Kimberly Lynn Roberts v. James Christopher Roberts, Respondent/Respondent.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that litigant FBI was natural objector to unsealing intelligence 9 sources because sources themselves could not complain
• stating that “[if] the goal in filing a document is to influence a judge’s decisionmaking, the document is a judicial record”
• finding that declaration was part of judicial record in part because court “acknowledged having read” it
• pointing out that third party intelligence sources would necessarily risk their anonymity and safety by objecting
• emphasizing the importance of applying “the Hubbard factors ‘in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of [each] particular case.’” (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599)
• discussing the “common-law right to access judicial records,” stating “[f]or forty years, this Court has weighed that right’s competing interests using a six-factor test first articulated in United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293 (D.C. Cir. 1980

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).