can't be withheld after a verdict unless the court makes findings that their release would cause significant harm to the judicial system itself the district court in this case didn't follow that rule and said it withheld the jury list for haven't really the names have been released the home towns at this point have been released the war has been able to locate only six only the contact information for only six of the twelve jurors based on that information and first way to address the issue of  lay this court is held quite clearly that if they traditional document is subject to a public right of access title a should in the main be immediate in the past two case which was decided the year before in re globe the court he even a one or two day delay in access to judicial documents impermissibly burdens the first amendment and the reason for that rule is pretty simple to lay frustrates the public scrutiny of the court system which is part of what the what the source of law you want us to rule on under is you just mentioned the first amendment yes you are buying a globe newspaper as i read quote that's just a construction of the terms of the jury plan good visit and we think the has been pointed out so the simplest terms for your argument is there's a jury plan that this court including newspaper said requires names and addresses and dresser jury plan requires names and addresses and  well the globe court held construing the jury planned in light of the first amendment right of access and discussing the first amendment right of access a great life was that the interests of justice standard reply and applies the moment high profile trial particular jurors might be at risk the only findings that globe says could suffice to withhold the verdict the journalist after the verdict is a threat to the judicial system itself such as a threat to jury safety and the remanding for him to to make a determination as to whether or not a jury safety would be imperiled by addresses and for that limited purpose only as i think about it here today might be a perfectly appropriate thing to do so long as the court makes clear and as the district court judge noted we live in a different time we live in the age of the internet and the age of potential harassment or service  is a right and a privilege it's important for us to protect the right cues for the whole notion of a republican form of government it doesn't mean address this or again it doesn't mean that a person by dint of jurors service giving up his or her time to serve on a jury gives up their right to privacy now nowadays people go to great lengths to remove their names from people's search tell us they don't want their addresses presented to the general public are you saying that that person serves as a juror who feels his or her responsibility here by surrounding surrendering their right to privacy you maybe the judge didn't hear the name of that your hometown the point of globe is that jurors must be identified not merely named and the record in this case shows that constant street addresses some of those jurors cannot be identified why you particular here but what is the basis of the claims that not quite following how this law works here we see it with you can intervene so you're not an interven thing to pursue and we would hold that because the court's decision in globe was concerned with a constitutional one zero question that is whether or not the first amendment would permit total withholding of direct entities absent a great deal of harm annoyed if you see that that's true in any particular case especially well with respect to why the court should consider in point a procedure where we think it is this isn't the is that regulation or statute as i'm struck by this court means when it says names names and addresses and again then that's just what is in the plan hasn't changed i suppose it could change the district wanted to change it far it was of the view that there was a first amendment need to release individualize addresses was wrong and as a consequence and explain in a very thoughtful pinin why that was the case but if it was wrong in thinking it had the power to do that there's no way because the district inquired in a focused way into whether in this particular case as any of these particular jurors there was a safety issue with releasing particular addresses if there was it would be problematic understandable if that issue had not been brought to their attention and this court's ruling saying that delays should only be ordered in cases of courts to juror safety would indeed be a revelation i think too many judges in the dish relish the globe required address i don't think that would be a revolution though i do think that as official court in this case explained there are many good reasons not only basic principle reasons to be taken up by the district just decide to change the plan that's certainly a possibility