IDT Corp v. AR Public Law Center

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that pleadings are generally considered presumptively public even as the case is pending prior to judgment
• concluding that “the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the potential harm in unsealing confidential and competitively sensitive information outweighs … generalized interest in access to the complaint.”
• finding that a complaint may be publicly accessible via redaction as opposed to completely sealing
• concluding the common-law right of access applies to judicial records in civil proceedings but it is “not absolute”
• finding that due to a settlement between parties, public interest weak because court only considered complaint to determine whether to seal
• explaining that “the question is whether there [a]re sufficient grounds to override the common-law right of access”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).