Pocket Guide for Federal Judges Discusses Sealed Cases

A recently published pocket guide for federal judges focuses on the occasional need to seal court records and proceedings.

Published by the Federal Judicial Center, the 22-page pocket guide draws on the voluminous case law to discuss the process courts use to keep some of the proceedings and records confidential.

The guide states: “Essential to the rule of law is the public performance of the judicial function. On occasion, however, there are good reasons for courts to keep parts of some proceedings confidential . . . Usually that means that any transcript made of the proceeding will be regarded as a sealed record.”

The guide (pdf) offers a procedural checklist of considerations when a record is sealed or when a proceeding is closed to the public.



Related articles

Developer Preview of Mac OS X Lion

Apple today (2-24-2011) released a developer preview of Mac OS X Lion, which takes some of the best ideas from iPad and brings them back to the Mac for the eighth major release of the world’s most advanced operating system.

Lion features Mission Control, an innovative new view of everything running on your Mac; Launchpad, a new home for all your Mac apps; full-screen apps that use the entire Mac display; and new Multi-Touch gestures. Lion also includes the Mac App Store, the best place to discover, install, and automatically update Mac apps. The Lion preview is available to Mac Developer Program members through the Mac App Store today, and the final version of Lion will ship to customers this summer.
Related articles


NYLJ: Second Circuit: Collection Agency Violated Venue Provisions of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Creditors and Debtors Rights

Hess v. Cohen & Slamowitz, 10-424

“…This case calls upon us to decide a question of first impression in this Circuit: whether a debt collector violates the FDCPA‘s venue provisions by suing a consumer in a city court in the State of New York when that court lacks power to hear the action because the consumer does not reside in that city or a town contiguous thereto. We hold that such a suit is not brought in the “judicial district or similar legal entity” in which the consumer resides, even when the consumer resides elsewhere within the county containing the city court, and therefore determine that Hess’s complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion…”

Related articles