435 U.S. 589 (1978) Cited 6,075 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that "business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing" can constitute a sufficient reason to preserve records under seal
Holding that the party or intervenor “seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted”
Holding that “only the most compelling reasons can justify the total foreclosure of public and professional scrutiny” to a court's “basis for the adjudication”
Holding that limited discovery is appropriate with respect to "the independence and good faith of the committee and the bases supporting its conclusions"
Holding that "relevant documents which are submitted to, and accepted by, a court of competent jurisdiction in the course of adjudicatory proceedings, become documents to which the presumption of public access applies," and "[o]nce those submissions come to the attention of the district judge, they can fairly be assumed to play a role in the court's deliberations"
Holding that order granting access did not merit reversal despite insufficiently specific findings but noting that findings on the record are more crucial for orders denying access
Holding that "forced disclosure of privileged material may bring about irreparable harm" and, thus, the petitioner appealing an order requiring the production of a privileged statement had "no adequate means to attain the discovery relief it [sought] except by mandamus. . . ."