WPCV 1\mZP300"uZPAz΢˃0b fE.C A K7QyNԩI*F0Yd?I@q f"*''-3b &g5l˞U[am1zKSChR/tʦV;^Gye+k՗ _uL'UyY}NOf 6EC.nֹ6]YOd=r]W= <\9뿵@F۴H )bAN?t|֗=F2f#WEƫn9?u즳Z؏ BBikxV&BSs*X!P_f#UF] % 0F ^ w 4  " m$ ^; N UN UB b+ 0 3 0 D J HE^f`abv6>=t 0U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0e 00 0v0 0`:1 0`1 0`1 0`Z2 0`2 083 0R3 02$4 0V4 0:R5 0Y5 0_5 0 D6 0jN7 08 B*<: D/f: D+: 0: D/D< 0s< 06A= 0w= 0:> 0^> 0<? 1eS? 0N?U6@U><@U*z@@ 1uB 72B 0c.CCBFJKKKNHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 5e,,,,0<4 9Z+.Courier New RegularX(i$  USUS.,3 ʑ2s2vGitto3|x!UL:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPTvr Z6Times New Roman Regular<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -((2e$ i!  USUS.,    =XXdd=    0  (#$  0    e$  USUS.,  =5XXdd=    5    _Atanearlierstageoftheseproceedings,theappellants  arguedthattheReportwasnota"paperfiled"forpurposesof  107(a)onthegroundthattheword"file"hasadifferentmeaning \ in107(a)thanin11U.S.C.1106(a),theprovisionofthe 2 BankruptcyCodeunderwhichtheExaminerwasobligatedto"file"a X statementofhisinvestigation.Thedistrictcourtrejectedthis . contention,andtheappellantsdonotpursueitonappeal.  TABLE A  e$  USUS.,  =5XXdd=    6    _The107(b)(2)exceptionappliestoboth"scandalous"and  "defamatory"matter.Onappeal,theappellantsfocusexclusively  onthe"defamatory"prongoftheexception.Theydonotsuggest \ anydefinitionforthe"scandalous"prong,nordotheyattemptto 2 demonstratethattheReportisscandalouswithinthemeaningof X 107(b)(2).Accordingly,wefocusonthe"defamatory"prongas . well. , e$  USUS.,  =5XXdd=    4    _Theprocedureforimplementing107(b)issetforthinFed.  R._ Bankr_ .P.9018:  Onmotionoronitsowninitiative,withorwithout 2 notice,thecourtmaymakeanyorderwhichjustice X requires(1)toprotecttheestateoranyentityin . respectofatradesecretorotherconfidentialresearch,   development,orcommercialinformation,(2)toprotect   anyentityagainstscandalousordefamatorymatter `  containedinanypaperfiledinacaseundertheCode,or 6   (3)toprotectgovernmentalmattersthataremade  \  confidentialbystatuteorregulation.Ifanorderis  2  enteredunderthisrulewithoutnotice,anyentity   affectedtherebymaymovetovacateormodifytheorder,   andafterahearingonnoticethecourtshalldetermine d  themotion. :  dV 3 e$  USUS.,  =5XXdd=    8    _Allof_Gitto_ԀGlobal'sofficersanddirectorsresignedand  werereplacedbyanindependentrestructuringofficerimmediately  beforethecompanyfiledforbankruptcy.Alloftheprepetition \ activitydescribedintheReportthereforeinvolvesonlyformer 2 management.*+ (_2623  ..  *G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5   d*AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKX<6X9`(Courier NewKSY\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KX<6X9`(Courier NewKSY\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KX<6X9`(Courier NewKSY\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7L(X7  ?Z%2A`Arial?  SY\  `&Times New RomanS7M(X7&  d dK)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7O(X7  ?Z%2A`Arial?  SY\  `&Times New RomanS7M(X7K)2dxd0KS.SampleKX<6X9`(Courier NewKSY\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKX<6X9`(Courier NewKSY\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  $%&()*+, 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(O$<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial  e$  USUS.,  =5XXdd=    1    _Inlightofthisdisposition,wedonotreachtheclaimby  _WT_&Gand_MediaNews_ԀthatthereisaFirstAmendmentrightofpublic  accesstothefullReport.Seeinfranote3.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)\i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0    e$  USUS.,  =5XXdd=    2    _Charles_Gitto_Ԁfiledhisinitialmotiontosealandhisappeal  tothedistrictcourtonbehalfofbothhimselfand_Tradex_ԀCorp.,  acorporationthatheapparentlyownsandcontrols,andthatwasa \ _Gitto_ԀGlobalcreditor._Tradex_ԀCorp.isnotidentifiedasaparty 2 tothisappeal,however.  e$  USUS.,  =5XXdd=    3    _AswenotedinInreBostonHerald,theSupremeCourthas  also"recognizedaqualifiedFirstAmendmentrightofaccessto  certainjudicialproceedingsanddocuments."321F.3dat182.It \ isunclearwhethertheconstitutionalrightofaccesswouldattach 2 tothetypeofdocumentatissueinthiscase,namelyareport X filedbyabankruptcyexaminerpursuantto11U.S.C. . 1106(a)(4)(A).SeeInreBostonHerald,321F.3dat182   (describingtheframeworkfordetermining"ifaconstitutional   rightofaccessappliestoparticulardocuments").Givenour `  conclusionthatthereisarightofpublicaccesstotheReport 6   under11U.S.C.107,weneednotdeterminewhetherthereisalso  \  arightofpublicaccessundertheFirstAmendment. e$  USUS.,  =5XXdd=    *    _OftheDistrictofNewHampshire,sittingbydesignation.  e$  USUS.,  =5XXdd=    7    _Inlightofthisconclusion,wealsorejectthe_Gittos_'  contentionthatthebankruptcycourterredinfailingto"makethe  carefulbalanceoftheinterestsrequiredbythecommonlaw." \ Moreover,the_Gittos_'argumentsregardingtheweighttobe 2 attributedtodifferentinterestsunderthecommonlawanalysisare X inapposite.  e$  USUS.,  =5XXdd=    9    _Inconcludingthatthereisarightofpublicaccesstothe  Report,wealsorejectthe_Gittos_'argumentthatpublicdisclosure  oftheReportwill"createagenuinerisk"ofharmtotheirSixth \ Amendmentrighttotrialbyanimpartialjury.Althoughthe_Gittos_ 2 emphasizethatafederalgrandjuryisinvestigating"thesame X mattersinvestigatedbytheExaminer,"theyhavenotindicatedthat . anycriminalchargeshavebeenfiledinconnectionwiththegrand   jury'sinvestigation,muchlessthatatrialisimminent.Concerns   thatdisclosureoftheReportwouldtaintajurypoolaretherefore `  entirelyspeculative.Moreover,therearemanywaystoprotecta 6   criminaldefendant'srighttoafairtrialwithoutenjoiningthe  \  publicdisclosureofinformation.Forexample,acourtmayusethe  2  voirdireprocessto"identifythosejurorswhosepriorknowledge   ofthecasewoulddisablethemfromrenderinganimpartial   verdict,"PressEnterpriseCo.v.SuperiorCourt,478U.S.1,15 d  (1986),ortransfertheproceedingtoadifferentvenue,seeFed. :  R._Crim_.P.21(a).Inlightofthesealternativesandthehighly `  speculativenatureofthe_Gittos_Ԁclaim,theSixthAmendmentdoes 6 notrequiresealingorredactionoftheReport. i!  USUS.,  _  X[XXX 4X X[  UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals# X[X 4k# X X[  FortheFirstCircuit # L##X5X#  A') ` dE<` A   Nos.051658,051666  @l l Inre_GITTO_ԀGLOBALCORP.,Debtor u  A') ` dE< ` A ! q @ GARRY_GITTO_ԀandCHARLES_GITTO_,  ,    Appellants,   @@tt)v. 4  @@$WORCESTERTELEGRAM&GAZETTECORP.;_MEDIANEWS_ԀGROUP,INC.; 0 CHARLESL._GLERUM_,EXAMINER;AND  PHOEBEMORSE,UNITEDSTATESTRUSTEE,  Appellees. 8 XA') ` dE<` A   @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT    FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS u   [Hon.DouglasP._Woodlock_,U.S.DistrictJudge] !q A') ` dE<` A  @'Before !   @@((TorruellaandLipez,CircuitJudges, ^ # andBarbadoro,*i!a #  *      ׀U.S.DistrictJudge. 4!$ A') ` dE<"` A "0&       MaxStern,withwhomLillian_Hirales_andStern,Shapiro, #( _Weissberg_Ԁ&_Garin_,_LLP_wereonbrief,forappellantGary_Gitto_. $)   _Juiliane_Ԁ_Balliro_,withwhomPaul_Leoni_,ChristineM.Griffin, q% * andPerkins,Smith&Cohen_LLP_wereonbrief,forappellantCharles G&!+ _Gitto_. 'm",   JonathanM._Albano_,withwhomAaron_Wais_,Bingham_McCutchen_ 'C#- _LLP_,David_McCraw_,andTheNewYorkTimesCo.wereonbrief,for ($. appelleeWorcesterTelegram&GazetteCorp. )$/   PeterJ.Caruso,withwhomPeterJ.CarusoIIandCaruso& u*%0 Caruso_LLP_wereonbrief,forappellee_MediaNews_ԀGroup,Inc. K+&1   RobertM.Buchanan,Jr.,withwhomCharlesL._Glerum_,Joseph  M._Downes_ԀIII,and_Choate_,Hall&Stewart_LLP_wereonbrief,for  appelleeCharles_Glerum_,Examiner. \ *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  #XX #m SIl @@38594@@S_August31,2005 B  _ RHC h" @@38594 @@ R-#!l    -   " r  TRX3'X3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT ? OYOY   85XXdXXd8*,X` XX*   ` LIPEZ,CircuitJudge .Thiscasepresentsamatterof  firstimpressioninourcircuit,requiringustointerpret11 x U.S.C.107(b)(2),whichprovidesanexceptiontotheruleof $t publicaccesstopapersfiledinabankruptcycaseformaterial   thatis"scandalousordefamatory."AppellantsCharlesandGary |  _Gitto_Ԁ(collectively,"the_Gittos_"),whowereformerlyassociated ( x  withacompanythathassincefiledforbankruptcyprotection, $  assertthataninvestigativereport("Report")compiledbyacourt   appointedbankruptcyexaminer("Examiner")fallswithinthe ,|  107(b)(2)exceptionandthatitmustthereforeberedactedor ( sealed.Thebankruptcycourtrejectedthiscontention,finding  thattheappellantshadnotdemonstratedthatthematerialatissue 0 wasscandalousordefamatoryandthatitthereforemustbepublicly , availableunder11U.S.C.107(a).Thedistrictcourtaffirmed,  althoughitappliedadifferentinterpretationof107(b)(2)than 4 theoneadoptedbythebankruptcycourt. 0  ` Onappeal,theGittosadvanceareadingof107(b)(2)   thatisbroaderthantheoneusedbyeitherthebankruptcycourtor 8!" thedistrictcourt,andassertthattheyareentitledtoprotection "4$ underthatexception.Theappellees,twomediaorganizations $& WorcesterTelegram&GazetteCorp.("WT&G")andMediaNewsGroup, <&!( Inc.("MediaNews")andtheExaminer,urgeustorejectthe '8#* Gittos'interpretationof107(b)(2)andtofindthatthepublic )$, hasarightofaccesstotheReport. @+&.?   ` Althoughwemodifysomewhattheinterpretationof  107(b)(2)setforthbythedistrictcourt,weaffirmitsdecision \ thatthepublichasarightofaccesstotheR*i!eport._[ #  1      _  X    I.    ` GittoGlobalCorp.("GittoGlobal"),aplastics |  manufacturerinLunenberg,Massachusetts,filedforChapter11 ( x  bankruptcyonSeptember24,2004amidallegationsoffinancial $  distressandaccountingirregularities.Shortlythereafter,the   bankruptcycourtappointedanExaminerto"beginaninvestigation ,|  intotheexistenceofanypre[]petitionfraud,dishonesty, ( incompetence,misconduct,mismanagement,orirregularityinthe  managementandbusinessaffairsoftheDebtor."TheExaminerwas 0 alsoinstructedto"fileastatementwiththeCourt...reporting , thepreliminaryorfinalfindingsoftheExaminer,alongwithany  recommendationsoftheExaminerforfurtherinvestigation."The 4 purposeoftheinvestigationandtheReportwastodevelop 0 informationforuseinpotentialproceedingsagainstGittoGlobal.    ` OnDecember8,2004,theExaminerfiledamotion 8!" requestingthatthecourtauthorizehimtosubmittheReport(which "4$ hadnotyetbeenfiled)undersealandhaveitimpoundedpendinga $& furtherorderofthecourt.InanorderdatedDecember9,2004, <&!( thecourtallowedthemotion,subjecttoarequirementthatany '8#* partyininterestbeallowedtofileamotionseekingreleaseof  theReport.OnJanuary5,2005,afterreceivingseveralmotions \ _seekingaccesstotheReportuponitsfiling,thecourtmodified X itsDecember9ordertorequirethatwithintendaysoffilingthe   Report,theExaminer"provideeachpersonnamedinthereport... `  withacopyofonlythatportionorportionsofthereportthat  \  relatetotheindividual."Themodifiedorderalsoinvitedmotions   fromindividualsseekingtosealorredactthereport,aswellas d  objectionstomotionstosealorredact.TheExaminerfiledhis `  ReportundersealonJanuary7,2004andservedredactedcopieson   approximately120individualspursuanttothecourt'sJanuary5 h order. d  ` AmongthosewhoreceivedredactedcopiesoftheReport  wereappellantGary_Gitto_,partownerandformerCEOof_Gitto_ l Global,andappellantCharles_Gitto_,whoheldhimselfoutas h chairmanof_Gitto_ԀGlobalandisGary_Gitto_'sfather.The_Gittos_  filedmotionsrequestingthattheReportremainunderseal,asdid p  approximatelytwentyfourotherindividuals.Intheirmotions,the !l" _Gittos_Ԁarguedthattherewasnorightofpublicaccesstothe "$ ReportundereitherthecommonlawortheFirstAmendment.Gary t$& _Gitto_ԀfurtherarguedthattheReportcontainedscandalousand  &p!( defamatorymaterialwithinthemeaningof11U.S.C.107(b)(2), '#* andthereforethattheusualpresumptionofpublicaccessunder x)$, 107(a)didnotapply.Appellees_WT_&Gand_MediaNews_,bothnews $+t&. organizations,opposedthemotionstoseal.Theappelleesargued  thatthereisarightofpublicaccesstotheReportunderthe \ FirstAmendment,thecommonlaw,and107(a),andthatthe X appellantshadnotdemonstratedthattheReportcontained   defamatorymatterforpurposesof107(b)(2). `   ` OnFebruary9,2005,afterahearingonthevarious  \  motions,thebankruptcycourtconcludedinamemorandumthatthere   wasnothingscandalousordefamatoryintheReport.Itruledthat d  theentireReport(withspecificbankaccountnumbersredacted `  pursuanttothe11U.S.C.107(b)(1)exceptiontopublicaccess   forconfidentialinformation)shouldbemadepubliclyavailable h pursuantto107(a)andthecommonlawpresumptionofaccess.In d lightofitsrulingonthestatutoryandcommonlawclaims,the  bankruptcycourtfounditunnecessarytodecidewhethertherewas l alsoaFirstAmendmentrightofpublicaccesstotheReport. h  ` GaryandCharles_Gitto_Ԁappealedthebankruptcycourt's  decisiontotheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictof p  Massachusetts.__ #  2      _ԀThedistrictcourtaffirmed.Despiteadoptinga !l" broaderdefinitionoftheterm"defamatory"thanthebankruptcy "$ courthadused,thedistrictcourtagreedthattherewasnobasis t$& tosealorredacttheReportunder107(b)(2)andthereforethat  &p!( OY    107(a)dictatedpublicaccess.Thecourtalsoconcludedthata  commonlawanalysiswouldleadtothesameresultand,likethe \ bankruptcycourt,founditunnecessarytoreachtheappellees' X claimofaFirstAmendmentrightofaccess.Thisappealfollowed.      II. `   W6 ` Theprimaryissueonappealisthedefinitionof ( x  "defamatory"asthattermisusedin11U.S.C.107(b)(2).Before $  turningtothatdifficultquestion,however,wemustdescribethe   commonlawpresumptionofaccesstocourtfilings. ,|   A.0 ` Commonlawpresumptionofaccess(` (#` (#   ` Underthecommonlaw,thereisalongstanding  presumptionofpublicaccesstojudicialrecords.SeeNixonv. L WarnerCommunications,Inc.,435U.S.589,597(1978);seealsoIn H reBostonHerald,Inc.,321F.3d174,189(1stCir.2003).` #  3      ׀This  presumptionofaccess"helpssafeguardtheintegrity,quality,and P respectinourjudicialsystem,andpermitsthepublictokeepa L watchfuleyeontheworkingsofpublicagencies."InreOrion   OY    PicturesCorp.,21F.3d24,26(2dCir.1994)(internalquotation  marksandcitationsomitted).Despitetheseimportantinterests \ advancedbypublicaccesstojudicialrecords,therightofaccess X isnotabsolute.AstheSupremeCourthasrecognized,"[_e]very_   courthassupervisorypoweroveritsownrecordsandfiles,and `  accesshasbeendeniedwherecourtfilesmighthavebecomea  \  vehicleforimproperpurposes."Nixon,435U.S.at598.Courts   haveexercisedtheirdiscretionunderthecommonlawtoabrogate d  therightofpublicaccesswheredoingsowasnecessarytoprevent `  judicialrecordsfrombeing"'usedtogratifyprivatespiteor   promotepublicscandal[,]'"id.(quotingInre_Caswell_,29A.259 h (1893)),ortopreventtheirrecordsfrombecoming"reservoirsof d libelousstatementsforpressconsumptionor...sourcesof  businessinformationthatmightharmalitigant'scompetitive l standing."Id.  (citationsomitted). Althoughtheseexamples h demonstratethatitiswithinacourt'sdiscretiontocurtailthe 0 commonlawpresumptionofpublicaccess,"[_o]nly_Ԁthemost   compellingreasonscanjustifynondisclosureofjudicialrecords." 8!" FTCv.StandardFin._Mgmt_.Corp.,830F.2d404,410(1stCir.1987) "4$ (internalquotationmarksomitted).  $&  B.0 ` 11U.S.C.107 <&!(` (#` (#  ` Inthebankruptcycontext,therightofpublicaccessis (T#* codifiedinaspecificstatutoryprovision,11U.S.C.107. )%, Section107,whichCongressenactedin1978,establishesabroad \+&. rightofpublicaccess,subjectonlytolimitedexceptionsset  forthinthestatute,toallpapersfiledinabankruptcycase. \ Specifically,11U.S.C.107(a)provides X Exceptasprovidedinsubsection(b)ofthissection,a   paperfiledinacaseunder[theBankruptcyCode]andthe   docketsofabankruptcycourtarepublicrecordsandopen `  toexaminationbyanentityatreasonabletimeswithout 6   charge.  \  DDDAsoneofoursistercircuitshasexplained,   [_s]ection_Ԁ107(a)isrootedintherightofpublicaccess d  tojudicialproceedings,aprinciplelongrecognizedin :  thecommonlawandbuttressedbytheFirstAmendment. `  Thisgovernmentalinterestisofspecialimportancein 6 thebankruptcyarena,asunrestrictedaccesstojudicial   recordsfostersconfidenceamongcreditorsregardingthe  fairnessofthebankruptcysystem. h FFFInreCrawford,194F.3d954,960(9thCir.1999);seealsoInre d Bell&_Beckwith_,44_B.R._Ԁ661,664(_Bankr_.N.D.Ohio1984)("Public  scrutinyisthemeansbywhichthepersonsforwhomthesystemis l tobenefitareabletoinsureitsintegrityandprotecttheir h rights.Thispolicyofopeninspection,establishedinthe  BankruptcyCodeitself,isfundamentaltotheoperationofthe p  bankruptcysystemandisthebestmeansofavoidinganysuggestion !l" ofimproprietythatmightorcouldberaised.").Itisthus "$ fittingthatthecoverageof107(a)is"sweeping,"seeWilliamT. t$& _Bodoh_ԀandMichelleM.Morgan,ProtectiveOrdersintheBankruptcy  &p!( Court:TheCongressionalMandateofBankruptcyCodeSection107and '#* ItsConstitutionalImplications(hereinafter_Bodoh_Ԁ&Morgan),24 x)$, HastingsConst._L.Q._Ԁ67,82(1996),extendingto"allpapersfiled $+t&. inabankruptcycase,"H.R.Rep.No.95595,at317(1977);S.Rep.  No.95989,at30(1978)(emphasisadded). \  ` Thereareonlytwoexceptionstothebroad107(a)right X ofpublicaccess,bothcodifiedin107(b):   Onrequestofapartyininterest,thebankruptcycourt `  shall,andonthebankruptcycourt'sownmotion,the 6   bankruptcycourtmay  \  (1)protectanentitywithrespecttoatradesecretor  2  confidentialresearch,development,orcommercial   information;or   (2)protectapersonwithrespecttoscandalousor d  defamatorymattercontainedinapaperfiledinacase :  under[theBankruptcyCode].O `  OOInotherwords,ifapaperfiledinbankruptcycourtfitswithin   107(b)(1)or(2),"[_p]rotection_Ԁismandatorywhenrequestedbya h 'partyininterest.'"2CollieronBankruptcy107.03(15thed. d rev.2005)._ #  4      _   ` Together,thetwocomponentsof107thebroadright l ofaccesscreatedin107(a)andtheexceptionssetforthin h 107(b)createaframeworkfordeterminingwhetherapaper  filedinabankruptcycaseisavailabletothepublicorsubjectto \ protection.Absent107,thisquestionwouldbeaddressedby X referencetothecommonlaw.Because107speaksdirectlytothe   questionofpublicaccess,however,itsupplantsthecommonlawfor `  purposesofdeterminingpublicaccesstopapersfiledina  \  bankruptcycase.SeeUnitedStatesv.Texas,507U.S.529,534   (1993)("Inordertoabrogateacommonlawprinciple,thestatute d  mustspeakdirectlytothequestionaddressedbythecommonlaw." `  (internalquotationmarksomitted)).Therefore,"issuesconcerning   publicdisclosureofdocumentsinbankruptcycasesshouldbe h resolvedunder107,"InrePharMor,Inc.,191_B.R._Ԁ675,679 d (_Bankr_.N.D.Ohio1995),notunderthecommonlaw.     III. l WY ` Forpurposesofthisappeal,allpartiesagreethatthe 4 Examiner'sReportisapaperfiledinabankruptcycaseandthat 0 107thereforegovernstheissueofpublicaccesstotheReport. #  5      ׀   See11U.S.C.1106(a)(4)(A),(b)(requiringanexaminertofile 8!" astatementofhisinvestigation).Thepartiesalsoagreethata "4$ bankruptcycourthasthepowertoprotectapersonseekingrelief $& withregardtoapublicrecordsuchastheReportonlywhenthe  recordfallswithinoneoftheexceptionssetforthin107(b). \ TheissueonwhichtheydisagreeiswhethermaterialintheReport X fallswithinthe107(b)(2)exceptionfor"defamatorymatter." #  6      ׀   Resolutionofthatdisagreementrequiresustoconsiderthemeaning `  oftheword"defamatory"asitisusedin107(b)(2).Ourreview  \  ofthisissueisdenovo.SeeInreBoston_Reg'l_ԀMed.Ctr.,Inc.,   410F.3d100,108(1stCir.2005)(" SLikethedistrictcourt,we d  reviewdenovothebankruptcycourt'sconclusionsoflaw.").  `  A.0 ` The107(b)(2)exception_` (#` (#  ` 1.The_Gittos_'proposedreadingoftheexception  *z  ` The_Gittos_Ԁcontendthattoqualifyforprotectionunder )y 107(b)(2),theyneedonlyidentifymaterialthatwouldcausea % reasonablepersontoalterhisopinionofthemnamely,intheir  words,materialthatisdefamatory"[_u]nder_Ԁthewellestablished -} meaningoftheterm."Theymaintainthat"[_n]othing_Ԁinthe ) statutorytextstates,orevensuggests,thatanythingmoreis    required."Thedistrictcourtrejectedthisposition,emphasizing 1"" thatit"wouldsweepallmannerofdocumentsintoitsembrace"in #-$ contraventionofthe107(a)presumptionfavoringpublicaccessin  thebankruptcycontext.Weagree. \  ` Althoughthereisvirtuallynolegislativehistoryfor [ 107,theplainlanguageof107(a)evincesaclearcongressional  W intentthatpapersfiledinbankruptcycasesbeavailabletothe   public.Many,ifnotthevastmajority,ofthesepaperswill _   includematerialthatislikelytoaffectanindividual's  [  reputationinthecommunity.Allegationsofmismanagementor   fraud,forexample,mightwellcauseareasonablepersontoalter c  hisopinionoftheindividualagainstwhomtheallegationsare _ made.Asonebankruptcycourtexplained,itwouldbeinconsistent   withthepresumptionofpublicaccessin107(a)totreatsuch g allegationsasdefamatorywithinthemeaningof107(b)(2): c Thecomplaint...allegesthatDefendantsmayhave b receivedfraudulenttransfers....Fraudulent 8 transferactions...arecommoninbankruptcypractice,  andtograntDefendants'motionbecauseofthis  allegationcouldresultinthesealingofpleadingsina j numberofadversaryproceedings.Congress,inenacting @ section107,didnotcontemplatesucharesult,and  f  intendedthatthesealingofpleadingswouldbethe  <! exceptionratherthantherule.g !" ggHopeexrel.Clarkv.Pearson,38_B.R._Ԁ423,425(_Bankr_.M.D.Ga. #$ 1984). m% &  ` The_Gittos_Ԁconcedethat107(a)reflectsacongressional l'"( decisionthatfiledpapersarepresumptivelypublicandthatsuch )h$* recordsareeligibleforimpoundmentonlyunderthespecific *&, exceptionssetforthin107(b).Theydispute,however,the  districtcourt'sconclusionthatabroadreadingoftheexception \ wouldresultinthesweepingcurtailmentofpublicaccess. X Emphasizingthat107(b)(2)requiresthecourttoprotectaperson   butdoesnotindicatewhatformtheprotectionshouldtake,they `  arguethatnotallmaterialfallingwithinthe107(b)(2)  \  exceptionwillnecessarilybesealed.Rather,theyargue,   107(b)(2)merelytriggersthecourt'sdutytoengageina d  balancingoftheinterestsasrequiredunderthecommonlaw.Based `  onthiscommonlawinquiry,thecourtwouldthenuseitsdiscretion   totakewhateverprotectivemeasuresjusticerequired,whetherit h besealingoramoremodestformofprotection. d  ` Itistruethat107(b)(2)speaksofprotectionin c generaltermsratherthanofwholesalesealing,andthatcourts  mustthereforeexercisesomediscretionindeterminingwhatformof k protectiontogrant.Itdoesnotfollow,however,thatthe g thresholdtoqualifyforprotectionunder107(b)(2)isalowone.   The_Gittos_Ԁacknowledgethat107(a)reflectsalegislative o!" decisionthatpapersfiledinabankruptcycasearepublicrecords. #k$ Thereadingof107(b)(2)thatthe_Gittos_Ԁpropose,i.e.,thatany $ & materialtendingtoharmaperson'sreputationtriggersthe s&!( exception,wouldsignificantlycurtailthepublic'saccesstothese (o#* records.Onceaninterestedpartyidentifiesmaterialthatis )%, scandalousordefamatory,thecourtmustprotecttheparty. w+&. Althoughtheprotectionmaystopshortofsealingtheentire  documentcontainingthedefamatorymaterial,anyformofprotection \ willlimittheinformationavailabletothepublic.The X interpretationof107(b)(2)advancedbythe_Gittos_Ԁtherefore   remainsproblematicdespitetheseal/protectdistinctionthatthey `  highlight.  \   ` Moreover,thereisnosupportforthe_Gittos_'argument  [  that107(b)(2)ismerelyatriggerforthetraditionalcommonlaw   analysisregardingpublicdisclosure.Thecommonlawrequiresthe c  courttodeterminewhetherthedocumentatissueisa"judicial _ record"subjecttothepresumptionofpublicaccess,and,ifso,to   "balance[]thepublicinterestintheinformationagainstprivacy g interests."InreBostonHerald,321F.3dat190.Section107 c displacesthisapproachentirely.First,itdispenseswiththe  needtodeterminewhetherthedocumentatissueisa"judicial k record"byclarifyingthat,inthebankruptcycontext,the g presumptionofpublicaccessappliestoanypaperfiledina   bankruptcycase,notonlythenarrowercategoryofpapersthat o!" wouldbeconsideredjudicialrecordsunderthecommonlaw.Seeid. #k$ at180(forpurposesofthecommonlawpresumption,"[_n]ot_Ԁall $ & documentsfiledwithacourtareconsideredjudicialdocuments" s&!( (internalquotationmarksomitted);StandardFin._Mgmt_.Corp.,830 (o#* F.2dat41213("Thepresumptionthatthepublichasarighttosee )%, andcopyjudicialrecordsattachestothosedocumentswhich w+&. properlycomebeforethecourtinthecourseofanadjudicatory  proceedingandwhicharerelevanttotheadjudication.").Oncethe \ presumptionofpublicaccessattachesunder107(a),thenextstep X intheinquiryisnottoengageinabalancingoftheequities,as   requiredbythecommonlaw,butrathertodeterminewhetherthe `  materialatissuefallswithinaspecificexceptiontothe  \  presumptionnamely,intooneofthe107(b)categories.   Finally,ifmaterialdoescomewithinoneofthestatutory d  exceptionstopublicaccess,107requiresacourttoactatthe `  requestofaninterestedpartyandpermitsacourttoact_sua_   _sponte_󀄄toprotecttheaffectedparty.Inshort,107speaks h directlytotheissuesregardingdisclosurethatareaddressedby d thecommonlawanalysis;itsframeworkisnotmerelyapreludeto  thecommonlawanalysis.SeePharMor,191_B.R._Ԁat679("Inother l areasofthelaw,courtshavereliedonshowingsof'compelling h reasons,'orbalancingtheinterestsofprivacyandpublicrightto  know,whenreviewingarequestforjudicialnondisclosure.The p  mandatorylanguageof107(b)negatestheneedforsuch !l" inquiries."(citationomitted)). "$  ` Inafinalefforttodefendtheirposition,the_Gittos_ $ & assertthatareadingof107(b)(2)thatdoesnotincludeacommon s&!( lawbalancingoftheequitieswouldimpermissiblyinfringeonthe (o#* courts'traditionalsupervisoryauthorityovertheirownrecords )%, andfiles,seeNixon,435U.S.at598,bylimitingtheir w+&. discretion.Suchareading,the_Gittos_Ԁargue,"ignoresthewell  establishedprinciplethat,wherelongstandinginherentpowersof \ acourtareconcerned,intheabsenceof'clearandunmistakable' X congressionalintenttorestrictthem,statutesshouldbeconstrued   soastopreservethedistrictcourt'susualrole." `   ` Aswehavealreadydiscussed,107limitsthediscretion _   ofcourtsregardingpublicaccesstopapersfiledinabankruptcy  [  casebyprovidingthatallpapersfiledarepublicrecords(and   thereforenotsubjecttoprotectiveorders)unlessmaterial c  containedthereinfallswithinoneofthestatutoryexceptions,in _ whichcasethecourt"shall,"onrequestofapartyininterest,or   "may,"onitsownmotion,protecttheaffectedparty.This g arrangementreflectsCongress'sintenttocabinthecourts' c authorityovertheirrecordsandfileswithregardtopublicaccess  issuesinbankruptcycases.Section107isthereforereadily k distinguishablefromthestatuteweconsideredin_In_ԀreAtlantic g PipeCorp.,304F.3d135(1stCir.2002),thecaseonwhichthe   _Gittos_'argumentrelies.InAtlanticPipeCorp.,theissuewas o!" whethertheAlternativeDisputeResolutionActof1998("_ADR_ԀAct") #k$ restricted"thedistrictcourts'authoritytoengageinthecase $ & bycasedeploymentof_ADR_Ԁprocedures."Id.at142.Emphasizing s&!( that"Congressmaycabinthedistrictcourts'inherentpowers[only (o#* if]itsintentiontodoso[is]clearandunmistakable,"we )%, concludedthatnothinginthe_ADR_ԀAct,whichrequiredjudicial w+&. districtstoadoptsomeformof_ADR_Ԁprocedures,couldbe  interpretedasstrippingdistrictcourtjudgesoftheirinherent \ powertorequiremediation.Id.Thestatutorylanguageof107, X bycontrast,evincesa"clearandunmistakable"intenttocabinthe   inherentsupervisoryauthorityofdistrictcourtsovertheirown `  recordsandfileswhenitcomestoissuesofpublicaccessto  \  papersfiledinabankruptcycase.Wethereforerejectthe   interpretationof107(b)(2)advancedbythe_Gittos_._b #  7      _  d   ` 2.Ourreadingoftheexception c   ` Papersfiledinthebankruptcycourtdonotfallwithin b the107(b)(2)exceptionmerelybecausetheywouldhavea ^ detrimentalimpactonaninterestedparty'sreputation.Rather,as   boththebankruptcycourtandthedistrictcourtdetermined,the f statuterequiressomethingmore.Theexactnatureofthis b additionalshowingisnotapparent,however,fromthefaceofthe  statutenorfromthelegislativehistory.See_Bodoh_Ԁ&Morgan,24 j HastingsConst._L.Q._Ԁat89("Althoughtheclassofpersonscovered  f  bysubsection107(b)(2)iswelldefined,thetypeofmaterials !"  constitutingscandalousordefamatorymatterisnot.").Itis n#$ thereforelefttothecourtstodeterminethespecificcontoursof  theexception. \   ` a.Untruthvs.potentialuntruth [  ` Althoughthebankruptcycourtdidnotexplicitlystatea Z  testfordeterminingwhethermaterialfallswithin107(b)(2),it  V concludedthatapartyseekingtoinvoketheexceptionmust"come    forwardwiththeparticularfactsthatdemonstratethematerialat ^  issueisscandalousordefamatory."Indenyingallofthemotions  Z  forprotection,thecourtexplainedthat"[_i]n_Ԁalmostallinstances  therewasnoproof"andnotedthatsome_movants_Ԁ"urgedthatthe b Courtnotdivulgetothepublicinformationaboutthemeventhough ^ theydonotallegethat[the]information...isfactually   inaccurate."Basedonthesestatements,thedistrictcourt f describedthebankruptcycourtasholdingthat"appellants,in b ordertoenjoytheprotectionof107(b)(2),mustdemonstratethat  materialintheReportisuntruthful." j  ` Thebankruptcycourt'stestislargelyunworkable.While i   somepartiesseekingprotectionunder107(b)(2)maybeableto "e" demonstrateuntruthfulnesssolelyonthebasisofthepapersfiled #$ withthecourt,suchsituationswillberare.Moreoftenthannot, m% & statementsinacourtfilingaredisputed.Itwouldbeunrealistic 'i"( torequirethebankruptcycourttoresolvethesefactualdisputes ($* atapreliminarystageoftheproceedings.Theuntruthfulness q*%, requirementwouldaddanenormousburdentothebankruptcycourts' ,m'. alreadyheavydocketbyturningmotionsforprotectionunder  107(b)(2)intoanoccasionforminitrials.Wetherefore \ emphasizethatalthoughabankruptcycourtmaygrantprotection X under107(b)(2)basedonashowingofuntruthfulness,protection   onthisbasisisavailableonlyintherarecasewherethe `  untruthfulnessisreadilyapparent.Bankruptcycourtsareunderno  \  obligationtoresolvequestionsoftruthfulnesspresentedbya   107(b)(2)motionwheredoingsowouldrequirediscoveryor d  additionalhearings,orwouldbeotherwiseburdensome. `   ` Inmostcases,apartyfilingamotionforprotection _ under107(b)(2)willonlybeabletoshowthatthematerialat   issueispotentiallyuntrue.Potentiallyuntruematerialmayalso g implicate107(b)(2).However,giventherelativeeaseofshowing c potentialuntruthfulness,suchashowing,standingalone,cannotbe  enoughtotriggertheexception.Toholdotherwisewouldundermine k thepolicyofpublicaccesscodifiedin107(a).Therefore,we g holdthatapartymayseekprotectionunder107(b)(2)basedon   potentiallyuntrueinformationthatwouldalterhisreputationin o!" theeyesofareasonableperson.Toobtainprotection,however,an #k$ additionalshowingmustbemade. $ &  ` b.Theadditionalshowing &"(  ` Thedistrictcourtlookedtotheopinionsofothercourts ($* applying107(b)(2)andtoanalogsof107(b)(2)todetermine q*%, underwhatcircumstancesallegedlydefamatorymaterialthatis ,m'. potentiallyuntruemaytriggerprotectionunder107(b)(2).  Findingthistobeasensibleapproachindealingwithamatterof \ firstimpression,wedothesame. X  ` Somecourtsfacedwithinterpreting107(b)(2)have  W notedthesimilaritybetweenthatsubsectionandFed.R.Civ.P.   12(f),whichprovidesthat"thecourtmayorderstrickenfromany _   pleadingany...redundant,immaterial,impertinent,or  [  scandalousmatter."SeePharMor,191_B.R._Ԁat678(tracing"[_t]he_   authoritytoprotectpersonsfromscandalousordefamatory c  material"toRule26oftheRulesofPracticefortheCourtsof _ EquityoftheUnitedStates,aprecursortoFed.R.Civ.P.12(f)).   UnderRule12(f), g scandalousallegations...willbestrickenfromthe f pleadingsinordertopurgethecourt'sfilesandprotect < thesubjectoftheallegations.Butthereareseveral b limitationsonthecourt'swillingnesstostrike 8 scandalousallegations.Forexample,itisnotenough  thatthematteroffendsthesensibilitiesofthe  objectingpartyifthechallengedallegationsdescribe j actsoreventsthatarerelevanttotheaction.Asa @ result,courtshavepermittedallegationstoremainin  f  thepleadingswhentheysupportedandwererelevanttoa  <! claimforpunitivedamages. !" Hope,38_B.R._Ԁat42425(quoting5CharlesAlanWright&ArthurR. $d$ Miller,FederalPracticeandProcedure1382(3ded.2004)). %!&  ` ThePharMorcourtconcludedthatRule12(f)and107(b) '#( shareacommonpremise:"Apersonwithinthecourts'jurisdiction k)$* shouldnotbesubjectedtoscandalousordefamatorymaterial +g&, submittedundertheguiseofaproperlypleadedcourtdocument."  191_B.R._Ԁat67879.Exceptionstothecommonlawpresumptionof \ publicaccessappeartosharethesamepremise.AstheSupreme X CourtemphasizedinNixon,underthecommonlaw,publicaccessto   courtrecordsandfiles"hasbeendeniedwherecourtfilesmight `  havebecomeavehicleforimproperpurposes."435U.S.at598.  \  TheCourtofferedseveralexamplesofsuch"improperpurposes,"   includinggratifyingpublicspite,promotingpublicscandal,and d  usingcourtfilesas"reservoirsoflibelousstatementsforpress `  consumption."Id.AsisthecaseunderRule12(f),thesebases   forremovingmaterialfromthepubliceyefocusnotjustonthe h impactofthematerialonaperson'sreputation,butalsoonthe d roleofthematerialinthecourtrecords.Thereisnoreasonto  believethattheroleofthematerialisanylesscentraltothe l protectioninquiryunder107(b)(2)thanitisundertheFederal h RulesofCivilProcedureorthecommonlaw.   ` Thecaselawinterpretingandapplying107(b)(2)also   supportsthecontextsensitiveinquirythatwehavejustdescribed. o!" InreCommodoreCorp.,70_B.R._Ԁ543(_Bankr_.N.D.Ind.1987),for #k$ example,involvedamotiontostrikeportionsofabriefthat $ & claimedthatLord,_Bissell_Ԁ&Brook("LB&B"),thecourtapproved s&!( counselforthedebtor,wasnotdisinterestedandthereforewasnot (o#* entitledtocompensationandreimbursementofexpenses.LB&B )%, assertedthatcertainstatementsinthebrief,including w+&. allegationsthatitwas"in[the]pocket"ofand"afrontfor"  anothercompany,werescandalousordefamatorywithinthemeaning \ of107(b)(2).70_B.R._Ԁat545n.3(internalquotationmarks X omitted).Thebankruptcycourtdeniedthemotion,inpartonthe   groundthat"thestatementsinquestionweremadeinsupportof `  [theobjector's]allegationsthatLB&Bwasnotdisinterested."  \  Id.at546.Inotherwords,thecourtviewedthestatements'   relevancetoabonafidelegalclaimaspertinenttothe d  107(b)(2)inquiry. `   ` Thedecisionbythedistrictcourtin_In_ԀreContinental _ Airlines,150_B.R._Ԁ334(D.Del.1993)alsosuggeststhatthe   purposeofincludingmaterialinapaperfiledwiththecourt g shouldinformtheinquiryintowhetherthatmaterialfallswithin c the107(b)(2)exception.ContinentalAirlinesinvolvedthe  sealingofreportsgeneratedbyafeereviewerpursuantto11 k U.S.C.330(a)(1)(A),whichallowsthecourttoaward"reasonable g compensationforactual,necessaryservicesrendered"ina   bankruptcycase.Thebankruptcycourtorderedthatthereportsbe o!" sealedpursuantto107(b)(2).Thedistrictcourtreversed, #k$ concludingthattherewasnoevidencethatthefeereviewer's $ & opinionsandconclusionswere"evenpotentiallydefamatoryin s&!( nature."Id.at340.Thecourtexplainedthat"[_i]f_Ԁsuchlegal (o#* recommendationsandassertions,requiredtoberenderedby )%, statutoryand_caselaw_Ԁauthority,weresealedbasedonnothingmore w+&. thanthemerepossibilitythattheycontain'defamatory'  assertions,thejudicialsystemwouldbethwartedinitsmandated \ responsibilitytosuperviselitigationexpenses."Id.This X reasoningtreatsthefactthatthefeereviewer'sreportswere   statutorilymandatedasrelevanttothedeterminationthatthey `  werenotscandalousordefamatory.  \   ` ThePharMordecisionoffersfurthersupportfora  [  readingof107(b)(2)thatissensitivetothepurposeofthe   statementsatissueandthecontextinwhichtheyaremade.Phar c  Morinvolvedacomplaintthatallegedwrongdoingbyabusiness _ entitywithageneralpartnerandseverallimitedpartners.See   191_B.R._Ԁat67778.Onlythelimitedpartnerswerenamedinthe g complaintbecausethegeneralpartnerwasprotectedbyanautomatic c stay,see11U.S.C.362,butthelimitedpartnerswerenot.See  191_B.R._Ԁat677.Thelimitedpartnerssoughttohavethecomplaint k sealed,arguingthattheallegationsofwrongdoingwerereally g directedonlyatthegeneralpartnerandthattheyhadbeennamed   inthecomplaintpurelyforstrategicreasons,including"aneedto o!" preservesomecauseofactionorbebarredbyastatuteof #k$ limitations,adesiretopromotesettlement...[,]andthe $ & inabilitytoprosecutetherealpartyininterest,[thegeneral s&!( partner],duetotheprotectionoftheautomaticstayinhis (o#* Chapter11case."Id.at680.Thebankruptcycourtagreed, )%, holdingthat"areasonablepersonwouldalter[his]opinionof w+&. Defendantsbasedonareadingofthecomplaint,becauseitcontains  allegationsofwrongdoingagainsttheDefendantsfor,inessence, \ theactsof[thegeneralpartner],withoutanexplanationofthe X underlyingrationaleforfilingthecomplaintinthisfashion."   Id.Thecourt'sreferencestothestrategicreasonsforfilingthe `  complaintandthecomplaint'sresultingpropensitytomisleadthe  \  publicindicatethatitconsideredtheplaintiffs'improperreasons   forfilingthecomplaintrelevanttoitsdeterminationthatthe d  statementsatissuewerescandalousordefamatory. `   ` Inshort,boththecaselawandtheinterpretationof _ sourcesanalogousto107(b)(2)supportacontextsensitive   approachtotheexception.Weagreewiththedistrictcourtthat g  "toimplicate107(b)(2)inthecontextofpotentiallyuntrue c material,theinformationwouldalsohavetobeirrelevant[or]  includedforimproperends."Underthisreadingof107(b)(2),as k Congressintended,protectionofpapersfiledinabankruptcycase g willbe"theexceptionratherthantherule."Hope,38_B.R._Ԁat   425. o!"  ` Thedistrictcourtalludedtooneothercategoryof n#$ potentiallyuntruematerialthatmayimplicate107(b)(2): %j & materialthatis"somisleadingincontextastobedeemedfacially &"( inaccurate."Thecourtappearstohavederivedthiscategory,like r(#* theimproperendstest,fromPharMor.See191_B.R._Ԁat680.The *n%, districtcourtdidnotexplain,however,whatitmeansformaterial +'. tobe"somisleadingincontextastobefaciallyinaccurate,"nor  diditexplicitlyconsiderthematerialintheReportwith \ referencetothisstandard.Havingponderedthislanguageforsome X time,wethinkitsmeaningismostakintothetestadoptedbythe   bankruptcycourt.Alternatively,itmayjustbeanotherwayof `  sayingthatmaterialispotentiallyuntrue.Inanyevent,unlike  \  theothercategoriessetforthinthedistrictcourt'sthoughtful   analysis,wefindthecategory"somisleadingincontextastobe d  faciallyinaccurate"unhelpful.Eventhematerialatissuein `  PharMor,theapparentsourceofthe"somisleadingincontext"   standard,couldalsobedescribedastriggeringthe107(b)(2) h exceptionbasedonitsuntruthfulnessoritspotential d untruthfulnessanditsinclusioninthecomplaintforanimproper  end.Hence,wewillnotincludethiscategorywithinthe l additionalshowingrequiredby107(b)(2)formaterialthatis h potentiallyuntrue.   ` Wethereforeconcludethatmaterialthatwouldcausea   reasonablepersontoalterhisopinionofaninterestedparty o!" triggerstheprotectionsof107(b)(2)basedonashowingthat #k$ either(1)thematerialisuntrue,or(2)thematerialis $ & potentiallyuntrueandirrelevantorincludedwithinabankruptcy s&!( filingforanimproperend.  (o#*  B.0 ` Applicationof107(b)(2) ` (#` (#  ` Boththebankruptcycourtandthedistrictcourt  concludedthatthematerialintheReportdidnotfallwithinthe w 107(b)(2)exception,andthereforethattheReporthadtobe # s publiclyaccessible.Althoughthedistrictcourtmadeits   determinationbasedonastandardsimilartotheonesetforthin {   thisopinion,thebankruptcycourtdidnot.Specifically,the 'w  bankruptcycourtdidnotrecognizethat,undercertain #  circumstances,materialthatispotentiallyuntrue,inadditionto   materialthatacourthasdeterminedtobeuntrue,cantriggerthe +{ protectionsof107(b)(2).The_Gittos_Ԁassertthatifboththey ' andthebankruptcycourtmisapprehendedthestandardforapplying  107(b)(2),theyare"entitled,attheleast,totheopportunity / toargueforimpoundmenttotheBankruptcyCourtunderthe + appropriatestandard[and]topointoutparticularproblemswith  theReport."Asthe_Gittos_Ԁpointout,wehaveremandedatleast 3 onceinthepasttoallowthecourtoffirstinstanceto"evaluate /  theplaintiffs'complaintsinlightofthestandard[announcedon !" appeal]."_Agosto_Ԅde_Feliciano_v._Aponte_ԄRoque,889F.2d1209,1223 7#$ (1stCir.1989)(enbanc). $3 &  ` Weconclude,however,thatthereisnoneedforaremand &2"( inthiscasebecause"applicationofthecorrectlegalstandard (#* couldleadtoonlyoneconclusion."Wardv._Comm'r_,211F.3d652, :*%, 656(1stCir.2000)(quoting_Schaal_v._Apfel_,134F.3d496,504(2d +6'. Cir.1998));seealsoInreR&R_Assocs_.ofHampton,402F.3d257,  270(1stCir.2005)(explainingthat"[_w]e_Ԁhaveconsidered \ remandingthecasetothedistrictandbankruptcycourtsfor X further_factfinding_Ԁ...butseenoneedtoimpose...onthe   courts'time"because,basedontherecord,"noreasonable `  _factfinder_"coulddisagreeastotheresult).Atmost,the  \  materialintheReportispotentiallyuntrue.Potentiallyuntrue   statementsaredefamatorywithinthemeaningof107(b)(2)onlyif d  theyarealsoirrelevantorincludedforimproperends.The `  contentsoftheReportdonotmeetthisstandard.    ` 1.Untruthfulness    ` Thebankruptcycourtconcludedthatthepartiesseeking   protectionunder107(b)(2)hadnotprovidedproofthatanyofthe f materialintheReportisinaccurate.The_Gittos_Ԁdonotdirectly b challengethatrulingonappeal. Instead,aswillusuallyhappen  inthese107(b)(2)cases,the_Gittos_'criticismdemonstratesonly j thatsomematerialintheReportispotentiallyuntrue.For  f  example,the_Gittos_Ԁassertthat"[_o]ne_Ԁofthegreatestproblems !" withtheReportisthewaytheExaminerattributeswrongdoingto n#$ the'_Gitto_Ԁ[_P]rincipals_,'agroupincludingmorethanCharlesand %j & Garry_Gitto_,whileconcedingthathecannot'allocate[blame] &"( preciselyamongthethree[principals].'"The_Gittos_Ԁalsocomplain r(#* that"someoftheharshestallegationsagainst[them]arehighly *n%, misleadinginthatthereisasharpdisconnectbetweentheevidence +'. collectedbytheExaminerandthesweepingconclusionsheis  willingtoadvance."Thesecontentionsdonotestablishthatthe \ Reportisuntrue,norwouldtheyobligateabankruptcycourtto X engageinadditional_factfinding_Ԁontheissue.Theydemonstrate   onlythatmaterialintheReportmaylaterturnouttobeuntrue, `  apointwhichisbeyonddisputeinlightoftheacknowledgmentin  \  theReportthat"[_c]ontinued_Ԁinvestigationmayleadtoevidence   whichsupportsorcontradicts...statements[herein]."Given d  thiscaveatandthepreliminarynatureoftheReport,wewill `  assume,asdidthedistrictcourt,thattheReportincludes   potentiallyuntruematerialthatwouldcauseareasonablepersonto h alterhisopinionofthe_Gittos_. d  ` 2.Irrelevanceorinclusionforimproperends c  ` Materialthatispotentiallyuntrueandthatwouldcause b areasonablepersontoalterhisopinionofaninterestedparty  triggerstheprotectionsof107(b)(2)ifitisalsoirrelevantto j thecaseinwhichitwasfiledorifitisincludedwithinafiling  f  forimproperends.Neitherofthosecircumstancesispresenthere. !"  ` a.Irrelevance #$  ` ThebankruptcycourtappointedtheExaminerpursuantto %!& 11U.S.C.1104(c),whichcontemplatesanexaminer"_conduct[ing_] l'"( suchaninvestigationofthedebtorasisappropriate,includingan )h$* investigationofanyallegationsoffraud,dishonesty, *&, incompetence,misconduct,mismanagement,orirregularityinthe  managementoftheaffairsofthedebtoroforbycurrentorformer \ managementofthedebtor."Overthethreemonthsfollowinghis X appointment,theExaminerengagedinanextensiveinvestigationof   prepetitionirregularitiesandmisconduct.AstheExamineran `  appelleeinthiscaserelatesinhisbrief,he"interviewed  \  dozensofwitnesses,reviewedthousandsofpagesofdocuments,and   preparedaReportrunningmorethan150pages."See11U.S.C. d  1106(a)(4)(A)(requiringtheExaminertofileastatementofhis `  investigation).    ` TheReportcatalogspreciselythetypesofallegations   describedin11U.S.C.1104(c) 󀄄namely,"_irregularit[ies_]in g themanagementoftheaffairsofthedebtor[_Gitto_ԀGlobal]oforby c ...formermanagementofthedebtor."_ #  8      _ԀId.Whilethese  allegationsmayaffectthereputationsofthoseatwhomtheyare k directed,thatpossibility,standingalone,doesnotrenderthem g defamatorywithinthemeaningof107(b)(2).Theinformationin   theReportisdirectlyrelevanttotheReport'spurpose,whichthe o!" Examinerdescribesinhisbriefascreating"abaseofinformation #k$ sufficient[forcreditors]toassesswhethertheymayhaveclaims $ & againstmanagement,shareholders,orotherswhohaveworkedwith s&!( thecorporation."ThefactthattheReportwillbeusedby  creditorsandshareholderstoassesstheirclaims,ratherthanby \ thecourttoadjudicateadispute,doesnotmakethematerial X includedthereinanylessrelevanttothebankruptcycase.The   relevancyofthematerialintheReportissimilarlyunaffectedby `  thefactthattheReportdiscussesprepetitionconduct,asopposed  \  toongoingconduct.Asthedistrictcourtrecognized,"theavenues   adebtormaypursuetorecoverforarguablyimproperactivityby d  itsformerofficersandtheirassociatesremainsofconcerntothe `  missionofthebankruptcycourt."(Emphasisadded.)    ` b.Improperends    ` Thequestionofwhetherthepotentiallyuntruematerial   wasincludedforanimproperendisalsonohelptothe_Gittos_' f 107(b)(2)claim.TheExaminer'sdisinterestedstatusinthis b caseisnotinquestion,noristhereanyindicationwhatsoever  thathedraftedtheReportinbadfaithorotherwiseincludedthe j allegedlydefamatorymaterialforanimproperpurpose.Cf.Phar  f  Mor,191_B.R._Ԁat67980(concludingthatacomplaintthatwasfiled !" for"strategicreasonswhichwouldnotbeapparent[]onitsface" n#$ fellwithinthe107(b)(2)exception). %j &  ` The_Gittos_Ԁthereforecannotshowthatpotentiallyuntrue 'i"(  materialintheReportiseitherirrelevantorincludedforan ($* improperend.Therefore,thebankruptcycourtdidnoterrin  denyingtheirrequestforprotectionunder107(b)(2)._e #  9      _ \    IV.  [  ` Toqualifyforprotectionunderthe107(b)(2)exception v  fordefamatorymaterial,aninterestedpartymustshow(1)thatthe " r materialatissuewouldalterhisreputationintheeyesofa    reasonableperson,and(2)thatthematerialisuntrueorthatit z  ispotentiallyuntrueandirrelevantorincludedforanimproper &v  end.The_Gittos_Ԁcannotmakesuchashowingwithregardtothe " Report.Therefore,uponissuanceofthemandate,andoncethe ~ ExaminerdeletesallbankaccountnumbersincludedintheReport *z  anditsexhibitspursuanttotheunchallengedrulingofthe & bankruptcycourtregardingtheredactionofconfidential  information,theReportshallbefiledpublicly. \   ` Soordered.Judgmentaffirmed.