IN RE: :
: AMENDED
PROCEDURES REGARDING GUILTY : STANDING ORDER
PLEAS AND SENTENCING :
:
1. There is a manifest public interest in promoting cooperation with law
enforcement, including by criminal offenders who may provide information about
criminal activity in exchange for leniency for their own conduct. This interest is reflected
in the action of Congress to allow sentences below a statutory mandatory minimum term
where a defendant has provided “substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution
of another person who has committed an offense,” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), and in its
directive to the Sentencing Commission to “assure that the guidelines reflect the general
appropriateness of imposing a sentence that is lower than would otherwise be imposed,
including a lower sentence than that established by statute as a minimum sentence, to take
into account a defendant’s substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of
another person who has committed an offense,” 28 U.S.C. § 994(n) (a directive the
Commission executed by adopting U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1).
2. There is a concomitant and equally compelling public interest in protecting the
safety of those who cooperate with law enforcement, and their family members, both to
safeguard those who provide cooperation and to assure that offenders in the future will
not be discouraged from providing assistance to authorities.
3. Based on these interests, this Court has long followed a practice in which guilty
plea agreements and sentencing documents reflecting a defendant’s cooperation have
been filed under seal.
4. This procedure, however, is not sufficient to maintain the confidentiality of a
defendant’s cooperation and thereby protect them and their family members from danger
and retribution. The Court understands that, particularly in correctional institutions where
defendants are housed together, offenders attempt to expose cooperators, and do so by
demanding that inmates produce their court pleadings, from which it may be inferred
whether the defendant is a cooperator or not. That is because, for instance, guilty plea
agreements in this district have varied substantially depending on whether the agreement
includes cooperation provisions or not.
5. To ameliorate this problem, and following consultation with the United
States Attorney and the Chief Federal Defender for this district, the Court directs as
follows:
a. The text of every guilty plea agreement will not refer to cooperation.
Rather, every guilty plea agreement and/or guilty plea memorandum will be
accompanied by a supplement, which will be filed under seal. The sealed supplement
will reveal that the defendant is or is not cooperating as of that time. If the defendant is
cooperating, the agreement of the parties setting forth the terms of cooperation shall be
attached to the supplement.
b. The text of each sentencing memorandum filed by the government and
the defendant shall not refer to cooperation, or include a motion or request for a reduced
sentence based on substantial assistance. In addition, every such sentencing
memorandum filed by the government and the defendant shall be accompanied by a
supplement, which will be filed under seal. The sealed supplement filed by the
-2-
government shall state that the government is not moving to permit a reduced sentence
based on cooperation or it will present the government’s motion for a reduced sentence
below the guideline range and/or a statutory mandatory minimum sentence, together with
a proposed order granting such relief. The sealed supplement filed by the defense will
state whether there has been cooperation and address its relevance to sentencing.
6. Each supplement to a guilty plea memorandum, guilty plea agreement, and
government and defense sentencing memorandum described in paragraph 5 shall be filed
under seal. No copy shall be provided to an inmate in a correctional institution. The
Bureau of Prisons shall make accommodations for an inmate who is proceeding pro se to
review such a document as necessary without maintaining a copy of it.
7. The Court finds that sealing of the supplements to guilty plea memoranda,
guilty plea agreements, and government and defense sentencing memoranda are
necessary to further the compelling interest of promoting and protecting cooperation with
law enforcement. The Court further finds that any discussion of these supplements at a
hearing shall occur outside the hearing of non-parties in the case, and the transcript of
that portion of the hearing shall be maintained under seal. The court reporter or ESR
operator shall not record or otherwise note the time the hearing started and ended. All
other portions of the hearing shall remain open to the public unless otherwise ordered by
the presiding judge.
There is a public right of access to judicial documents in a criminal case, both
under the First Amendment, see, e.g., United States v. Thomas, 905 F.3d 276, 282 (3d Cir.
2018) (plea documents); In re Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.’s Application for Access to Sealed
-3-
Transcripts, 913 F.2d 89, 95 (3d Cir. 1990) (transcripts of chambers and sidebar
conferences); United States v. Smith, 776 F.2d 1104, 1112 (3d Cir. 1985) (indictments,
informations, and bills of particulars), and under the common law, see, e.g., In re Avandia
Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prod. Liab. Litig., 924 F.3d 662, 672 (3d Cir. 2019) (“judicial
proceedings and records”); United States v. Smith, 776 F.2d 1104, 1110 (3d Cir. 1985)
(“The common law right of access is not limited to evidence, but rather encompasses all
‘judicial records and documents’ It includes ‘transcripts, evidence, pleadings, and other
materials submitted by litigants’”) (citations omitted); United States v. Criden, 648 F.2d
814 (3d Cir. 1981) (videotapes submitted in evidence).
“A ‘judicial record” is a document that ‘has been filed with the court......... or
otherwise somehow incorporated or integrated into a district court’s adjudicatory
proceedings.’…… Once a document becomes a judicial record, a presumption of access
attaches.” In re Avandia Mktg., 924 F.3d at 672 (quoting In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183,
192 (3d Cir. 2001)).
To justify sealing of a document under either standard, a similar rule applies. Under
the First Amendment, strict scrutiny applies, requiring the Court to find a compelling
interest that would be substantially impaired by public access. Thomas, 905 F.3d at 282
(quoting United States v. Antar, 38 F.3d 1348, 1359 (3d Cir. 1994)).
Likewise, to overcome the common law right and presumption of access, a party
moving to seal a judicial document must show “that the material is the kind of information
that courts will protect and that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to
the party seeking closure.” Miller v. Ind. Hosp., 16 F.3d 549, 551 (3d Cir. 1994) (internal
-4-
quotation marks omitted). To overcome that strong presumption, the Court must articulate
the compelling interest to be protected and make specific findings on the record concerning
the effects of disclosure. In re Avandia Mktg., 924 F.3d at 672-73 (citing In re Cendant
Corp., 260 F.3d at 194).
Application of these standards warrants the sealing of the documents described
here. Public disclosure of a defendant’s cooperation presents a substantial risk of harm to
the defendant, and perhaps to others related to or associated with him or her. For this
reason, there is a compelling interest in maintaining confidentiality regarding a
defendant’s cooperation, that is substantially impaired by any exposure.
Courts customarily seal the type of pleadings at issue here, given the government’s
compelling interest to encourage cooperation in law enforcement investigations and to
protect the safety of cooperators and witnesses. See, e.g., United States v. Thomas, 905
F.3d 276, 282–83 (3d Cir. 2018) (authorizing sealing of a plea document to protect the
safety of individuals in a national security matter); United States v. Doe, 962 F.3d 139,
147 (4th Cir. 2020) (stating that “as a general rule, the need to protect the well-being of” a
defendant “is even more elevated if judicial records suggest that the defendant may have
cooperated with law enforcement”); United States v. Doe, 870 F.3d 991, 999 (9th Cir.
2017) (“[d]irect threats are not ‘a strict condition precedent to a district court’s granting of
a closure motion.’”); United States v. Doe, 63 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir. 1995) (“The
problem of retaliatory acts against those producing adverse testimony is especially acute
in the context of criminal organizations”); United States v. Smith, 776 F.2d 1104, 1112
(3d Cir. 1985) (permitting sealing of a portion of a bill of particulars, finding that the
-5-
naming of persons in the bill as unindicted co-conspirators carried such a risk of harm to
uncharged persons).
Here, the sealing aims to protect the physical well-being of each defendant and others
associated with him or her. The government has a profound interest in protecting the
security of cooperating defendants, in preventing retaliation against witnesses, and in
assuring that future, potential cooperators are not deterred from providing vital assistance
by any perceived inability of the government to protect them and their loved ones.
The remedy ordered here is narrowly tailored. The government in each case will
file a guilty plea agreement and/or guilty plea memorandum, and the government and the
defense in each case will file a sentencing memorandum which sets forth all pertinent
information about the conviction and the sentencing proceeding, while effectively
masking whether a defendant is cooperating.
8. For these reasons, in every criminal case, the Court will accept for filing under
seal a supplement to every guilty plea agreement and/or guilty plea memorandum, and a
supplement to every government and defense sentencing memorandum, that addresses
whether or not a defendant is providing substantial assistance in the investigation or
prosecution of others.
9. Further, for the reasons previously described, it is the policy of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that at every guilty plea hearing and
sentencing hearing any discussion concerning the supplements and whether or not the
defendant is cooperating shall occur outside the hearing of non-parties in the case, and the
transcript of that portion of the hearing shall be maintained under seal. All other portions
-6-
of the hearing shall remain open to the public unless otherwise ordered by the presiding
judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Wendy Beetlestone
Wendy Beetlestone
Chief Judge
Date: February 5, 2026.
-7-
