By this coming Monday, we will now see a pair of no more than 25 page briefs -- on the issues presented by unsealing motion from the press.
Do see it all here, but the money quote appears below.
. . .Lastly, as this litigation proceeds, the Court emphasizes the importance of transparency and adherence to procedural rules governing sealed filings. These standards apply equally to letter submissions and formal briefs.
While provisional sealing was permitted in the early stages of this case to accommodate its expedited nature and to safeguard sensitive information, the parties must now strictly comply with the Court's Local Rules governing sealed filings.
Under Local Rule 105.11 (D. Md.), any proposed sealed document must be accompanied by a motion to seal. The motion to seal must include: (1) proposed reasons supported by specific factual representations that justify sealing, and (2) an explanation of why alternatives to sealing, such as redaction, would be inadequate. See Sky Angel U.S., LLC v. Discovery Comme'ns, LLC, 28 F. Supp. 3d 465, 488 (D. Md. 2014). These requirements reflect the presumption of public access to judicial records, which may be overcome only with a compelling justification. See Stone v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 855 F.2d 178, 180 (4th Cir. 1988).
Going forward, any filing submitted under seal without a compliant motion to seal will be stricken. . . .
Now you know -- and as expected. Onward.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment