Amergen Energy Co. Ex Rel. Exelon Generation Co. v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding “vague and speculative allegations of injury” are insufficient to support a claim of confidentiality
• holding “vague and speculative allegations of injury” are insufficient to support a claim of confidentiality
• noting that because broad, nebulous, or conclusoty allegations of competitive harm are insufficient to establish good cause for the issuance of a protective order under Rule 26(c)(1
• remarking that because broad, nebulous, or conclusory allegations of competitive harm are insufficient to establish good cause for the issuance of a protective order under Rule 26(c)(1
• requiring a party to offer “compelling reasons to overcome the strong presumption in favor of access with respect to the information identified in its motion”
• rejecting the notion that the presumption of public access turns on whether the documents at issue “actually played a role in the court’s deliberations”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).