Gun Maker Sig Sauer Citing National Security to Keep Documents from Public

Summary

The secrecy battle over the Army’s Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) for Sig Sauer’s P320 has followed Glasscock v. Sig Sauer to the Eighth Circuit. A media intervenor is now asking the appellate court to keep key records open—and their brief places Practical Shooting Insights (this site) squarely in the middle of the story. What’s new The Trace intervenes in the appeal. The newsroom moved to intervene for the limited purpose of opposing sealed filings tied to class certification and the FMECA, arguing the public’s right of access and noting the district court cited the FMECA nine times when it certified the class. Sig Sauer says “national security” and asks for deference to the Army. In opposing intervention, Sig Sauer urges the court to leave FMECA-related material sealed and to give the Army time to weigh in, framing the dispute in terms of protecting “military secrets.” A second FMECA document emerges. Sig Sauer’s opposition confirms there are two FMECA records in the class-certification exhibits: a FMECA Spreadsheet and a FMECA Memorandum—the latter not previously described in public filings—raising fresh questions about what the memo contains and who authored it. PSI’s reporting is part of the record. The Trace’s filing tells the court the unredacted FMECA was found on CourtListener, de‑obscured, and published on Practical Shooting Insights, where it “remains available”—and it recounts Sig Sauer’s own executive discussing it on a podcast while pointing viewers to this website. The FMECA document was previously published here. The Trace’s pitch: This isn’t secret anymore The Trace walks the appellate court through how the FMECA left the bottle: it was posted on this website and then widely republished; a YouTube explainer discussing it surpassed 100,000 views. The filing quotes Sig Sauer’s VP of Consumer Affairs Phil Strader being asked on the Behind the Lens podcast why the FMECA shouldn’t be public and responding, “No, there’s not” (not...