The court filing Rachel mentioned in the Michael Cohen case today -- interesting because
Last edited Fri Oct 26, 2018, 12:45 AM - Edit history (2)
even though Cohen has already been charged and pleaded guilty, an investigation into unnamed OTHERS is still ongoing. The filing also cites the privacy needs of "numerous uncharged third parties." The NYTimes had asked to have some records unsealed, and the prosecution objected because of the ongoing investigation.
Also, the filing makes a curious reference to "wiretap materials." Does this particular investigation involve wiretap materials? Not clear -- but they didn't have to make the legal reference, and they did.
Also, the filing mentions the "campaign finance portions" of the materials. Does the ongoing investigation still involve campaign finance? It seems that it may.
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/USAO-NYT-Cohen.pdf
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On October 11, 2018, non-party The New York Times (the “Times”) filed a request to unseal certain materials (the “Materials”) relating to searches conducted in connection with the above-referenced case. As phrased, the Times’s request seeks the unsealing of affidavits, warrants, and riders associated with several different searches that were conducted in connection with a grand jury investigation into Michael Cohen and others, which remains ongoing. As set forth in detail below, unsealing of the Materials at the present time would interfere with this investigation, and would implicate significant privacy concerns for numerous uncharged third parties who are named in the Materials. For these reasons, and as set forth more fully in the Government’s supplemental submission, which is being filed under seal and ex parte (“Sealed Br.”), the Times’s motion should be denied.1
SNIP
As Judge Swain has explained in applying the governing “experience and logic test,” no First Amendment right of access attaches to search warrant materials because “[w]arrant application proceedings are highly secret in nature and have historically been closed to the press and public.” All Funds, 643 F. Supp. 2d at 583. And based on similar reasoning in an analogous context, the Second Circuit found no First Amendment right of access to wiretap materials. See In re the Application of the New York Times Co. to Unseal Wiretap & Search Warrant Materials (In re Wiretap), 577 F.3d 401, 410 (2d Cir. 2009). Thus, the Court should find that no First Amendment right of access attaches here.
SNIP
The Materials include detailed information about the conduct of third parties. As the Court is surely aware, this case has been the subject of an unusual amount of public attention and speculation about the nature and scope of the Government’s investigation. If the Materials were unsealed in redacted form, such redactions would likely need to be extensive to protect the ongoing investigation and the privacy interests of the numerous uncharged third parties. As a result, the disclosures “would provide little meaningful information to the public.” Id. at 1048. What is more, the disclosure would almost certainly result in a very public guessing game in which the media and members of the public attempted to guess the identities of the uncharged parties described in the Materials – particulary the campaign finance portions. This would leave those individuals in the unfair position of defending against speculation that they were or currently are under investigation. Id. at 1052.
ALSO A COUPLE INTERESTING FOOTNOTES:
In addition, the Second Circuit’s holding in In re Newsday, Inc. related to Rule 41 search warrant materials, whereas the Times’s request encompasses both Rule 41 search warrant materials and Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) search warrant materials. However, even assuming, arguendo, that the common law right of access applies to both Rule 41 and SCA warrants, that right is outweighed for the reasons set forth herein.
The Government has not notified the uncharged third parties that they were named in the Materials, in part because disclosure of that fact to certain of the uncharged third parties would itself impair the ongoing investigation.
Stored Communications Act - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act
= new reply since forum marked as read
Cohen has the goods. 
