"The Court's Business Is Done in Public"

"regardless whether the motion [to seal] is opposed or unopposed."

Wise words from Judge R. Brooke Jackson (D. Colo.), I think, in Lecheminant v. City & County of Denver a few weeks ago:

ORDER denying … Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Restrict by Defendant City and County of Denver. Regardless whether the motion is opposed or unopposed, the Court's business is done in the public. The request to restrict the two exhibits is vastly overbroad. At most very specific and limited portions of the exhibits, which are discovery responses, might contain truly confidential information. If you file public versions with only that limited information redacted, the Court will consider restricting access to the full version. By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 9/22/2021.

Comments

[Gandydancer]

In a related case, I haven't been able to find any record of how or when Special Prosecutor John Durham's grand jury extracted from Perkins Coie the billing records mentioned in the indictment of Michael Sussmann. That he/the GJ has filed, subsequent to that indictment, subpoenas against PC has been reported, but I am again unaware that there is any public record of what is going on. Now, this is a GJ process... but am I missing something? Are appeals by PC to the scope and application of the subpoenas off the record, even as to their existence?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

“Wise words from Judge R. Brooke Jackson”

Probably, but some people might disagree . . .

Sometimes this gets too easy.

(That's my neighbor working a horn on E Street)