The presumption of commencement does not apply to recordings of conferences or comparative negotiations or related documents. Conn. R. Sup. Ct. §§ 11-20A(i) (civil law); 25-59A(g) (family). However, it applies to settlement agreements that are filed with the court or “incorporated into a court judgment.” When filed in court, comparative records become like any other filing: in both state and federal courts, the First Amendment provides for a strong presumption of public access to documents filed in civil cases “that directly affect a decision”; these are called “court documents”. United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995). Cases of this type can only be sealed if “case-specific conclusions are made that demonstrate that [sealing] is essential to the preservation of higher values and is closely suited to that interest,” provided that the “right of access cannot be overcome by the conclusive assertion that the public may deprive the defendant of the right to a fair trial.” In re New York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir.

1987) (internal citations and amendments omitted). While the Fort Totten Court recognized an increased public interest in settlement documents to which a government entity is a party, the Court noted that “the approval of a settlement by a court, including between private parties, is an issue on which the public has the right to know and evaluate it…”. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “It is in the public`s interest to know what terms of settlement a federal judge would approve and, therefore, perhaps persuade the parties to agree on them…” Unless the settlement records result in the concealment of a public emergency, a court may seal records that contain confidential clauses of a settlement agreement between the parties. RSCR 3(4)-(5); see Civil Rights for Seniors v. AOC, 129 Nev. 752, 313 P.3d 216 (2013) (noting that foreclosure mediation program (PPF) records are not disclosed); 2013 Nev. Op. Att`y Gen.

No. 08 (December 27, 2013) (Reports submitted to the Office of Medical Examiners that contain confidential amounts for the settlement of civil errors are public documents that must be publicly available). The Alaska Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that, despite the confidentiality provisions contained in the agreement, the public has the right to access settlement agreements in which at least one party is a public entity. “We believe that a public body should not circumvent legal disclosure requirements by committing to treat the terms of a settlement agreement as confidential. Under Alaska law, a confidentiality provision such as the one that applied in the case of the bar is unenforceable because it violates public records disclosure laws. “Anchorage School Dist. v. Daily News, 779 pp.2d 1191, 1193 (Alaska 1989) (cited as AS 44.62.310–.312). D.C. The courts have not explicitly addressed this issue, although D.C. Circuit has concluded that “[t]he extent that there is a Right to the First Amendment to civil acts after judgment, it does not exceed it … the traditional common law.

In re Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 773 F.2d 1325, 1339 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Also, in In re Fort Totten Metrorail Cases, 960 F. . . .