435 U.S. 589 (1978) Cited 6,190 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 district court should not have unsealed the documents where the documents "were not determined by the trial judge to be relevant to the crimes charged ... were not used in the subsequent 'trial'; nor were they ... described or even expressly relied upon by the trial judge in his decision on the suppression motion"
Recognizing that "when information is sufficiently widely known" it has no "character [of] Rule 6(e) material" (quoting In re North , 16 F.3d at 1245 )
Holding that the government's retention of seized property without commencing some sort of proceeding would violate the Constitution if the delay took on "unreasonable proportions"