because certain information is not being released in the same traditional manner it is often released if requested. I’m pretty sure I read that in addition to juror names, this relates to some of the exhibits which are being kept under seal as well. I don’t think there is anything alarming about the “timing” of their suit – it is just that (again, I am assuming) they are making a fairly standard request and it is being delayed or denied in this case for reasons that they don’t think should apply. I am sure they want the information in general because the press always (in theory) wants every ounce of information at their disposal (if the press is doing half of its job, part of a check in our system in the long run is to help look for anything that could effect the fairness of any trial and ensure public confidence in our systems). When they are denied, they are almost always going to sue because regardless of how critical such information may really be in this case – they want as much access as they are legally allowed to get. There are at least reasonable arguments in this case that none of the traditional exceptions exist that should lead to such information being restricted.

As to what good can ultimately come from them having it, isn’t this the same question you can ask about such information in any case? It goes to the exact public policy reasons this generally exists. If you don’t think that there is even one theoretically decent reason that we may want this type of transparency to exist, then sure – I can see why you would be upset in this case. But if you understand and think the public policies are generally reasonable – noting that some exceptions may exist – then I don’t understand why you would think that in this particular case something really nefarious is happening.