The lawyer's "personal interest in avoiding the 'reputational harm' that she might suffer if the public were made aware of the 'very serious allegations here'" "cannot meet the 'weighty' standard for overriding the presumptions of open records and public access."
Retraction Watch prevails in a California appellate case.
"Defendants are ORDERED to identify the lawyer responsible for this motion. The lawyer, by January 3, 2023, is ORDERED to submit an explanation of why the lawyer thought this was a justified motion. When I see the explanation, I will consider whether subsequent proceedings are appropriate."
The Second Circuit reverses such a limited sealing order, and sends the case back to the district court for further analysis.
“[I]t is reasonable to expect the person invoking the Court’s jurisdiction to set aside some of his privacy. Many statutes, such as the ADA [...] require a plaintiff to set aside his [] privacy and disclose information that he [] may otherwise wish to keep confidential.”
Among other things, the court concludes that, "given that Plaintiff alleges that his 'personal background as an Arab-American and Muslim' was in part responsible for his lack of a traditional diagnosis of ADHD, his personal background may make him particularly vulnerable to the harms of disclosure."
Plaintiff "has alleged nothing suggesting he has any greater basis to fear retaliation than the plaintiffs in most discrimination cases."
to continue with his appeal, holds the Second Circuit; because he didn't do so, the appeal was dismissed.
"Meanwhile, if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there to hear it, everyone will still tell the public what it sounded like and what it means."
The court cites the relatives' privacy interests, and in particular the risk of "harassment by the adults alleged to have committed sexual crimes against the decedent" (and who aren't named as defendants in the case).
A federal judge suggested that plaintiffs can sue as John Does only to the extent that identifying them would also identify nonparties who want to remain anonymous (such as the students who accused the plaintiffs of sexual misconduct).
[UPDATE: I've added comments from plaintiff's lawyer.]
A court may impose restrictions on redistribution of material obtained through court-ordered discovery (as opposed to obtained through other means)—though if the depositions are quoted in court filings or played in court, the material used would "become part of the public record, creating a presumption of public access."
Appellate briefs need to be treated as public documents, and (I argued) shouldn't be "provisionally" sealed for months or years without findings that such sealing (or, more often, redaction) is genuinely necessary.
"Plaintiff has sought to avail herself of the protections of anonymity (without prior Court order), all the while single-handedly precluding the Named Defendant from the ability to avail himself of similar protections."
Should an appellate court provisionally seal a brief until the case is heard on the merits? Or should it try to make a redacted version promptly available?
I'm glad to do such things, and to get students involved to give them practical experience.
The search warrant and some related materials have been unsealed—but the affidavit is where the details on the justifications for the search would be, and the government has argued this has to remain secret, at least for now.