The government filed a motion to seal a criminal complaint in the Eastern District of Virginia. [1] Such a motion, according to Local Rule 49B in this district

The government filed a motion to seal a criminal complaint in the Eastern District of Virginia. [1] Such a motion, according to Local Rule 49B in this district [2] lays forth that such a motion shall include (1) A statement as to why sealing is necessary, and why another procedure will not suffice; (2) References to governing case law; and (3) A statement as to the period of time the government seeks to have the matter maintained under seal and as to how the matter is to be handled upon unsealing. The slip-up happened in the third condition: the period of time the government seeks to have the matter maintained under seal. In the motion, paragraph 5, they argue it "would need to remain sealed until Assange is arrested in connection with the charges in the criminal complaint", which implies that, at the least, the government has prepared an indictment against Julian Assange. Could they have filed this motion without referencing Assange? Possibly - if another suspect is sought in connection. If they could have referenced another sealed criminal complaint? That I don't know, frankly. [1] https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/179/399086/18919235200.pdf https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/179/399086/18919235... [2] http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/localrules/localrulesedva.pdf http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/localrules/localrulesedva.pdf edit: The motion was filed on 22nd of August this year. edit 2: Could also be that they have made a copy-paste error. At that point you possibly cannot tell IMO if that is the case. There is the prosecution that says this was made in error.