DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and 
 
) 
PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
) 
Criminal Action No. 2015-0039 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
DELROY THOMAS, 
  
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
Defendant. 
 
 
) 
__________________________________________) 
Attorneys: 
Alphonso G. Andrews, Esq., 
Rhonda Williams-Henry, Esq., 
St. Croix, U.S.V.I. 
 
For the United States 
 
Martial A. Webster, Esq., 
St. Croix, U.S.V.I. 
 
For Defendant 
 
ORDER 
 
 
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Government’s “Motion for Leave to File 
Document Under Seal.” (Dkt. No. 278). In its Motion, the Government requests that the Court 
grant its motion to “file a document under seal” without describing the nature of the document or 
the reasons the document should be filed under seal. 
 
It is well-settled law that there exists “a common law public right of access to judicial 
proceedings and records.” In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001) (citation 
omitted). “When a party files a motion to seal, he or she must demonstrate that ‘good cause’ exists 
for protection of the material at issue.” Ragbir v. United States, 2018 WL 3972921, at *1 (D.N.J. 
Aug. 20, 2018) (citing E.E.O.C. v. Kronos Inc., 620 F.3d 287, 302 (3d Cir. 2010)). “Good cause 
is established on a showing that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the 
Case: 1:15-cr-00039-WAL-GWC   Document #: 282   Filed: 06/26/19   Page 1 of 2
party seeking closure. The injury must be shown with specificity.” Id. (quoting Pansy v. Borough 
of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 722, 786 (3d Cir. 1994)).  
Similarly, “[t]he First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings is firmly 
established.” United States v. Smith, 123 F.3d 140, 146 (3d Cir. 1997) (citing Richmond 
Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980)). “[F]or a district court to seal a criminal 
proceeding or records, ‘particularized findings must be made on the record in each case, (1) 
establishing the existence of a compelling governmental interest, and (2) demonstrating that absent 
limited restrictions upon the right of access, that other interest would be substantially impaired.’” 
Id. at 147 (quoting United States v. Antar, 38 F.3d 1348, 1359 (3d Cir. 1994)). Thus, “where a 
right of access exists, the proponent of closure bears a strong burden in rebutting the ‘presumption 
of openness.’” Antar, 38 F.3d at 1362.  
Because the Government has provided no information upon which the Court can determine 
whether the presumption of openness has been rebutted, the Court will deny the Motion without 
prejudice. 
 
UPON CONSIDERATION of the foregoing, it is hereby 
 
ORDERED that the Government’s “Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal” is 
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 
 
SO ORDERED. 
Date:  June 26, 2019  
 
 
 
 
_______/s/________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WILMA A. LEWIS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Judge 
 
 
 
Case: 1:15-cr-00039-WAL-GWC   Document #: 282   Filed: 06/26/19   Page 2 of 2