IN THE STATE COURT OF EFFINGHAM COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
JANE DOE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
USA GYMNASTICS, INC. d/b/a USA
GYMNASTICS, SAVANNAH METRO,
INC., and WILLIAM A. McCABE,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. ST13CV058RT

MOTION TO INTERVENE AND TO UNSEAL EVIDENCE
Intervenor The Indianapolis Star, a division of Gannett Company (hereinafter “Indy Star”),
respectfully moves to intervene in this action for the limited purpose of moving to unseal certain
documents and deposition testimony that were improperly filed under seal and that are of significant
public interest. Because this matter is of great public importance and concern, Indy Star respectfully
requests that this Motion be addressed on an expedited basis. In support of this Motion, Indy Star
respectfully states as follows:
I.

INTRODUCTION

This case arises from allegations that a USA Gymnastics, Inc. (“USA Gymnastics”) coach,
Defendant William McCabe (“McCabe”), committed multiple acts of criminal sexual misconduct
against an 11-year-old gymnast who was under his care while training as a member of USA
Gymnastics. It is alleged that in the eight years before McCabe sexually violated the plaintiff in this
case, USA Gymnastics received numerous complaints claiming McCabe had sexually abused other
children who were members of USA Gymnastics, and that if USA Gymnastics had properly
investigated and reported those allegations of sexual misconduct, the plaintiff in this case would not
have suffered McCabe’s pedophiliac wrath.

 Ensuring that allegations of sexual misconduct against minors are properly investigated and
reported is of the utmost public concern. Indeed, every state in the country has enacted laws
requiring such allegations to be reported to law enforcement or other government authorities. It
appears from the evidence in this case that USA Gymnastics has, for decades, systematically ignored
these laws and avoided disclosing -- to government authorities or even its own members -widespread and pervasive complaints that its member coaches have sexually abused minors
participating in the USA Gymnastics program. In what appears to be a further effort to keep these
complaints secret and to shield USA Gymnastics from public scrutiny, 54 coaches complaint files
that were produced by USA Gymnastics in this case and certain deposition testimony of USA
Gymnastics officials with knowledge of those complaints were filed under seal in connection with
USA Gymnastics’ motion for summary judgment.
The parties’ filing of these evidentiary items under seal -- without a motion requesting
permission to file these (or any other) materials under seal, without a hearing as to whether these
items may be properly sealed, and without an order from this Court setting forth findings of fact and
conclusions of law authorizing these (or any other) items to be filed under seal -- violates settled law
and was wholly improper. Georgia law requires all court records to be open to the public and
prohibits the filing of case materials under seal, except as provided by Uniform State Court Rule 21.
The parties did not comply with any of the requirements of Rule 21 when filing the coaches
complaint files and deposition testimony under seal. For that reason alone, all of these materials
should be unsealed.
Even if the parties had properly sought and obtained permission to file these materials under
seal, the public’s interest in protecting the country’s youth by shining a light on USA Gymnastics’
apparent pattern of intentional (and potentially unlawful) failure to disclose allegations of criminal

-2608944865.1

 sexual misconduct by its coaches against the children under their supervision and care far outweighs
any interest USA Gymnastics (or anyone else) could assert in keeping the materials private.
Accordingly, USA Gymnastics cannot overcome Indy Star’s statutory and common law rights of
public access, and there is no lawful basis for sealing the coaches complaint files and related
deposition testimony.
II. STATEMENT OF GOOD CAUSE FOR EXPEDITED RELIEF
Indy Star is a daily newspaper that has been in publication for more than 100 years and that
has twice won the Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting. Indy Star is actively investigating, and
working on news stories related to, allegations that USA Gymnastics has received numerous
complaints of sexual abuse or other misconduct by its member coaches which it has systematically
refused to investigate or report solely because someone other than the victim or the victim’s parent
reported the misconduct to USA Gymnastics. The veracity of these allegations -- which it appears
would be illuminated by the coaches complaint files and deposition testimony filed under seal in this
case -- is of tremendous public interest and concern. Indeed, with every passing day that USA
Gymnastics is permitted to keep these complaints hidden from its gymnasts, their parents, and the
public, youth members of USA Gymnastics across the country are put at an increased risk of being
victimized by coaches with a secret history of sexual abuse and misconduct, and by an organization
that has allowed it to happen time and again.
The parties’ improper filing of public court records under seal is preventing complete and
timely reporting to the public, and is a continuing and irreparable injury to the public’s and Indy
Star’s common law and First Amendment rights to access and copy such information for public
dissemination. Because the relief sought in this Motion implicates Indy Star’s right to access and
disseminate news of substantial public interest, there is good cause for the Court to review this

-3608944865.1

 Motion on an expedited basis. Indy Star therefore respectfully requests that the Court hear its
Motion at the earliest possible opportunity.
III. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
It appears undisputed that plaintiff’s former USA Gymnastics coach, McCabe, committed
multiple acts of sexual misconduct against plaintiff while she was a minor training as member of
USA Gymnastics. Plaintiff alleges that USA Gymnastics is at least partially responsible for that
sexual abuse because USA Gymnastics knew of McCabe’s history of sexual misconduct and
inappropriate behavior with minors for several years before plaintiff came under his tutelage, but
took no action to protect plaintiff (or other minor gymnasts in the USA Gymnastics program) from
the danger he posed. Plaintiff alleges that by failing to properly investigate and report previous
complaints against McCabe, by failing to warn plaintiff and others of those complaints, and by
allowing McCabe to remain a coach in good standing with USA Gymnastics after receiving those
complaints, USA Gymnastics acted negligently and caused plaintiff significant permanent damages.
A “core issue in dispute” in this case is whether USA Gymnastics has a policy or practice of
failing to investigate and report complaints against its member coaches, including the complaints
against McCabe, that are not made directly by the victim or the victim’s parent. In connection with
that core issue, plaintiff asked USA Gymnastics to produce copies of all of its complaint files from
January 1, 1996 to December 31, 2006, regarding complaints of sexual misconduct by a member
coach or about sexual abuse of member athletes. When USA Gymnastics refused to produce the
complaint files, plaintiff moved to compel their production. The Court initially granted plaintiff
access to review -- but not to copy -- the complaint files pursuant to a Stipulated Confidentiality and
Protective Order governing the examination of those discovery materials (the “Protective Order”).
Three months later, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel and ordered USA Gymnastics to

-4608944865.1

 produce copies of all the requested coaches complaint files and victim complaints to plaintiff in
accordance with the Protective Order.
According to plaintiff’s response to USA Gymnastics’ motion for summary judgment, the
54 coaches complaint files produced by USA Gymnastics and the related deposition testimony of
USA Gymnastics officials reveal that USA Gymnastics received numerous complaints about sexual
abuse and other misconduct by its member coaches -- including complaints from victims and their
parents -- that were never investigated or reported. The public, however, continues to be kept in the
dark regarding those complaints and USA Gymnastics’ handling of those complaints because the
coaches complaint files and related deposition testimony were filed under seal.
No party sought permission to file materials under seal, no notice was given to the public that
materials may be filed under seal, no hearing was held on whether the parties should be permitted to
file materials under seal, and no order was issued by this Court authorizing the parties to file any
materials under seal. Instead, it appears the parties informally agreed to file certain case materials
under seal, and that the Clerk of Court permitted the parties to file these materials under seal, despite
the absence of an order authorizing the parties or the Clerk to do so.1 The materials filed under seal
include all of the USA Gymnastics’ coaches complaint files, as well as the deposition testimony of
USA Gymnastics officials with knowledge of the content of those files and USA Gymnastics’
purported basis for failing to investigate those complaints or report them to the proper authorities.
IV. ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITIES
A.

Indy Star’s Motion to Intervene Should Be Granted.

1

Plaintiff’s response to USA Gymnastics’ motion for summary judgment states that the coaches
complaints and related testimony were filed under seal pursuant to the Protective Order. The
Protective Order, however, relates solely to plaintiff’s access to and examination of the records; it
does not address the exchange of documents, does not mention testimony of any kind, and does not
provide a procedure for filing documents or testimony with the Court.
-5608944865.1

 The right of the media to intervene in legal actions where, as here, their newsgathering rights
are burdened without notice and an opportunity to be heard is well established. See, e.g., Globe
Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 609 n.25 (1982) (“[R]epresentatives of the press
and the general public must be given an opportunity to be heard on the question of their exclusion.”);
R.W. Page Corp. v. Lumpkin, 249 Ga. 576 (1982) (recognizing press has right to challenge orders
limiting public access, and requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard before consideration of
motions seeking to restrict public access); Beckman Industries, Inc. v. Ina Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470,
473 (9th Cir. 1992) (non-parties may challenge restrictions on public access without filing a formal
complaint in intervention); In re Associated Press, 162 F.3d 503, 508 (7th Cir. 1998) (“[T]he Press
ought to have been able to intervene in order to present arguments against limitations on the
constitutional or common law right of access.”); Perry v. City and County of San Francisco, 2011
WL 2419868, at *14 (9th Cir. Apr. 27, 2011) (internal citations omitted) (“[T]he media have
standing to assert the public’s – and its own – constitutional right of access to court records and
proceedings. Thus, this Court has held that non-parties must be permitted to intervene for the
purpose of challenging any restrictions on the First Amendment right of access.”).
Indy Star, as a member of the news media, is entitled to intervene in this case to challenge the
parties’ improper filing of judicial records under seal, and to protect its and the public’s
constitutional and common law right of access to this Court’s records and proceedings. E.g., U.S. v.
Ellis, 90 F.3d 447, 449 (11th Cir. 1996) (newspaper, “though not otherwise a party, had standing to
challenge the denial of access to judicial proceedings”). Indeed, the records were filed under seal
without notice to the public (and therefore also Indy Star), and without affording the public an
opportunity to be heard. Because the parties’ filing of the coaches complaint files and related

-6608944865.1

 deposition testimony under seal improperly limits Indy Star’s and the public’s right of access to the
courts, Indy Star respectfully submits that its Motion to Intervene should be granted.
B.

The Coaches Complaint Files and Related Deposition Testimony Should Be Unsealed
Because They Were Filed Under Seal In Violation of Uniform State Court Rule 21.
Georgia’s Uniform State Court Rule 21 is clear that “all court records are public and must be

available for public inspection unless public access is limited by law or by the procedure set forth [in
Rule 21].” Unif. State Ct. R. 21 (emphasis added). The purpose of Rule 21 is “ensure that the public
will continue to enjoy its traditional right of access to judicial records, except in cases of clear
necessity.” Atlanta Journal v. Long, 258 Ga. 410, 413 (1988). Thus, while Rule 21 permits trial
courts to shield certain court records from public view “in exceptional cases,” that right may only be
exercised if the requirements of Rule 21 are met. Long, 258 Ga. at 411; see also In re Atlanta
Journal-Constitution, 271 Ga. 436, 437 (1999) (trial courts “may restrict or prohibit access to court
records only if they do so in compliance with the requirements of Rule 21”).
To ensure that public access to court records is not improperly curtailed, Rule 21 requires
that the public be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before a sealing order is entered.
Specifically, Rule 21.1 provides that “[u]pon motion by any party to any civil or criminal action, or
upon the court’s own motion, after hearing, the court may limit access to court files respecting that
action.” Unif. State Ct. R. 21.1 (emphasis added). However, an order limiting public access “shall
not be granted except upon a finding that the harm otherwise resulting to the privacy of a person in
interest clearly outweighs the public interest.” Unif. State Ct. R. 21.2. If an order limiting access to
court files is granted, it must “specify the part of the file to which access is limited, the nature and
duration of the limitation, and the reason for limitation.” Unif. State Ct. R. 21.1.
In short, Rule 21 sets forth three basic requirements that must be satisfied before documents
may be filed under seal: (1) a motion seeking permission to file under seal; (2) a properly noticed
-7608944865.1

 hearing; and (3) a sealing order that is sufficiently specific and that is supported by findings of fact
justifying the closing of court records. The failure to meet any one of these three requirements
prevents a party from lawfully filing court records under seal. See, e.g., Wall v. Thurman, 283 Ga.
533, 535 (2008) (“If a trial court fails to hold a hearing on whether to seal a record or fails to make
findings of fact concerning whether the privacy interests at stake outweigh the public’s interest in
access to records, an order sealing a record must be reversed on appeal.”); In re Atlanta-Journal
Constitution, 271 Ga. at 437-438 (reversing sealing order where no “meaningful hearing” was held
before order was entered, and where order lacked sufficient factual findings); Long, 258 Ga. at 411414 (reversing sealing order that failed to comply with requirements of Rule 21).
The parties in this case failed to comply with any of the requirements of Rule 21. First, none
of the parties filed a motion seeking permission to file the coaches complaint files and related
deposition testimony under seal. Second, the Court did not hold a hearing, much less provide the
public with notice and the opportunity to be heard, before the parties filed the records under seal.
Third, no sealing order was ever entered in this case.2 While the parties may have informally agreed
to file the materials under seal, “litigants do not have the right to agree to seal what [are] public
records.” Wilson v. Am. Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568, 1571 (11th Cir. 1985). To the contrary,
“[o]nce a matter is brought before a court for resolution, it is no longer solely the parties’ case, but
also the public’s case.” Brown v. Advantage Eng., Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992).

2

As noted above, the Protective Order does not permit filing of materials under seal, and it does not
meet the Rule 21 requirements for a sealing order. Moreover, to the extent the parties claim that the
coaches complaint files or related deposition testimony contain “protected identifiers” or other
“personal and confidential information,” the parties also violated Rule 21.6 by filing these materials
under seal. Rule 21.6 provides that “[a]ny party seeking to make a filing under seal” that contains
protected identifiers or other personal or confidential information “shall first file a redacted version
with the clerk of court for the public record and then submit a request for filing under seal directly to
the court, along with a copy of the filing without redaction and a proposed order to file under seal.”
None of those steps were taken here.
-8608944865.1

 The parties’ filing of the coaches complaint files and related deposition testimony under seal
violated Rule 21 and improperly denied the public its “presumptive right of immediate access” to
court records. Long, 258 Ga. at 414. For that reason, alone, Indy Star’s Motion to Unseal Evidence
should be granted, and the materials that were improperly filed under seal in this case should be
immediately unsealed and made available to the public.
C.

The Coaches Complaint Files and Related Deposition Testimony Should Be Unsealed
Because the Public Interest In Preventing Sexual Abuse of Minors Far Outweighs
Any Interest USA Gymnastics May Have In Keeping That Misconduct Private.
Even if the parties had complied (or were to now try to comply) with the requirements of

Rule 21, there is no lawful basis for sealing the coaches complaint files and related deposition
testimony. As reflected in Rule 21, a party seeking to seal court records bears the burden of proving
that “the harm otherwise resulting to his or her privacy clearly outweighs the public’s substantial
interest in access to the records.” In re Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 271 Ga. at 437-438; Long, 258
Ga. at 414.3 USA Gymnastics cannot meet that burden here. Indeed, the balancing of these interests
falls squarely on the other side: the public’s interest in preventing USA Gymnastics’ coaches from
sexually abusing the children under their care clearly outweighs any privacy interest USA
Gymnastics could claim in keeping evidence of such misconduct secret.
It appears that USA Gymnastics received numerous complaints over the last two decades
alleging sexual abuse and other misconduct by its member coaches, and that USA Gymnastics failed
to investigate or report those complaints solely because they were not made directly by a victim or
victim’s parent. If that is true, USA Gymnastics exposed tens of thousands of minor gymnasts to an
increased risk of sexual abuse at the hands of their USA Gymnastics coaches and deprived these
3

Likewise, “[b]efore it is authorized to seal court records, the trial court must make factual findings
which lead it to conclude as a matter of law” that the harm to the party’s privacy interest that will
result from not sealing the records “clearly outweighs” the harm to the public’s right of access that
will result from sealing the records. In re Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 271 Ga. at 437-438.
-9608944865.1

 gymnasts and their parents of critical information that could have been used to prevent such abuse.
Moreover, USA Gymnastics’ systematic failure to investigate and report complaints of sexual abuse,
if true, presents an on-going threat to the more than 90,000 member athletes who are currently part
of the USA Gymnastics program. There is no public interest more compelling than protecting
children who are entrusted to the care of national organizations like USA Gymnastics from enduring
sexual abuse. That significant public interest will be substantially impaired if USA Gymnastics is
permitted to continue hiding evidence of criminal misconduct by its member coaches from other
minor athletes, their parents, law enforcement, and the public.
Conversely, there is no privacy interest that USA Gymnastics could assert that would justify
sealing evidence of potential criminal misconduct by its member coaches from public view. USA
Gymnastics has not articulated, and cannot identify, any specific harm that it would suffer if the
coaches complaint files and related deposition testimony are disclosed. No individual has asserted
any personal privacy interest in this case, and USA Gymnastics -- a corporate entity -- has no
personal privacy interest of its own that is protectable under state law. See, e.g., Bd. of Regents v.
Atlanta Journal & Atlanta Constitution, 259 Ga. 214, 217 (1989) (distinguishing between “a
personal right to privacy” and “a corporate preference for privacy”). Moreover, any interest that
may have once existed in keeping the complaints confidential has diminished, if not vanished, as the
complaints are anywhere from 10-20 years old, and it appears the complaints have been redacted to
remove at least the names of the victims. Finally, the complaints do not involve the type of evidence
which sometimes warrants limiting public access, such as trade secrets or issues of national security.
See, e.g., Wilson, 759 F.2d at 1570. To the contrary, they likely include evidence of criminal
misconduct against minors that has gone unreported and unprosecuted.

-10608944865.1

 While USA Gymnastics may find the complaints embarrassing or harmful to its reputation,
that is not a sufficient basis to restrict public access. “By their very nature, civil lawsuits quite often
cause litigants to experience an invasion of privacy and resulting embarrassment, yet that fact alone
does not permit trial courts to routinely seal court records.” In re Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 271
Ga. at 438. Indeed, “[t]he presumption of open access that is built into Rule 21 implicitly takes that
factor into account.” Long, 258 Ga. at 414. Similarly, “simply showing that the information would
harm the company’s reputation is not sufficient to overcome the strong common law presumption in
favor of public access.” Wilson, 759 F.2d at 1570-71.
The public’s interest in knowing about the depth and nature of the complaints made against
USA Gymnastics coaches, and the severity of the danger posed to minor athletes training with USA
Gymnastics coaches, far outweighs any claim that USA Gymnastics could make in favor of keeping
that information in the shadows. The legislature of every state in the country has made that clear by
enacting laws that require information related to the sexual abuse of minors to be reported to law
enforcement or other government authorities. See, e.g., O.C.G.A. Ind. Code §§ 31-33-5-1 et seq.;
§ 19-7-5; Fla. Stat. § 39.201; D.C. Code §§ 4-1321.01 et seq.; Tex. Fam. Code §§ 261.101 et seq.4 It
appears USA Gymnastics has methodically flouted those laws by devising corporate policies that
attempt to absolve it of any obligation to investigate or report allegations of sexual abuse or

4

In states like Indiana, where USA Gymnastics is headquartered, the mandatory reporting laws are
“designed, if anything, to err on the side of over reporting suspected child abuse or neglect.” Smith
v. State, 8 N.E.3d 668, 683 (Ind. 2014) (emphasis in original). That is sound public policy because it
promotes the stated purpose of these laws: protecting children from abuse. Indeed, the mandatory
reporting laws are universally based on the state legislatures’ determinations that requiring
mandatory reporting will benefit the public interest by “encourag[ing] effective reporting of
suspected or known incidents of child abuse or neglect,” “provid[ing] effective child services to
quickly investigate reports of child abuse,” and “caus[ing] the protective services of the state to be
brought to bear” to “provide for the care, safety, and protection of children,” to “prevent the
occurrence of child abuse” and “to protect and enhance the welfare of children.” Ind. Code § 31-331-1; O.C.G.A. § 19-7-5; Fla. Stat. § 39.001; D.C. Code § 4-1321.01.
-11608944865.1

 misconduct that are not made directly by the victim or the victim’s parent. In the process, USA
Gymnastics endangered the welfare of the thousands of children who were -- and who continue to be
-- entrusted to the care of USA Gymnastics and its coaches. Sunshine is the only disinfectant for
such behavior.
The public has a significant interest in ensuring that USA Gymnastics -- the national
governing body for the sport of gymnastics in the United States and the entity entrusted with
selecting and training the U.S. gymnastics teams for the Olympic Games -- is adequately
investigating and reporting allegations of sexual abuse and misconduct by its member coaches. The
information in the coaches complaint files and the related deposition testimony will shed light on
that issue, and may help prevent current and future members of USA Gymnastics from being
subjected to sexual abuse by their coaches. Those materials should therefore be immediately
unsealed and made available for public review.
D.

The Coaches Complaint Files and Related Deposition Testimony Should Be Unsealed
Because Indy Star and the Public Have a Common Law Right to Access All Materials
On Which the Adjudication of This Case Is Based.
Even if the sealed records did not so clearly involve an issue of great public importance and

concern, the coaches complaint files and related deposition testimony should be unsealed for a
separate and independent reason: Indy Star and the public have a common law right to access court
records, including those improperly filed under seal in this case.
“In the State of Georgia, the public and the press have traditionally enjoyed a right of access
to court records.” Long, 258 Ga. at 411. That is because “justice faces its gravest threat when courts
dispense it secretly.” Id. The Georgia Supreme Court has repeatedly expressed its disdain for
limiting public access to court records, stating that “[o]ur system abhors star chamber proceedings”
and that “court records hidden under a bushel make scant contribution to their purpose.” Id.; see
also State v. Brown, 293 Ga. 493, 493-94 (2013) (recognizing the public’s right of access “is a
-12608944865.1

 fundamental part of our judicial system . . . to guarantee that there may never be practiced in this
State secret or star-chamber court proceedings”). The Eleventh Circuit has similarly recognized that
“[t]here is no question that a common law right of access exists as to civil proceedings,” because
“[w]hat transpires in the courtroom is public property.” Wilson, 759 F.2d at 1570 (quoting Craig v.
Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 374 (1947)); see also F.T.C. v. AbbVie Prods., LLC, 713 F.3d 54, 62 (11th
Cir. 2013) (“The common-law right of access establishes a general presumption that criminal and
civil actions should be conducted publicly and includes the right to inspect and copy public records
and documents.”).
The coaches complaint files and related deposition testimony filed in connection with USA
Gymnastics’ motion for summary judgment are court records which are subject to Indy Star’s and
the public’s common law right of public access. Indeed, it is well settled that “discovery material
filed in connection with pretrial motions that require judicial resolution on the merits” -- such as
motions for summary judgment -- “is subject to the common-law right” of public access. Chi.
Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1312 (11th Cir. 2001); see also Joy v.
North, 692 F.2d 880, 893 (2d Cir. 1982) (“[D]ocuments used by parties moving for, or opposing,
summary judgment should not remain under seal absent the most compelling reasons.”). Private or
sensitive matters may be produced pursuant to a protective order or filed under seal during discovery
pursuant to Rule 26(c), but “[a]t the adjudication stage . . . very different considerations apply. An
adjudication is a formal act of government, the basis of which should, absent exceptional
circumstances, be subject to public scrutiny.” Joy, 692 F.2d at 893; see also Leucadia, Inc. v.
Applied Extrusion Techs., Inc., 998 F.2d 157, 164 (3d Cir. 1993) (“[T]here is a presumptive right of
public access to pretrial motions of a nondiscovery nature, whether preliminary or dispositive, and
the material filed in connection therewith.”).

-13608944865.1

 The coaches complaint files and related deposition testimony involve a “core issue in
dispute” in this case and are central to the issues raised in USA Gymnastics’ motion for summary
judgment and plaintiff’s opposition thereto. Regardless of the outcome of USA Gymnastics’ motion
for summary judgment, the improperly sealed records will be material to the Court’s resolution of
the merits of that motion. Thus, any privacy right that USA Gymnastics (or anyone else) may have
claimed to have had in the coaches complaint files and related deposition testimony was lost when
the materials were filed with the Court in connection with a dispositive motion. See, e.g., In re
Johnson, 598 N.E.2d 406, 410 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992) (“Once documents are filed with the court, they
lose their private nature and become part of the court file and ‘public components’ of the judicial
proceeding to which the right of access attaches.”).
The parties, by filing the coaches complaint files and related deposition testimony of USA
Gymnastics officials under seal, and the Clerk of Court, by permitting the materials to be filed under
seal, deprived Indy Star and the public of their common law right of access to judicial records.
Despite being improperly filed under seal, once the coaches complaint files and related deposition
testimony were filed with the Court, they became court records subject to public access. Indy Star
therefore submits that those records should be immediately unsealed.
V.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Indy Star respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion to
intervene, schedule a hearing on its motion to unseal evidence, and enter an order directing the Clerk
of Court to immediately unseal and make publicly available the evidentiary materials that were
improperly filed under seal in this case. Because Indy Star is seeking access to these court records
for use in a news story, the request is necessarily time-sensitive; accordingly, Indy Star also
respectfully requests that the Court expedite its consideration of this Motion and provide Indy Star
with the opportunity to be heard on the issues presented herein at the earliest practical time.
-14608944865.1

 Respectfully submitted this

day of June, 2016.

S. Derek Bauer
Georgia Bar No. 042537
Ian K. Byrnside
Georgia Bar No. 167521
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1170 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2400
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Telephone: (404) 459-0050
Facsimile: (404) 459-5734
Attorneys for Intervenor
The Indianapolis Star

-15608944865.1

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION TO
INTERVENE AND TO UNSEAL EVIDENCE on all counsel of record by email and by placing a
copy of same in the United States Mail with sufficient postage affixed thereon, addressed as follows:
W. Brian Cornwell, Esquire
Jeffrey W. Lasky, Esquire
Lasky Cooper Law
P.O. Box. 9086
Savannah, Georgia 31412
This

Michael J. Athans, Esquire
Jeffrey Kershaw, Esquire
Gilson Athans P.C.
980 Hammond Drive, Suite 800
Atlanta, Georgia 30328

day of June, 2016.
S. Derek Bauer