intimidation concerns can form a valid basis for overriding the strong presumption in favor of public access, the Special Counsel’s sparse and undifferentiated Response fails to provide the Court with the necessary factual basis to justify sealing,” the judge wrote.

Smith’s argument that public disclosures of witnesses’ identities or statements ahead of trial risks “infecting the testimony of other witnesses or unnecessarily influencing the jury pool” also fell flat.

“Even accepting those rationales for sealing, the Special Counsel’s submission offers nothing in the form of concrete factual support for those rationales or otherwise identifies any supporting evidence in the record to justify granting the Special Counsel’s broad and unspecified requests on those bases,” Cannon wrote.

The judge also denied Smith’s request to shield the FBI code name of a separate investigation, finding that “the Special Counsel fails to identify the information at issue, provide any explanation about the nature of the investigation, or explain how disclosure of the code name would prejudice or jeopardize the integrity of the separate investigation (assuming it remains ongoing).”

Cannon, a Trump appointee, did grant Smith’s request to redact certain “personal identifying information” from the filings and entrusted that task to the former president’s legal team.

“Defendants are therefore [] to comb the materials carefully and redact email addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, social security numbers, and any home addresses,” the order says. Additional information, including the “signals intelligence sub-compartments,” a reference to a type of intelligence gathering, can also be withheld from the public.


Cannon ordered the defendants to file, under seal, a “proposed public version consistent with this Order” for her to review prior to unsealing.