Yet "[i]t is particularly troubling to the Court that [the lawyer] appears to have survived this motion more by dumb luck than any concerted effort on his part to comply with either his professional responsibilities or the orders of this Court."
But modest redactions are permissible.
“the public has a substantial interest in knowing about those disabilities so it can meaningfully oversee the Court’s exercise of its judicial power.”
The lawsuit stems from an alleged sexual relationship between the plaintiff and Spacey over 35 years ago, when the plaintiff was 14.
Unsurprisingly, the court also refuses to order private caselaw repositories and search engines to hide the information.
So holds the Florida Court of Appeal, interpreting the Florida Constitution's crime victims' rights provision. ("If a prosecutor determines that the officer was not a victim and instead charges the officer for his conduct," the names would be released, but no such determination was made here.)
"This is beyond the pale. The indiscriminate use of the confidentiality stamp alone warrants the denial of the entirety of the motions."
but with "blurring images of [Susan] Muller's body and blood spatter."
"Public access [to judicial records] serves to promote trustworthiness of the judicial process, to curb judicial abuses, and to provide the public with a more complete understanding of the judicial system, including a better perception of its fairness."
Court records are generally public records, embarrassing as they might be for the parties.
"The public has every right to understand how the public and elected officials of the Town of Wilton and the Wilton Public Schools in the exercise of their best judgment sought to resolve this case."
“But increasingly, courts are sealing documents in run-of-the-mill cases where the parties simply prefer to keep things under wraps.”
May plaintiffs alleged sexual assault proceed pseudonymously, when the defendant is being publicly named?
"[O]nce a matter is brought before a court for resolution, it is no longer solely the parties' case, but also the public's case."
"It is simply not reasonable for a plaintiff to bring a case alleging that his constitutional rights were violated by state officials and not expect the facts on which those officials based their actions to be included in the public record of a case."
Plus a special appearance by The Princess Bride and Weekend at Bernie's.
Federal court holds that documents accompanying motions are presumptively accessible even if the case settles before the court decides the motion.
"These allegations stand at the heart of plaintiffs' claims, and sealing them would make this litigation virtually incomprehensible to the public."
The judge had earlier ordered search engines and web sites to remove materials about a employment discrimination lawsuit.
Don't just file the document unsealed, and then ask for sealing
A judge rightly speaks out against them.
"unsubstantiated allegations" that are "irrelevant ... and therefore inadmissible" can be redacted from the public version of the filings.
"This Court cannot be a party ... to such a deception." So holds a federal Magistrate Judge in rejecting the parties' joint motion to seal the complaint in the case, after it had been settled.
So says the Delaware Court of Chancery: "If the information currently redacted remains so, the public will have no means to understand the dispute MetTel has asked the Court to adjudicate."
"Plaintiffs decided to file a publicly available case and then ask the Court to protect them because defendant might say horrible things about them throughout the course of this litigation.... But harsh words are not a basis to seal a case, especially where it appears that both sides have no qualms about tearing each other down."
So holds a Minnesota trial court, because ordinary public access is precluded as a result of the epidemic.
In 2014, more than half of all California wiretaps (and one sixth of all the wiretaps in the U.S.) were authorized by one judge in Riverside County.
"In nearly all civil and criminal litigation ..., one party asserts that the allegations leveled against it by another party are patently false"; but "if the purported falsity of the complaint's allegations were sufficient to seal an entire case, then the law would recognize a presumption to seal instead of a presumption of openness."
"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.
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanks
Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks