access “plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question.” Press-Enterprise II, 478 U.S. at 8-9, 106 S.Ct. 2735. Beyond the First Amendment analysis, there exists a common law right of access to judicial proceedings and docu ments that does not rise to a constitutional dimension and is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597-99, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978). Distinguishing between access to judicial proceedings and access to judicial documents, the Sixth Circuit has addressed whether there is a First Amendment right to inspect and copy judicial documents, or only a common law right of access. Compare United States v. Beckham, 789 F.2d 401, 406-409, 412-15 (6th Cir.1986)(<HOLDING>), ivith Application of National Broadcasting
holding that media members had no constitutional right of access to tapes 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 access rights of the news media and of the general public are identical in scope 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 recognizing a right of access to civil proceedings