Araya v. Keleta

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a “district court 17 erred by failing to apply the ‘compelling reasons’ standard”
• holding that where the sealed records are “attached to a non-dispositive motion . 3 . . , the usual presumption of the public’s right of access is rebutted” (internal quotation marks 4 and citation omitted)
• holding that where the sealed records are “attached to a non-dispositive motion . 5 . . , the usual presumption of the public’s right of access is rebutted” (internal quotation marks 6 and citation omitted)
• holding that where the sealed records are “attached to a non-dispositive motion . 8 . . , the usual presumption of the public’s right of access is rebutted” (internal quotation marks 9 and citation omitted)
• explaining that “compelling reasons” for sealing court records “exist 4 when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes’” (citation omitted)
• noting that even where good 12 cause standard is satisfied, compelling reasons test will not be met

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).