CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
SIGNATURE MANAGEMENT TEAM, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOHN DOE,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 16-2188
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor.
No. 5:13-cv-14005—Judith E. Levy, District Judge.
Argued: April 27, 2017
Decided and Filed: November 28, 2017
Before: SUHRHEINRICH, WHITE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff, Signature Management Team, LLC (“Team”), prevailed in this action for copyright infringement but appeals the district court’s refusal to unmask Defendant John Doe, an anonymous blogger. Because the district court failed to recognize the presumption in favor of open judicial records, we REMAND with instructions to reconsider unmasking Doe in light of this opinion.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
IN RE: SHANE M. HAFFEY, dba Sandlin Farms,
Debtor.
___________________________________________

SHANE HAFFEY,
Appellant,
v.
SAMUEL K. CROCKER, United States Trustee; DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS,
Appellees.
   Nos. 15-8018/8027
Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington.
No. 14-50824—Gregory R. Schaaf, Judge.
Argued: August 22, 2017
Decided and Filed: November 28, 2017
Before: HUMPHREY, OPPERMAN and PRESTON, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

C. KATHRYN PRESTON, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. In these consolidated appeals, Debtor Shane Haffey (“Debtor”), appeals the dismissal of his chapter 12 bankruptcy case. He asserts that he was denied due process when the Bankruptcy Court dismissed his case following an expedited hearing. Assistant United States Trustee John Daugherty (“Trustee”), and creditor Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (“Deutsche Bank”) assert that dismissal was appropriate given that the case had been pending over a year, Debtor was not profitable, Debtor was unable to propose a confirmable plan, and Debtor had engaged in dilatory tactics. For the reasons stated below, the Panel AFFIRMS.