Friedman v. Sebelius

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning “that it is less harmful to release a document that was once public than to release one that has never been made publicly accessi- ble”
• noting that “[t]he Hubbard court addressed this factor by examining the objecting party’s privacy interest in the particular documents . . . rather than the effect that unsealing the documents would have on the party’s property and privacy interests generally . . . .”
• “The fifth Hubbard factor considers whether disclosure of the documents will lead to prejudice in future litigation to the party seeking the seal.”
• “There is a stronger presumption of transparency in some judicial proceedings than in oth- ers.”
• “[A] party seeking to seal court documents must come forward with specific reasons why the record, or any part thereof, should remain under seal.”
• “if the documents sought to be sealed are entered as evidence during a trial, there is a strong presumption against sealing”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).