Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. ADAMS, RDB-11-0547. (2015)

Court: District Court, D. Maryland Number: infdco20150914651 Visitors: 8
Filed: Sep. 11, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 11, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER RICHARD D. BENNETT , District Judge . Presently pending before the Court is the Motion to Intervene, to Correct and/or Unseal the Docket, and Make the `Attorney Conflicts of Interest' Hearing Public ( ECF#809 ). The Clerk of the Court has accepted for filing the Motion to Intervene of the Movant Intervenor William C. Bond Pro se. Still pending is the request to Unseal the Docket of the Movant Intervenor in this case. A considerable portion of the record in this case rem
More

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Presently pending before the Court is the Motion to Intervene, to Correct and/or Unseal the Docket, and Make the `Attorney Conflicts of Interest' Hearing Public (ECF#809). The Clerk of the Court has accepted for filing the Motion to Intervene of the Movant Intervenor William C. Bond Pro se. Still pending is the request to Unseal the Docket of the Movant Intervenor in this case.

A considerable portion of the record in this case remains sealed. This Court is mindful of the public's right of access to judicial proceedings. Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246-265 (4th Cir. 2014). The Court has weighed the competing interests in this matter. See Stone v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 855 F.2d 178, 181-82 (4th Cir. 1998); See also Va. Dept. of State Police v. Wash. Post, 386 F.3d 567-576 (4th Cir. 2004). Having conducted this review, the portion of the record under seal in this case shall REMAIN SEALED.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 11th day of September, 2015, that the Motion to Intervene (ECF#809) is GRANTED with respect to the Movant Bond being permitted to be listed on the Docket of this case, but is DENIED with respect to UNSEALING THE DOCKET and DENIED with respect to any hearing conducted in this matter.

The Movant Bond is free to seek review of this Memorandum Order by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which has noted that "`[m]andamus, not appeal, is the preferred method of review for orders' restricting access to criminal proceedings. Baltimore Sun Co. v. Goetz, 886 f.2D 60, 63 (4TH Cir. 1989) (internal quotation marks omitted)."

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer