the other (non-PSR) sealed documents in John Doe’s criminal case, particularly those that refer to Doe’s cooperation, should be enjoined.” Roe, 428 Fed.Appx. at 68-69. That procedure was ultimately modified when the Clerk’s Office in the Eastern District of New York inadvertently unsealed the docket sheet, revealing that Safer was “John Doe” and a cooperator. Judge Glasser then held a series of hearings, with only the Government and Sa-ter’s counsel present, and went through the entire docket to determine which documents should be unsealed. Thereafter, he issued two orders—one sealed, one unsealed—detailing which documents were to be kept sealed. Movants first object that they were not allowed to attend these proceedings, although they were parties to the case. See Aref, 533 F.3d at 81 (<HOLDING>). This argument fails. Judge Glasser’s sealed
holding that a motion to intervene to assert the publics first amendment right of access to criminal proceedings is proper holding that there is a qualified first amendment right of access to proceedings and documents relating to disqualification of a judge in a criminal case and to conflicts of interest between attorneys in a criminal case holding that the first amendment right of access applies to a summary judgment motion in a civil case recognizing a right of access to civil proceedings holding that the first amendment secures for the public and the press a right of access to civil proceedings