with respect to civil proceedings generally. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus is a civil proceeding. See, e.g., Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 423, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963) (commenting that a writ of habeas corpus is a “civil remedy for the enforcement of the right to personal liberty, rather than” a criminal proceeding). In navigating these First Amendment waters, the Court will therefore follow the direction provided by the Circui n holding that there is no First Amendment right to access documents in civil proceedings. While the D.C. Circuit has been silent on the issue, other Circuits have opined and uniformly held that the public has a First Amendment right of access to civil proceedings and records. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d 110, 124-27 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d
recognizing a right of access to civil proceedings holding that a motion to intervene to assert the publics first amendment right of access to criminal proceedings is proper holding that there is no first amendment right of access to presentence reports holding that the first amendment secures for the public and the press a right of access to civil proceedings holding that the first amendment right of access applies to a summary judgment motion in a civil case