From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barrow v. Living Word Church

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
Aug 16, 2016
Case No. 3:15-cv-341 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 16, 2016)

Opinion

Case No. 3:15-cv-341

08-16-2016

SAMUEL BARROW, Plaintiff, v. LIVING WORD CHURCH, et al., Defendants.


District Judge Walter Herbert Rice

DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO INTERVENE; ORDER TO THE CLERK

This case is before the Court on Motion of Eugene Volokh to intervene in this case for limited purposes (ECF No. 90). The face of the Motion reports that Plaintiff and Defendant Antoinette Nartker have consented to the Motion. The other Defendants were given until August 15, 2016, to file any memoranda contra, but none have been filed.

The first request in the Motion to Intervene is for clarification of "whether the Court has ordered that the Second Amended Complaint remains [sic] sealed. . . ." It has not. Professor Volokh correctly reads the Court's Decision and Order on Motion to Redact (ECF No. 82) as refusing to maintain the Second Amended Complaint under seal. The time for appealing to the District Judge from that Order has expired and no appeal was taken. Accordingly, the Clerk is ORDERED to unseal the Second Amended Complaint forthwith.

The Court agrees that a motion to intervene is a proper vehicle for interested persons, particularly the press, to seek access to sealed documents. Professor Volokh indicates his sole reason for seeking to intervene is to obtain the unsealing of the Second Amended Complaint. That already having been done, the request to intervene appears to be moot and with it, the request to be able to file electronically.

However, the Court agrees with Professor Volokh that the case involves an important substantive issue involving First Amendment questions. Because of his prominence in the legal profession, the Court would welcome Professor Volokh's views on the substantive issues he notes. Those views would be most appropriately before the Court should he appear amicus curiae. With the hope that he may wish to do so and therefore will have occasion to file further papers in this case, his request to file electronically is GRANTED. The Clerk shall facilitate his registration for that purpose. August 16, 2016.

s/ Michael R. Merz

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Barrow v. Living Word Church

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
Aug 16, 2016
Case No. 3:15-cv-341 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 16, 2016)
Case details for

Barrow v. Living Word Church

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL BARROW, Plaintiff, v. LIVING WORD CHURCH, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

Date published: Aug 16, 2016

Citations

Case No. 3:15-cv-341 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 16, 2016)

Citing Cases

Bonner v. Justia Inc.

Professor Volokh has also cited cases in which he has intervened pro se to oppose a motion to seal or to file…