In Re: Sealed Case, et al, No. 98-3077 (D.C. Cir. 1998)

Annotate this Case
United States Court of Appeals for the district of columbia circuit

No. 98-3077 September Term, 1997 98ms00055 PUBLIC ORDER 98ms00177 98ms00228

In re: Sealed Case

_____________________________________ Consolidated with 98-3078, 98-3079, 98-3081

Before: Wald, Silberman, and Henderson, Circuit Judges

O R D E R

It is ORDERED, on the Court's own motion, that the following items be, and hereby are, unsealed:

Documents filed in the United States Court of Appeals:

1) Withdrawal of Claim of Monica Lewinsky 2) Opposition of Monica Lewinsky to Emergency Motion of the OIC to Stay the District Court's Orders and Opposition to Writ of Prohibition 3) Response to Petition for Writ of Prohibition 4) Motion for Leave to Exceed the Page Limit Allowed for an Opposition to a Motion 5) Emergency Motion for Public Access to Oral Argument, or in the Alternative, for the Release of Transcripts, and for Public Access to any Briefs Currently Under Seal 6) Response of William J. Clinton, The White House, Bruce R. Lindsey, and Sidney Blumenthal to Emergency Motion for Public Access to Oral Argument, or, in the alternative, for the Release of Transcripts, and for Public Access to any Briefs Currently Under Seal

United States Court of Appeals for the district of columbia circuit

No. 98-3077 September Term, 1997 98ms00055 PUBLIC ORDER 98ms00177 98ms00228

7) Reply to Response of William J. Clinton, Sidney Blumenthal, Bruce R. Lindsey, and The White House to Emergency Motion for Public Access to Oral Argument, or, in the Alternative, for the Release of Transcripts, and for Public Access to any Briefs Currently Under Seal 8) Reply to the United States' Filing Relating to Emergency Motion for Public Access to Oral Argument, or, in the Alternative, for the Release of Transcripts, and for Public Access to any Briefs Currently Under Seal *9) Opinion of the Court of Appeals *10) Petition for Writ of Prohibition *11) Opposition to Emergency Motion of the OIC to Stay the District Court's Orders *12) Emergency Motion of the United States of America to Stay the District Court's June 19, 1998 Order to Show Cause and June 26, 1998 Memorandum Order Pending Appeal *13) Reply of the United States of America to Response of Movants to Emergency Motion to Stay the District Court's June 19, 1998 Order to Show Cause and June 26, 1998 Memorandum Order Pending Appeal and to Petition for Writ of Prohibition 14) Appendix to Opposition to Emergency Motion of the OIC to Stay the District Court's Orders

___________________

* An asterisk indicates redacted version.

United States Court of Appeals for the district of columbia circuit

No. 98-3077 September Term, 1997 98ms00055 PUBLIC ORDER 98ms00177 98ms00228

Documents filed in the United States District Court:

*1) District Court Order (filed July 9, 1998) 2) District Court Order (filed June 19, 1998) 3) District Court Order (filed July 7, 1998) 4) District Court Order (filed June 26, 1998) 5) Response to the Los Angeles Times Motion to Unseal 6) District Court Order (filed February 24, 1998) 7) Response of the United States of America to Motion of Press Intervenors to Unseal the Court's Order Filed on February 24, 1998 and the Remaining Sealed Portions of the Records in Misc. Action Nos. 98-055 and 98-058 8) Reply of Movant President Clinton to Response of the United States of America to Motion of Press Intervenors to Unseal the Court's Order Filed on February 24, 1998 and the Remaining Sealed Portions of the Record in Misc. Action Nos. 98-055 and 98-058 9) Reply of the United States of America to President Clinton's Suggested Additional Redactions of the Record in Misc. Action 98-55 10) Reply to the Office of Independent Counsel's Suggested Additional Redactions of the Record in Miscellaneous Action No. 98-55 filed on March 26, 1998 11) Supplemental Request for Release of Redacted Materials and for Docketing Per Curiam For the Court: Mark J. Langer, Clerk

Filed on: August 7, 1998

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.