Siedle v. Putnam Investments, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that allegations of “mere threats and harsh words” did not 12 suffice to state a First Amendment employment claim against defendant government employer 13 absent “the loss of a valuable governmental benefit or privilege”
• finding abuse of discretion where unsealing order would make public information that was likely subject to the attorney-client privilege and a confidentiality agreement
• scolding an employee who complained about inexperienced 8 candidates and threatening to transfer him was not actionable under the First Amendment
• finding abuse of discretion where unsealing order would make public information that was likely subject to the attorney-client privilege and a confidentiality agreement
• reversing a district court’s decision to unseal privileged documents at the request of a newspaper
• agreeing with five other 10 circuits concluding that the use of the term ʺcorruptlyʺ in section 7212(a

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).