policies, however, does not deprive them of standing on appeal to challenge the district court’s sealing orders. We have held that the press has standing to intervene in actions in which it is not otherwise a party to seek review of a district court’s order sealing documents and court records. See Stone v. Univ. of Maryland Med. Sys. Corp., 855 F.2d 178, 180-81 (4th Cir.1988) (addressing district court’s failure to follow Fourth Circuit sealing procedures on intervenor Baltimore Sun’s motion for access to sealed court records); Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 250-54 (4th Cir.1988) (addressing district court’s procedural failure in the context of intervenor Washington Post’s motion to unseal documents); see also In re Tribune Co., 784 F.2d 1518, 1521 (11th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). We have likewise recognized standing in news
recognizing common law right of access to judicial documents holding that the press has standing to intervene where not otherwise a party to petition for access to court documents and records holding that municipal court records were admissible under  official records or public documents  exception holding that the first amendment secures for the public and the press a right of access to civil proceedings recognizing a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents including judicial records and documents