Larry Flynt v. George Lombardi

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that, “where a party is seeking to intervene in a case for the limited purpose of unsealing judicial records, most circuits have found that ‘there is no reason to require such a strong nexus of fact or law.’”
• stating that “it is the public’s interest in the confidentiality of the judicial records that—‘in the language of Rule 24(b)[(1)(B)]—[is] a question of law . . . in common between the Parties [to the original suit] and the [would-be intervener]’”
• discussing permissive intervention for the purpose of seeking access to judicial records that are unavailable due to confidentiality orders
• reversing district court’s order denying journalist’s motion to intervene for the purpose of seeking to unseal judicial records
• holding limited intervention under Rule 24(b) was appropriate
• “[W]hen a party is seeking to intervene only to modify a protective order or unseal documents, and not to litigate a claim on the merits, an independent basis of jurisdiction is not required.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).