…nevertheless, important to the public's interest in 17 monitoring federal courts' exercise of their Article III powers 18 that the public review the documents. 19 With this presumption of public access in mind, the 20 Court turns to the…
…for a 15 dispositive motion. It's nevertheless important to the 16 public's interest in monitoring federal courts' exercise of 17 their Article III powers. 18 With this presumption of public access in mind, the 19 Court turns to…
…for a 15 dispositive motion. It's nevertheless important to the 16 public's interest in monitoring federal courts' exercise of 17 their Article III powers. 18 With this presumption of public access in mind, the 19 Court turns to…
…respect to such evidentiary and discovery matters can cause substantial harm” and that such motions “are therefore of value to those monitoring the federal court,” rendering them “subject to at least some presumption of public access.” 929 F.3d at…
…case. The Court should not allow such callous abuse of a First Amendment right, particularly as there is no merit to Dershowitz’s claim (Br. at 21) that ‘public monitoring has an important role to play here.’” Id. at 19…
…The paper’s value to “those monitoring the federal courts” would be “negligible,” id., since the federal court would have exercised no judicial authority in connection with the paper. 3 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 996 Filed…
…1208 at 2–4. This argument is based on the proposition that public access to the courts is only warranted if the access is ultimately used specifically to monitor the federal courts. But this characterization of the presumption of public…
…weight afforded to the presumption of access is “governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts.” Lugosch v…
…It is, nevertheless, important to the public’ interest in monitoring federal court’s exercise of their Article II powers that the public reviews the documents.”) 6-7; (“Public access to certain parts of this transcript is outweighed by Ms. Maxwell…
…See Amodeo, 71 F.3d at 1051. Accordingly, given the public’s interest in monitoring the judicial functions overseeing this case, that with important and national ramifications that have been widely reported in the media, the deposition material should be…
… It is, 2 nevertheless, important to the public's interest in monitoring 3 federal courts' exercise of their Article 3 powers. The Court 4 keeps this somewhat less substantial public presumption in mind 5 in determining whether it is outweighed…
…of the presumption of public access by evaluating “the role of the material at issue in the exercise of the Article III judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts.” United States v…
…criminal proceedings, Maxwell instead criticizes the court-ordered unsealing process generally, claiming that the unsealing process has been weaponized against her and that the media has not “served the function of ‘monitoring the federal courts.’” Maxwell Br. at 2. Maxwell…
…The courts are presumptively public, and the public has a right to monitor the judicial process—particularly as concerns Ms. Giuffre’s accusations, which her own attorneys have argued (in opposing restrictions on public access to court filings detailing them…
…such 3 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 995 Filed 10/02/19 Page 5 of 11 evidentiary and discovery matters can cause substantial harm. Such materials are therefore of value to those monitoring the federal courts. Thus…
…presumption of access, which is a function of "the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power" and "the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts." See id.; Stern v…
…omitted). Thus, we have held jurisdiction lacking to review “postjudgment discovery orders,” but available to review “postjudgment orders denying motions for recusal” or for “disqualif[ication of] a court-appointed monitor” because in the first scenario the “relevant final decision . …
…of that presumption; that determination is “governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts.” Id. The information generally…
…weight afforded to the presumption of access is “governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts.” Lugosch v…
…15:19–22. If Judge Sweet did not rely on a portion of the deposition in issuing a decision, the public’s interest in “monitoring federal courts’ exercise of their Article III powers” is correspondingly less. Id. at 3:17…
Comments