Lowery Wilkinson Lowery, LLC et al v. State of Illinois et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
LOWERY WILKINSON LOWERY, LLC
ET AL,
Plaintiffs,
v. 	Case No. 25-CV-22-RAW
STATE OF ILLINOIS, ET AL.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the court is Non-Party Oklahoma Bar Association’s Motion to Access Sealed
Records and Brief in Support. [Dkt. No. 251]. Because it is unclear to the court which specific
documents the Non-Party is seeking, the Motion is DENIED without prejudice.
The Office of the General Counsel of the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) requests
intervention pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 (b) for the purpose of obtaining access to sealed
documents in this case. The OBA states that it is requesting these documents pursuant to its
investigation and prosecution of attorney misconduct. The Plaintiff has filed a response opposing
the OBA’s request [Dkt. No. 252].
The OBA’s Motion is procedurally proper as the court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate
ancillary matters even while the case is on appeal.1 Lancaster v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 5, 149
F.3d 1228, 1237 (10th Cir.1998) (Although a notice of appeal generally divests a district court of
1 Curiously, both the Non-Party and the Plaintiff incorrectly refer to this case as closed. However, on March 12,
2026, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recalled its previous Mandate issued on February 5, 2026, and reinstated
the appeal as to Plaintiff/Appellant Margaret Lowery. See Lowery v. State of Illinois, Nos. 2025- 7070 & 2026-7001
(10th Cir. App. March 12, 2026).
6:25-cv-00022-RAW Document 255 Filed in ED/OK on 04/07/26 Page 1 of 3

2
jurisdiction over the issues on appeal, the district court retains jurisdiction to consider certain
collateral matters unrelated to the issues on appeal, such as an award of attorney’s fees.)
Additionally, nonparties seeking protected information should seek leave to intervene pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 (b) to intervene for the purpose of obtaining sealed materials. United Nuclear
Corp. v. Cranford Ins. Co., 905 F.2d 1424, 1427 (10th Cir. 1990). Allowing a party to intervene
under Rule 24(b) is a matter within the district court's sound discretion. Id.
When this court considers whether to seal a document, it carefully weighs the arguments
in favor of sealing against the public right of access as to each document. The public's right of
access, while important, is not absolute. JetAway Aviation, LLC v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of
Montrose, 754 F.3d 824, 826 (10th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the Court may, in its discretion, “‘seal
documents if the public's right of access is outweighed by competing interests.’” Helm v. Kansas,
656 F.3d 1277, 1292 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Hickey, 767 F.2d 705, 708 (10th
Cir. 1985)). These principles are also reflected in Local Rule 79.1(a), which states: “It is the policy
of this Court that sealed documents ... are disfavored. Sealed documents ... may be approved by
the Court only upon a showing that a legally protected interest of a party, non-party, or witness
outweighs the compelling public interest in disclosure of records.” LCvR 79.1(a).
Thus, when deciding whether to seal or, in this case, unseal a particular document or filing,
the court’s reasoning is driven by each document’s contents and the specific arguments for and
against public access. Wholesale unsealing of all sealed documents in this case is not warranted
by the arguments made in the OBA’s motion. If the OBA believes that specific documents are
necessary for its disciplinary proceeding, the court will need more information about which
specific documents it wants. Then the court can properly reweigh the competing interest that
counseled in favor of sealing the documents against the OBA’s desire for access and the public’s
6:25-cv-00022-RAW Document 255 Filed in ED/OK on 04/07/26 Page 2 of 3

3
interests.
Therefore, the Non-Party Oklahoma Bar Association’s Motion to Access Sealed Records and Brief
in Support is DENIED without prejudice. [Dkt. No. 251].
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 7th day of April, 2026.
______________________________________
THE HONORABLE RONALD A. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
6:25-cv-00022-RAW Document 255 Filed in ED/OK on 04/07/26 Page 3 of 3