Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[d]ifferent interests are at stake with the right of access than with Rule 26(c)”
• holding that “[a] party seeking to seal a judicial record . . . bears the burden of overcoming . . . the ‘compelling reasons’ standard”
• holding that 25 those who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to non-dispositive motions must 26 demonstrate “good cause” supporting secrecy
• holding that “a ‘good cause’ showing ... will not suffice to fulfill the ‘compelling reasons’ standard that a party must meet to rebut the presumption of access to dispositive pleadings and attachments”
• holding that “a ‘good cause’ showing . . . will not suffice to fulfill the ‘compelling reasons’ standard that a party must meet to rebut the presumption of access to dispositive pleadings and attachments”
• holding simply that “ ‘compelling reasons’ must be shown to seal judicial records attached to a dispositive motion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).