively open: Parties should anticipate public access once evidence crosses the threshold from discovery into the judicial decision-making process.
No “interest threshold” for the press: Courts cannot condition the right of access on proof of current media intensity or “monumental” public interest.
Mandamus remains a potent tool: Media entities that cannot intervene (or that face jurisdictional obstacles) may proceed via mandamus to protect timely access.

On district court practice during pending appeals

Unsealing is collateral: District courts should decide motions to unseal even while merits matters are on appeal, avoiding extended suppression of public records.
Specific findings and narrow tailoring are mandatory: Sealing orders must identify with particularity the compelling interest, why alternatives won’t suffice, and how any closure is tightly limited in scope and duration.

On litigants invoking fair-trial rights

Concrete, case-specific showings are required: Generalized assertions won’t suffice. Parties should marshal evidence (e.g., survey data, voir dire challenges that cannot be cured, or unique local conditions) and propose precise remedies.
Expect courts to prefer voir dire: Jury selection, instructions, sequestration in extreme cases, and other tools are preferred over secrecy. Wholesale sealing of dispositive motion exhibits will be difficult to sustain.

On law enforcement video evidence

Body-worn and surveillance videos filed in court are strong candidates for unsealing: The opinion underscores that such evidence, once filed with dispositive motions, typically falls within the First Amendment access right.
Public accountability interests are heightened: Cases involving use of force by police officers will rarely warrant blanket secrecy absent exceptional, well-documented circumstances.

On sealing practice and local rules

Consent is not enough: Parties cannot stipulate around the public’s right of access. Local rules requiring detailed justifications and consideration of alternatives must be honored.
Consider tailored approaches: Where some sensitivity exists (e.g., identities of informants, addresses, or medical information), courts should consider redactions, blurring, or limiting only those portions strictly necessary, rather than sealing entire videos.

Complex Concepts Simplified

First Amendment vs. Common-Law Access: Both recognize a qualified right of public access to court records. The First Amendment standard is more demanding: it requires a compelling justification and narrow tailoring; the common-law standard balances interests and is somewhat more flexible.
“Narrowly tailored” closure: If secrecy is justified at all, the court must choose the least restrictive means—e.g., redacting limited portions rather than sealing an entire exhibit, or delaying release rather than permanent sealing.
Voir dire: The process of questioning prospective jurors. Courts use it to screen out biased jurors, thereby mitigating concerns that pretrial publicity will taint the jury pool.
Mandamus: An extraordinary appellate remedy ordering a lower court to take a specific action. It’s available when there is no other adequate remedy, the right to relief is clear, and issuance is appropriate—often to protect time-sensitive First Amendment rights.
Collateral matters during appeal: Some issues are separate from the merits on appeal. Courts may decide those collateral issues—like unsealing—without intruding on appellate jurisdiction.
Intervention vs. nonparty appellate standing: Intervention makes a nonparty a party for purposes of appeal. Nonparty appellate standing allows some nonparties to appeal if they had a concrete interest and actively participated before the order. When both are unavailable, mandamus may fill the gap.
Discovery confidentiality vs. judicial record sealing: Material kept confidential in discovery may become publicly accessible once filed in court, especially with dispositive motions; filing transforms private discovery into judicial records subject to public access standards.

Conclusion

Gray Media Group, Inc. v. Loveridge is a robust reaffirmation of the Fourth Circuit’s transparency jurisprudence and a practical guide for courts and litigants. The Court clarified that:

Exhibits filed with summary-judgment motions, including video evidence, are presumptively open under the First Amendment.
Sealing requires specific findings of necessity, narrow tailoring, and consideration of less restrictive alternatives—conclusory fair-trial concerns will not suffice.
Motions to unseal are collateral matters that district courts can decide during a pending appeal.
Mandamus remains a vital, swift remedy to vindicate access rights when no other avenues are available.

The opinion thus reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to openness as a cornerstone of legitimacy, while equipping trial courts with clear expectations: if secrecy is sought, it must be justified with precision, tailored with restraint, and employed only when no alternative can safeguard competing constitutional values. In ordering the immediate unsealing of the video exhibits, the Fourth Circuit underscored that time is often of the essence in First Amendment access—each day of unwarranted closure is a day of public oversight denied.