Id., at 12. The First Circuit went on to point out that “if such access were to be mandated, the civil discovery process might actually be made more complicated and burdensome” and, “rather than facilitate an efficient and complete expiation of the facts and issues, a public right of access would unduly complicate the process.” Id., at 12, quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978). Finally, the First Circuit opined that “the decision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.” Id., at 13. Accord: Oklahoma Hospital Association v. Oklahoma Pub., Co., 748 F.2d 1421, 1425 (10th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 905 (1985) (<HOLDING>); Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation,
holding that denial of access to carbon paper and reproduction equipment and denial of facetoface access to other inmates did not deprive an inmate of his right of access to the courts holding that the total denial of all access to the law library for seven months violated the plaintiffs constitutional right of access to the courts holding that a plaintiff has no absolute unconditional right of access to the courts and no constitutional right of access to prosecute frivolous or malicious actions holding that a publishing company had no constitutional or other right of access to pretrial documents not filed with the court and declining to overturn the district courts denial of a motion to vacate a protective order to which the parties had stipulated holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it modified a protective order after settlement to permit public access to pretrial materials in spite of a protective order to the contrary which it viewed as having had been initially justified