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.
An interesting new Pennsylvania administrative decision on the subject.
UPDATE: As predicted, PETA has moved to intervene. FURTHER UPDATE: The court has indeed allowed PETA to intervene.
even though the video includes a brief appearance by a minor (a friend of plaintiff's).
This may be especially helpful in cases involving sealing or pseudonymity, where the parties agree with each other but the public interest ought to be represented.
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