3. Finally, the parties “are not the only people who have a legitimate interest in the record compiled in a legal proceeding.” Citizens First Nat’l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 944 (7th Cir. 1999). In reviewing the Government’s designation of its March 20 Log as protected, the Court must balance the Government’s interest in secrecy and the pub- lic’s right to know. In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 99 F.R.D. 645, 649 (E.D.N.Y. 1983). The parties are entitled under the Constitution to disseminate any information that they obtain during discovery to the full extent permitted by a valid protective order. Jepson, Inc. v. Makita Elec. Works, Ltd., 30 F.3d 854, 858 (7th Cir. 1994).10 Moreover, “[a]s a general proposition, pretrial discovery must take place in ... public unless compelling reasons exist for denying the public access to the proceedings.” American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Grady, 594 F.2d 594, 596 (7th Cir. 1978). The public has an interest even in pretrial proceedings, moreover, “when the govern- ment seeks to prohibit disclosure of material ... because disclosure of material which in private
litigation might be protected may be ‘proper and even constructive in order to disseminate politi- cal information.’” In re Agent Orange, 99 F.R.D. at 649 (quoting Case Comment, The First Amendment Right to Disseminate Discovery Materials: In re Halkin, 92 HARV. L. REV. 1550, 1558 (1979)).
Especially in a case, such as this one, that concerns not only important constitutional
questions but also challenges to governmental decisions that have critical public policy implica-
tions, it is not at all surprising that the public would take an interest in the Government’s efforts
to invoke various privileges to shield thousands of relevant documents from scrutiny. But while
the Government may not like that fact, it cannot simply resort, without any basis under the Pro-
tective Order, to an attempt to cast a shroud of secrecy over even those routine materials, like
privilege logs, that document its numerous assertions of privilege.
