reement to the United States. Petitioners' claim that they wish to discuss with others the "possible legal responses" to the Government, including the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys, also provides no basis for vacatur of the Protective Order. Petitioners contend that the "sealing order would apparently block these forms of cons

rmation received concerning the Agreement. Petitioners' claim that they wish to discuss the "possible legal responses" to the Government, including the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys, also provides no basis for vacatur of the Protective Order. Petitioners contend that the "sealing order would apparently block these forms of consu

reement to the United States. Petitioners' claim that they wish to discuss with others the "possible legal responses" to the Government, including the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys, also provides no basis for vacatur of the Protective Order. Petitioners contend that the "sealing order would apparently block these forms of cons

ictims' counsel would also like to discuss possible legal responses to the Government with other victims' rights attorneys, including in particular the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys for possible legal approaches. See http://www.ncvli.org/navra.html. The sealing order would apparently block these forms of consultation, or perhap

wants to be able to discuss the terms of the agreement with other victims and their attorneys as well as with other victims' rights groups such as the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys. The desire to discuss the agreement with third parties is not justification for unsealing the document, Marra ruled. "If a specific tangible need

e wants to be able to discuss the terms of the agreement with other victims and their attorneys as well as with other victims' rights groups such as the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys. The desire to discuss the agreement with third parties is not justification for unsealing the document. Marra ruled "If a specific tangible need a

ictims' counsel would also like to discuss possible legal responses to the Government with other victims' rights attorneys, including in particular the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys for possible legal approaches. See htto://www.ncvli,ortzThavra.html. The sealing order would apparently block these forms of consultation, or perha