Seems there's some misapprehension about what going on. This is the necessary result of the asinine SC immunity decision. The decision requires the trial court consider extensive detailed evidence about the Buffoon and associates conduct to determine what is and what is not immune conduct. Short of live witnesses the next best evidence is transcripts and investigative notes. Since court proceedings are public such filings are public subject to some redactions for privacy and security reasons.

It has nothing, again nothing, to do with trial in the media or providing an advantage. It's about how the SC requires immunity to be evaluated.

For what it's worth, I generally agree with the SC's bottom line conclusions about immunity but the procedural mechanism it created is asinine. The trial and appellate court's had already generally adhered to the bottom line conclusions using normal motion practice. The Court should have simply declined the interlocutory appeal and dealt with it in the the normal course after judgement, if necessary.