Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Dollars1]

A clip from that filing
"In this context, denying Applicants access to filings in their own litigation would be unfair and would raise serious due process concerns. It is extremely rare and unusual for parties to a litigation to be barred from viewing documents filed in their case. Cf. Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043, 1060-61 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (explaining the limited circumstances under which courts may “dispose of the merits of a case on the basis of ex parte, in camera submissions”), aff’d, 484 U.S. 1 (1987); U.S. ex rel. v. Morton Thiokol, Inc., No. Civ. A. 87-0209, 1987 WL 10232, at *4 (D.D.C. Apr. 15, 1987) (lifting seal on documents to allow a litigating party access to documents). Indeed, one-sided protective orders that prevent a party from reviewing materials filed under seal usually arise only when national security interests are at stake, such as in the prosecution of terrorism suspects. Cf. In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Afr., 552 F.3d 93, 120-21 (2d Cir. 2008) (affirming district court’s order preventing terrorism defendants from reviewing evidence filed against them due to “the ‘ongoing’ nature of the government’s investigation” and because “unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to the instant case could result in ‘a particularly disastrous security breach’”). This Court thus should grant Applicants access to Protected Information. And because the Court of Appeals has suspended its merits briefing schedule to resolve a motion that Perry Capital’s counsel cannot review or meaningfully respond to, this Court should grant access as expeditiously as possible."