It is similar to protecting a confidential informant. Some things are discoverable because one intends to enter them at trial. However, not everything is relevant to the trial at hand and could place a witness in jeopardy for other matters. Attorneys generally know what to share with their clients under the rules of eithics and discovery (don't always do it). However when you have a defendant representing himself, you may have a loose canon that may go beyond the scope of the rules and then claim ignorance of them. Having things run through the courts in camera helps in protecting third party rights that are not relevant to proceedings but could be detrimental in other things...press, civil suits, slander, threats and intimidation, etc...If the court feels there has been a violation, you may see a gag order next. Improper defense tactics include trying the case to the press if they expect a jury trial. They attempt to infect the jury pool or sway the media with altered or limited facts. The State attempts to avoid violating the rules because the Courts are quicker to censor the government than the defense, although we are all supposed to play by the same rules. My guess is that the Court issued this order because of concerns about what the defendant will do with information outside the scope of the issues in this case.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
