Perhaps true, but Sweeney clearly stated the case for why she allowed the documents to be released. Plaintiffs established a bona fide reason why they might need such discovery to advance their case and government failed to prove that the identical info was available from other sources.
I think the message from Sweeney is different on payment of plaintiff's Motion to Compel legal costs than simply to underscore the significance of the contents therein. I think it is the judge's somewhat unsubtle way of saying she has had enough delays and obstruction to ever getting to a verdict. After 3+ years, we have not even reached a decision on the motion to dismiss. I think her message was to both sides that "enough is enough" which explains why it was a separate order and not lumped into the motion to compel order.
You must remember that most judges also have bosses that grade them, sometimes a peer panel, sometimes a chief judge on their own court. And all jurists get graded on a host of criteria by the lawyers that appear before them. These ratings matter. Judges care what those in their profession think of their performance, and that performance criteria is carefully considered in any decision to nominate or to affirm appointment to a higher court. That is true even on up to the SCOTUS level. These jurists really care. If this ordeal ever ends and we can get together for a martini to celebrate, remind me to tell you about a true experience I had with television's Judge Wapner in this regard. He was and, I believe still remains a sitting judge on the Los Angeles bench. I had a very relevant conversation with him, many years back. It's a fun story, but too long for this board.
Having read other rulings from Judge Sweeney, as well as those in Fanniegate, I think she is "the real deal" as a judge, and has exhibited extraordinary patience in what has become a veritable marathon in her court.
JMHO.
