the institute with me is linda goals a counsel table also on the briefs this appeal challenges the lower court's denial of a motion for permissive intervention filed by two nonprofit safety organizations for the limited purpose of challenging the suit sealing of dozens of court records and hundreds of exhibits all of these documents were placed under seal on stipulation of the parties without any consideration by the district court of whether the public's presumptive right of access was outweighed by the parties legitimate need for secrecy the district court denied intervention in this case without even stating the reasons why position in a nutshell is this to the extent the district court found that the safety groups could not intervene as a matter of law either because they lacked article three standing or because there was no common question  fact or law under rule twenty four the district court got it wrong and needs to be reversed under any standard of review to the extent the district court relied on discretionary factors such as und not going to put words in your mouth that it's almost a personality reversal if there are no reasons given because there's no way we can we can review it exactly here out of that was going to be my first point about why there is no way this courts that the lower court's order can possibly be justified on discretionary factors or be three to allows a court to can or actually requires a court to consider whether intervention would unduly delay or prejudice the existing parties the district court in this case gave no reasons whatsoever in its order and for that fact alone there was an abuse of discretion here but even putting that aside the undue delay or prejudiced fact factor could never have justified the district order court's order here and there are two reasons why the first is that our motion to intervene was unquestionably timely it was filed while the litigation was ongoing and second in the district court's order he  although we didn't give reasons for why he denied intervention he stated that he planned to take up the secrecy issue following the second trial of the case and  indeed indeed and he so the mediation is ongoing it was recently extended it was supposed to conclude by december thirty first professor mcgovern asked for an extension and the court granted it in the meanwhile the controversy about eighty plus which is the guardrail issue in this case continues to rage forty states have taken the eighty plus out of the approved products list the federal highway administration has ordered additional testing federal highway administration has recently requested additional information from the public about so the court has under advisement a motion regarding the verdict that is correct that is correct and then in the meanwhile all of the court stated in his order that he would take up the secrecy issue after the trial three weeks passed after the end of the last time when the court did nothing ultimately the plaintiffs themselves filed an emergency motion to unseal the records which is now before the court the parties a priest did we were not allowed to weigh in on that because the court denied our motion to intervene so although the secrecy issue is currently up before the court we have never been allowed to weigh in have had to have the players originally agreed to the refused to join our motion to intervene which was accompanied by a motion to unseal plaintiffs refused to join either one trinity actively opposed them so at the time the judge ruled in this case and this is the important point at the time the judge ruled in this case none of the other parties was challenging any of the secrecy we were the only horse advocating for the public's right of access and notwithstanding that the district court judge denied our motion to intervene well that's a good question your honor there are a lot of them and my clients are particularly interested in any records that contain information regarding prior crash tests of the e t plus some of these it's our understanding were revealed during the course of the trial but the trial was only four days long and i believe that what was introduced at trial was only the tip of the iceberg now trinity has voluntarily agreed to unseal some of the records during the course of these post trial proceedings that we were blocked out of but a lot of the documents the trinity wants to continue under seal are still of interest to our clients our clients have reviewed that list and they say that there are still a number of crash tests and other developmental investigations with regard to this device that are highly germane to the question of whether or not there's a public danger here or i think you've already stated this but i want to be sure i understand the plaintiff now takes position that all records should be unsealed yes but that was only three weeks after our motion to intervene was denied and and at the time our mission was to nod we were the only party that was opposing secrecy in the district court's order needs to be evaluated as of the circumstances that existed at the time he made his decision the reason why this his decision so he denies a motion to intervene he doesn't say why but he says at the same time that he's going to take up the secrecy issue the defendants twenty industries vociferously opposed it and they are there get two things they argue the principle argument below was that we could not intervene as a matter of law because in their view third parties need independent predecessor devised the eighty two thousand that have spanned the past decade and we are interested in seeing all of them principly most importantly there are summary judgment motions attached exhibits there are motions to dismiss if you look at the court's record it's full of sealed records and the public has a presumptive right of access to those records we're not saying the trinity should have an opportunity to explain to the court why it's reasons for secrecy outweigh the public's right of access the problem in this case is that that analysis has never been done and the reason why the district court abused its discretion is that in denying our motion to it in the end he blocked out the only entities that were wanting to explain to him why the public has an interest in access to these records that's all we wanted to do we wanted to be able to say to the court this we are the center for auto safety in this if the institute we have a deep understanding of the regulatory processes and we have studied the e t plus and we want to be able to help you your honor in conducting this balance that's required by the fifth circuit's public right of access and the court said i i would as i would our position is that the u p a helps us very strongly on both article three standing question and on the common question issue and here's why first and to be unequivocally held that there is no article three standing requirement and a pending case no qualifications full stop new be distinguished use on the grounds that in day use the interveners were seeking access to a case that had already been dismissed so on that ground day use doesn't apply here newbie does now trinity attempts to cabin newbie by arguing that there is a quote in newbie that suggests that there may be some limitation on the article three standing requirement that article three standing may be required in some instances where the intervenor is not seeking the same ultimate relief as one of the existing parties we briefed this extensively in our papers and explained that that same ultimate release language was taken from a case ruiz versus a style that makes clear that that requirement that interviewers have the cic be seeking the same ultimate release as an existing party only exists in a case where the lower where the court would lack the jurisdiction to grant the release that's being requested by the interveners and in this jurisdiction over its own records it can grant us our rights and therefore there's no problem with the fact that we're not seeking the same ultimate release as one of the parties but that aside the point i want to really emphasize today is that newbie itself shows why trinity is argument has to be wrong and here's why in newbie the court granted intervention even though the party seeking intervention was not seeking the same ultimate release as one of the parties in fact that we didn't even consider that factor newbie newbie simply simply looked at whether there was a common question of fact or law didn't even talk about whether there twenty four as we've argued in our brief first as every other court of appeals to consider that question has held where intervention is merely being sought to unseal court records that in and out of itself satisfies the common question of fact or law requirement and maybe is not to the contrary in newby this court looked to some other factors to decide whether there was a common question fact or law but the reason the new  court needed to do that is that a newbie none the intervenor wasn't trying to open up court records to the public in newby the intervenor was merely seeking access to seal discovery materials and it was willing to take those materials subject to a protective order so there was no question a newbie about whether the underlying sequence to order it was valid or not valid and therefore it made sense for the newbie court to consider factors other than the propriety of a secrecy order when deciding whether the common question of fact or law requirement has been met so we would submit that newbie is our case on all fours it helps us in every single way that's crucial order that gives absolutely no reason how how can we possibly speculate as to the various reasons that the district court might have employed i understand your question i think that the the that is our position in india but in the present that it was a very similar kind of situation you had parties that had it i was actually a public interest group that had moved to intervene for the purpose of asserting their first amendment rights of a school prayer case and the trial court concluded that they really brought nothing to the action except additional part ten mr harmon actually kind of reversed course initially had taken a position on the issue of sealing but the relator mr harmon this action when it hadn't filed a motion to and seal and so that preempted the judge's do including the crash tests that the non parties have have talked about today and said they did the issues have been narrowed and so the court is currently considering this balancing of the public's right to the right to the access to the documents yes there would be a listing of what documents have been agreed to be unsealed and which didn't which documents are at issue now so that the field is has been drastically narrowed and of course the district court's discretion in this case is one of four federal appendix my body five the district court's order merely said ok i've reviewed your briefs and i'm of the opinion that that motion interview should be denied that was it didn't say anything else and silent and the court turned elsewhere to look at you know what the what the court was thinking and it was in a hearing and from the statements that the court made at a hearing the court affirmed and concluded  decision reflected a pragmatic approach to his management of his docket and so i think here if you look at that you can view the truck court order that says that i'm going to take this up after trial that he says you know i'm going to i got to recognize this important public right the position that the court had ruled based on standing and that in our brave we explained and pointed out that that was a misunderstanding of the course order that the court had ruled on their motion to and seal which was filed at the same time based problem here is a didn't say in that order i don't need another layer of briefings it's got a big cumulative their interest are going to be advocated by one of the parties in the case and therefore it's going to be duplicative of and they have because it is already being provided by a party to the case none of that is in this order he denied the motions and then after that he said in the same water in a very prepared we haven't actually said not withstanding the above denials the court takes seriously the public right of access he says that and he says so post a verdict i'm going to order the i'm going to do a show cause order no parties going to have to tell me why the record should remain he he was just saying i'm so so what you're arguing is the reason he gave is i'm going to do it later that's right that's his reasoning well i know what so whether or not a party has a right to intervene a sufficient reason for it for denying it is because i'm going to do it later i don't think it was solely just didn't do it later i think it was also the fact that he was going to take it up himself and so  and we would not be opposed to that i think that at the end of the day if if we need to do that you know that that is one possible solution i think that we have found cases even in situations where the that it would be sent back to the district court where we'll hear from her have you preview previously indicated that you're not opposed to remain well this is an issue that was raised in their reply but but i do think that case can you know sort of that could be a farm just based on the trial course abuse of discretion a lot because you know cases are not all cases from this court saying that even if you assume for and they've they found that we need motion to intervene as well so you know at the end of the day i don't know how much it's going to get us but this court has repeatedly said that you know because permissive intervention  the court to consider had they met the trial court's exercise of discretion it is enough for this court to have to go ahead and rule it either you know based on that last paragraph of the court order it or even just based sort of today's coca cola formula for his product of course because this is like as you mentioned earlier this is a case against a competitor and so those are those are some of the issues that have that have been narrowed down to from your honor i misread the court's order i misread the court's order i sailed to realize that the court actually denied the motion intervene without giving any reasons at all it then went on to say and we therefore deny the motion to unseal for lack of standing i conflated the two my my kind sister pointed out her brace that in fact the district court denied the motion intervene without standing any reason to at all which is an it's a reason but it's not a good run for three reasons your honor first of all at the time the motion to intervene was denied there was nobody else but us who were willing to fight for the public's right of access the plane if it stipulated to secrecy trinity wanted secrecy so the court was saying you guys don't get to come in i'm going to do it by myself why not allow the only parties in favor of public access to at least have a voice at the table that's all we want so that's reason one the second reason the court's statement that he would take this up on his own was insufficient is that we bring something important to the table trinity has argued that we will bring nothing to the table we're just an additional party that's not right we  organisations with a long history in this issue and a long history of advocacy before the federal highway administration and a long history of looking at this particular device if if there were anybody in the public who should have been permitted to intervene in this case it was us so thirdly the district court's order is itself not confidence inspiring i'll put it that way it is it is contained in the  if i may lead from that order he states notwithstanding the above denials the courts take seriously the public's right of access accordingly following the trial the court will enter an order requiring the parties to show cause why previously sealed testimony etc should remain under seal absent such a showing of good cause the court may order the same to be unsealed so on the face of this order itself the court is stating that it merely may unseal documents as to which there's been no adequate showing that secrecy is required so for all of these reasons even if you knew what the court said about i'm going to do this later as a reason arguably it is it's not a good enough one and a couple of more things if i may first not all the crash tests the trend is not agreed to reveal all the crash tests exhibit b two a trinity attended to explain the document it submitted to the district court in which it listed a bunch of documents that it said it wanted to remain sealed and for example document document or for six or sixty one point zero one includes non commercialised research and developmental products and testing i put into our clients that testing includes a crash testing that is highly relevant to this case third i would like to say that there is ample case on the circuit that where i just a court fails to give reasons or adequate reasons for the denial of   went on to say and this is important that where the district court fails to give reasons under an abuse of discretion standard this court the fifth circuit does not need to remain a statement of reasons where doing so would be an exercise in futility and we're doing so would result in judicial diseconomies and we would submit that this rescue this court to reverse the lower courts under denial of of intervention and order that intervention be be permitted and we would ask that that occur with respect as soon as possible because this issue is before the district court right now and we don't want to drag anybody down we don't want to delay things we want to be able to make our voice known you are going to just a couple minutes to go on rebuttal that one of the reason was there were there were there was no one else to advocate for what you're advocating for and we're told now that the plaintiff wishes to have these matters and under seal so there appears to be an advocate on  yes yes exactly your honor if i may say just just one more thing i mean we believe that trinity says extraordinary circumstances are required here we believe that this case is extraordinary this is a textbook case of where intervention should have been permitted september fourth order in your motion to intervene i'm think i'm stating the obvious here but your motion was a motion to intervene it was not a motion to intervene and unseal documents right it was to intervene for the purpose of advocating for the unsealing of court denied the motion to intervene and then it went on to also deny the motion to unseal sort of like a standing order so i mean insofar as the district court is saying hey i'll deal with this later about the documents  that doesn't really speak it seems to me to whether the court on september fourth should have allowed you to intervene in other words if it had allowed you to intervene on september fourth that would not have automatically filed their boat emergency motion unsealed we renewed our motion to intervene on the ground that one of two and it is a bit arguments previously have been that because none of the existing parties was moving to unseal we couldn't moved on