Judges: Need Pro Bono Court-Appointed Amicus to Represent Public Interest as to Sealing/Pseudonymity Requests?
I'm glad to do such things, and to get students involved to give them practical experience.
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.
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 says this has to remain secret, at least for now.
"[H]arm to one's reputation or injury to one's standing in the community does not warrant a deviation from the strong presumption of public access[.]"
"[W]e apply the strongest presumption of public access to the Memorandum Opinion issued by this Court ..., which, as an official decision of the Court, is considered the 'quintessential business of the public's institutions,' and is 'core to the transparency of the court's decisionmaking process.''"
"There is no question that inaccurate statements were made by the government as part of these proceedings—to both Judge Schroeder and the undersigned"—but it appears that the details of this alleged misconduct remain sealed.
The split in the cases grows.
Litigating defamation claims "in secrecy to avoid any potential embarrassment to" their subjects "directly contradicts the presumptive right of public access to pleadings and judicial proceedings."
I lost my motion opposing pseudonymity in the District of New Hampshire, though I'm appealing to the First Circuit.
"[I]n this internet age, where jurors' names can trigger lightning-fast access to a wealth of biographical information, including addresses, any slightly positive role in divulging jurors' names to the public is outweighed by the risk to jury integrity."
The court's view appears to be that, the more public interest in a case, the less the public is entitled to know.
"Plaintiff's behavior may make it more difficult for other courts (and the public) to find his litigation history, which could act to conceal future vexatious litigation or behavior."
Court redacts the name from the court-hosted official record, but refuses to order private sites to remove it.
The allegations had been filed in an appendix to a petition the judge filed in the state supreme court, challenging her suspension by the state Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission; but the court concludes they are nonetheless not records open to the public.