v. Turnley, 726 So.2d 1258, 1262 (Miss.Ct.App.1998) (“‘[A]s between persons sustaining a fiduciary or trust or other confidential relationship toward each other, the person occupying the relation of fiduciary or of confidence is under a duty to reveal the facts to the plaintiff (the other party), and ... his silence when he ought to speak, or his failure to disclose what he ought to disclose, is as much a fraud at law as an actual affirmative false representation or act; and ... mere si lence on his part as to a cause of action, the facts giving rise to which it was his duty to disclose, amounts to a fraudulent concealment....”) (quoting Van Zandt v. Van Zandt, 227 Miss. 528, 86 So.2d 466, 470 (1956)); American Nat. Ins. Co. of Galveston, Tex. v. Murray, 383 F.2d 81, 86 (5th Cir.1967) (<HOLDING>). The Mississippi Supreme Court has repeatedly
holding that once a court has found good cause to protect material from public disclosure there is no longer any commonlaw right of access to this material and the party seeking disclosure must present sufficiently compelling reasons why the sealed discovery document should be released recognizing that on the part of a fiduciary there is a duty to make a full disclosure of any and all material facts within his knowledge and of which he knows or should know that the other person is ignorant holding there was no evidence to support the existence of any alleged fiduciary duty holding that as to allocation of burdens it is not material that the facts of the case and the causes of the collision are peculiarly within the knowledge of the respondents  we are not aware   of any ground on which such an inconvenience can affect the rule of law which governs the rights of the parties internal quotation marks omitted holding that ratification requires full knowledge of all the facts upon which the unauthorized action was taken