In Re VIOLATION OF RULE 28(D)

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing the “strong presumption in favor of a common law right of pub- lic access to court proceedings”
• noting that the court’s local rule–Rule 28(d)–makes it “clear that the parties must confine their confidentiality markings [in their briefs] to information covered by a protective order”
• explaining that \the presumption of public access to judicial proceedings and records is strong” and \parties must confine their confidentiality markings to information covered by a protective order”
• noting that “Rule 26(c)(1) permits the issuance] of limited protective orders [that] prevent the discovery or disclosure of certain information, or ... specify the use that may be made of discovered information”
• recognizing a strong presumption in favor of public access to appellate court proceedings
• applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G), which is identical to RCFC 26(c)(1)(G)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).