ed to produce the documents under seal and the trial court denied the motion for stay and imposed daily fines until the documents were produced. a The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order and noted Mariner has failed to explain bow the production of the reports under seal would result in any prejudic

d to produce the documents under seal and the trial court denied the motion for stay and imposed daily fines until the documents were produced. Id. The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order and noted Mariner has failed to explain how the production of the reports under seal would result in any prejudic

to produce the documents under seal and the trial court denied the motion for stay and imposed daily fines until the documents were produced. 14„, The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order and noted Mariner has failed to explain how the production of the reports under seal would result in any prejudic

d to produce the documents under seal and the trial court denied the motion for stay and imposed daily fines until the documents were produced. Id. The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order and noted Mariner has failed to explain how the production of the reports under seal would result in any prejudic

d to produce the documents under seal and the trial court denied the motion for stay and imposed daily fines until the documents were produced. Id, The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order and noted Mariner has failed to explain how the production of the reports under seal would result in any prejudic

to produce the documents under seal and the trial court denied the motion for stay and imposed daily fines until the documents were produced. 1.4, The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order and noted Mariner has failed to explain how the production of the reports under seal would result in any prejudic