"Plaintiff would have his allegations litigated in a star chamber with a jury of ordinary citizens presumably barred from discussing the case after their service in a closed courtroom."
An attempt to protect litigant privacy meant that binding precedent was vanished from Westlaw.
So concludes the Louisiana Supreme Court, in allowing a prisoner access to the jury vote breakdown in his case—quite important given the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling rejecting Louisiana nonunanimous convictions.
Newspapers often argue against the sealing of court records; here the newspaper argued in favor.
The question remains pending before the Ohio Court of Appeals.
The Cincinnati Enquirer and I have just filed a petition seeking this, in the Ohio Court of Appeals.
When can libel plaintiffs, suing over allegedly false claims of sexual misconduct, sue pseudonymously? When can defendants defend pseudonymously?
"CBP asks the Court to close the stable door to keep an invisible horse from bolting. But that stable door sat open for five months before CBP asked the Court to secure it. Neither the Court nor CBP know whether the horse is gone, but the possibility that it's still be there can't outweigh public's interest in open doors."
"Judges often do not respond well to unreasonable efforts to keep as much out of the public record as possible. At least not this judge."
or from one's house of worship or from the nursing board.
That's what an Eleventh Circuit opinion seems to suggest, in a case where a Trinidadian Muslim plaintiff said she "come[s] from a strict Muslim household where under [their] cultural beliefs and traditions such a sexual assault would have the tendency to bring shame and humiliation upon [her] family."
When can libel plaintiffs, suing over allegedly false claims of sexual misconduct, sue pseudonymously? When can defendants defend pseudonymously?
The decision has been promptly appealed.
"Absent some concrete threat to the officers, which has not been suggested here, there is no principled way to discern why this case would justify redactions while others would not."
and not just to trials:
"The mere fact a person may suffer embarrassment or damage to his reputation as a result of allegations in a pleading does not justify sealing the court file."
"The answer to that question is clear."
The common law, the First Amendment, and California court rules provide a broad right of access to court documents.
A federal magistrate holds that the right of access to court records precludes such sealing.
The district court reasoned that sealing was justified because of "the child's privacy interest in being protected from financial predators or others who would harass the child simply because they know the amount received." No, said the Fifth Circuit.
A case decided Monday reaffirms this principle, especially in the Seventh Circuit.
In light of this, should the presumptive First Amendment right of access to court cases require the court to provide video coverage of hearings?
It's often very hard to get court filings retroactively sealed.
The lawsuit had been filed against the University of Colorado; the Scheduling Order, which the professor had sought to seal, referred to allegations of improper conduct on the professor's part.
"The district court should not be a party to concealing this information from the public, especially as it concerns an arbitration organization that holds itself out to the public as impartial. These documents would be useful to the public in evaluating the true extent to which the organization is impartial."
An update on that Connecticut unsealing case.
(and perhaps to other government records).
If a motion to recuse argues that the judge has a conflict of interest because she owns particular property, can the judge order the redaction of all the details related to the location of the property?
"The public may well have an interest in how litigation is funded by third parties," the judge concludes. A law firm and two litigation finance companies are disputing (among other things) whether the litigation finance agreements are illegally usurious.