FIFTH JUDICIAL DIST. OF COLO.
Opinion in Chambers
scripts at issue here in their entirety, or to release some portions while redacting others. Their release, I believe, is imminent. I recognize the importance of the constitutional interests at issue. See, e. g., Capital Cities Media, Inc v. Toole, 463 U.S. 1303, 1304 (1983) (Brennan, J., in chambers); Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 423 U.S. 1327, 1329 (1975) (Blackmun, J., in chambers). But a brief delay will permit the state courts to clarify, perhaps avoid, the controversy at issue here. See Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 423 U. S. 1319, 1325 (1975) (same).
Consequently, the application is denied without prejudice to the applicants' filing again in two days' time. Should they do so, the respondent shall file a response one day subsequent indicating: (1) (if the trial court has acted) why any redacted portions of the transcripts must remain confidential; or (2) (if the trial court has not acted) which portions of the transcripts it believes, in light of the trial court's admissibility determinations, should remain confidential and why. The applicants shall file their reply, if they wish to file one, one further day later.
The application is denied without prejudice.
