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.
So a New Jersey tax court held last week, in a case brought by prominent bank founder Vernon W. Hill.
that I had gotten from a court docket while it has not been sealed, but that the movant is seeking to seal.
No dice, says the District Court.
The ex-wife had withdrawn her complaint before the court took any substantive action, under circumstances that cast doubt on its accuracy; because of that, a Virginia court agreed that it should be sealed.
"While such documents may be unflattering to Defendant's business, Defendant has not satisfied the burden of showing that the documents are proprietary in nature. Nor has Defendant satisfied the burden necessary to show that any interest in maintaining secrecy is outweighed by the presumption of access."
And does a Vermont statute mandating such sealing apply in cases that are being litigated in federal court?
Lawsuits are matters of public record -- and you generally can't hide them from prospective business partners, employers, house buyers, or others.
"The logical conclusion of Plaintiff's argument is that whenever someone sues for defamation because of potentially embarrassing comments, the plaintiff should be allowed to sue anonymously and with the case under seal."
An attempt to seal a key document in a libel / breach of contract case filed by a former communication strategist for Julian Assange against a former lawyer for Edward Snowden.
"If the Court sealed the disputed materials, it would essentially conceal the very mechanism that REA used to perpetuate the scheme, leaving the public with little more than the judgment itself to establish the existence of the scheme."
... if you're asserting your own rights of access (which all of us have) to court records.
... by a federal district court decision yesterday, in a case brought by a pro se litigant in New Jersey.
Avoid motions "for Leave to File Under Seal Any and All Documents and Depositions Cited in Support of Any Motion, Response, Reply, or Appendix Filed by the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant."
Stephanie Gilliard argued "that offers of employment have been rescinded after Google searches of her name revealed the events of this case, namely her surreptitious recordings of her co-workers."
Unsurprisingly, the exact allegations that are said to be libelous don't appear in the complaint.
(Disclosure: I had filed an objection, on my own behalf, to the motion to seal.)
More than just a mixed metaphor -- it's a legal doctrine.
The plaintiff had pleaded guilty to, among other things, having sex with a minor (apparently when he was 21 and the minor was 15); the alleged libel stemmed from, among other things, reports of that crime.
That's what a New York trial court decision just posted online today held -- correctly, I think.
(1) If they're alleging sexual abuse. (2) If they're alleging they were libeled as sexual abusers. (3) Both. (4) Neither.
Since I've been blogging today about public rights of access to sealed files, I thought I'd pass this along.
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