outweigh the public’s right to of access. In re The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., Inc., 723 F.2d 470 (6th Cir.1983)(citing Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., supra, 710 F.2d at 1179). In terms of whether any interests justify the Court’s exercise of its supervisory powers to deny access not only to Dr. Fabian’s report, but also to any other competency reports that will be filed, it is true that mental evaluations and presentence investigation reports are traditionally kept from the public eye during pretrial and trial stages of the criminal proceeding: Presentence reports, which are similar in nature to mental evaluations, due to the sensitive and private information that they include, aré traditionally kept under seal. See, e.g., United States v. Corbitt; 879 F.2d 224, 229 (7th Cir.1989)(<HOLDING>); R.C. § 2951.03(D)(providing that, under Ohio
holding that there is no sixth amendment right to jury sentencing recognizing that first amendment provides qualified right of access to judicial documents holding that the first amendment right of access applies to a summary judgment motion in a civil case holding that there is no first amendment or common law right of access to documents which played no role in a judicial decision holding that there is no first amendment right of access to presentence reports