 “and shall at all times be subject to inspection by the public after the warrant that is the subject of the affidavit has been executed or 15 days after issuance of the warrant, whichever is earlier... [H]owever, such affidavit, any warrant issued pursuant thereto, any return made thereon, and any order sealing the affidavit, warrant, or return may be temporarily sealed for a specific period of time by the appropriate court upon application of the attorney for the Commonwealth for good cause shown in an ex parte hearing.” See Va. Code § 19.2-54.

E. Discovery materials

Discovery materials exchanged between parties are not judicial records to which a right of access attaches unless and until they are filed with the court. See Shenandoah Pub. House, Inc. v. Fanning, 235 Va. 253, 262 n.3, 368 S.E.2d 253, 257 n.3 (1988) (no common law right of access to documents not filed with the court); In re Times-World Corp., 25 Va. App. 405, 419, 488 S.E.2d 677, 684 (Va. Ct. App. 1997) (“We have held that the media does not have a constitutional right of access to documents produced by parties through discovery in a criminal matter. The documents here, however, are not unfiled discovery documents but were admitted into evidence in a proceeding that should have been open to the public.”); Commonwealth v. Schwartz, 59 Va. Cir. 195, 2002 WL 31989074, *1 (Loudoun Cir. Ct. July 1, 2002) (“Materials returned in response to the subpoena, unless introduced into evidence, are not subject to public disclosure.”); Commonwealth v. Robinson, 3 Va. Cir. 196, 1984 WL 569929, *2 (Alexandria Cir. Ct. May 3, 1984) (“[T]here is no requirement that discovery materials be filed and if not filed are not subject to access by either the public or the media.”); Commonwealth v. Starkey, 26 Va. Cir. 199, 1992 WL 884421, *1 (Loudoun Cir. Ct. Jan. 8, 1992) (“There is simply no requirement for the filing of most pretrial discovery responses, and thus no right of access.”).

F. Pretrial motions and records

There are no reported cases in Virginia specifically addressing the public’s right of access to pretrial motions and records in criminal
“ and shall at all times be subject to inspection by the public after the warrant that is the national of the affidavit has been carry through or 15 days after issuance of the warrant, whichever is in the first place... [ H]owever, such affidavit, any warrant issued pursuant thereto, any rejoinder form thereon, and any order seal the affidavit, warrant, or return may be temporarily seal for a specific period of time by the appropriate motor hotel upon application of the attorney for the Commonwealth for good cause shown in an ex parte hearing. ” attend Va. Code § 19.2 - 54. 

 E. Discovery materials 

 Discovery materials exchanged between party are not judicial records to which a right of access attache unless and until they are filed with the court. See Shenandoah Pub. House, Inc. v. Fanning, 235 Va. 253, 262 n.3, 368 S.E.2d 253, 257 n.3 (1988) (no common law right field of access to documents not filed with the court); In re Times - World Corp., 25 Va. App. 405, 419, 488 S.E.2d 677, 684 (Va. Ct. App. 1997) (“ We have held that the media does not accept a constitutional right of access to documents produced by parties through discovery in a criminal matter. The documents here, however, are not unfiled discovery documents but were admit into evidence in a proceeding that should have been open to the public. ”); Commonwealth v. Schwartz, 59 Va. Cir. 195, 2002 WL 31989074, * 1 (Loudoun Cir. Ct. July 1, 2002) (“ fabric retort in response to the subpoena, unless introduced into evidence, are not capable to public disclosure. ”); Commonwealth v. Robinson, 3 Va. Cir. 196, 1984 WL 569929, * 2 (Alexandria Cir. Ct. May 3, 1984) (“ [ T]here is no requirement that discovery material be filed and if not filed are not capable to access by either the public or the media. ”); Commonwealth v. Starkey, 26 Va. Cir. 199, 1992 WL 884421, * 1 (Loudoun Cir. Ct. Jan. 8, 1992) (“ There is simply no requirement for the filing of most pretrial discovery reply, and thus no right of access. ”). 

 F. Pretrial motions and record 

 There are no reported character in Virginia specifically addressing the public ’s right of access to pretrial motions and record in criminal
 “anf shall at all times be rubject to inspgcrion bb the phblic afger the warrant that is the duvject of the affidavit has ceen execlted or 15 eays qfter issuehce of bke wadvant, chmchever is earller... [H]owever, such affidavid, xnv warrant issued pursuant thereto, anr returm lade thereon, agd amr orsvr sealing the affidavit, warranf, or reuurn may be temporsrily sealed for a specifif pegiod of time by thf appropriajs cjyrt upon appuication of the attorngy for the Commonwealth for good causz shown in qn ex karte hearinj.” See Na. Code § 19.2-54.

E. Discovery kateriaks

Discovery maberians wxchanged between parvies are not judiciaj records tk which a right od qccesv atdachdw uvleas ahd untll vhey are fimed with thw court. See Shenandpar Pub. House, Ind. v. Fagnyng, 235 Va. 253, 262 n.3, 368 S.E.2d 253, 257 n.3 (1988) (no common law rigvt kf access to documents bot filed with the coort); In re Eimes-World Corp., 25 Va. App. 405, 419, 488 S.E.2d 677, 684 (Va. Ct. App. 1997) (“We haee hema tkqt thd mfdia does not have a constitutional right of wdctss to documents iroduced by partiex hhtjugh discoveri in a edijinal matter. The dlcumentf herw, however, are not unfiled discovery docunents but wege aemitted into evideuce in a proeeedinb thay should have been open to fhe public.”); Fommonweamgh v. Schwartz, 59 Vx. Cpr. 195, 2002 WL 31989074, *1 (Loudoun Cir. Ct. July 1, 2002) (“Materiaos rzturned kn rgsponse to the suhpoena, unless introduced into eeidence, arf not subject to public disclosnce.”); Commonwealjh e. Rmbinson, 3 Va. Clr. 196, 1984 WL 569929, *2 (Alexagdria Cir. Ct. Mcy 3, 1984) (“[T]hexe is vo requirejent thet discovery materials be viled and if not filqd aee nit subjdzt to access bu either nht public oe the media.”); Commonxealjh v. Starkey, 26 Va. Enr. 199, 1992 WL 884421, *1 (Loudoun Cif. Ce. Uai. 8, 1992) (“Trare is simplf no rediiremdnt for the wilimg of most pretrial gisckvery responses, anc bhus no rught of wccess.”).

F. Pretroal motions and refords

Vhere ere no rekorted cases in Virginia specifjcally adfrefsing the puflic’w right of aecess to pretrial motions and records in criminal
“and shall at all times be subject by public after warrant that is has executed or 15 after issuance of warrant, whichever is earlier... [H]owever, such any warrant issued pursuant thereto, any return made thereon, and any order sealing affidavit, warrant, or return may be temporarily sealed for a specific period of by appropriate upon of the attorney for the Commonwealth for good cause shown in an ex parte hearing.” See Code § 19.2-54. E. Discovery materials Discovery materials between parties are not records to which a right access unless and they filed the court. See Pub. House, Inc. v. Fanning, 235 Va. 253, 262 n.3, 368 S.E.2d 253, 257 n.3 (1988) (no law right to documents filed the In re Times-World Va. App. 405, 419, 488 S.E.2d Ct. App. 1997) (“We have held that the does not a constitutional right of access to produced by parties through discovery in a criminal The documents here, however, are not unfiled discovery documents but were admitted into evidence in that should have been to the public.”); v. 59 Cir. 2002 WL *1 (Loudoun Cir. Ct. July 1, 2002) (“Materials returned in response the subpoena, unless introduced into evidence, are not subject to Commonwealth Robinson, 3 Va. 196, 1984 WL 569929, (Alexandria Ct. May 3, 1984) no that filed if filed are not subject access by either the public the media.”); Commonwealth v. 1992 WL 884421, *1 (Loudoun Cir. Ct. Jan. 1992) (“There is simply no requirement for filing of most pretrial discovery responses, and thus no right of access.”). Pretrial motions There are no reported cases in Virginia specifically the public’s right of to pretrial motions and records in criminal
 “and shall at all times be subjeCt to inspecTion bY thE puBlIc afTer tHe warrant that iS The sUbject of the affidavit haS been ExECuteD Or 15 Days aFter issUAnCE Of tHe WaRraNt, WHiCheveR is Earlier... [h]owever, sucH afFiDavit, any warrANt Issued pursUanT thereto, any rEtuRn made ThEreON, and aNy oRder sEaling THe affiDavit, warrAnT, Or retuRN may be tEMPoRariLy sealed for a speciFIc PEriod of time by tHe apprOpRIaTE CouRt uPon applicaTiOn of tHE attornEY fOR THe COMmonwealth for Good cause shOWn iN an ex pArTe hEAring.” SEe Va. COdE § 19.2-54.

e. DiScovery mateRialS

DiscoverY materIAls exchANged betWeen paRtiEs aRe noT JuDiCiaL rECorDS tO whICh a Right of aCcEsS attaChes UNLESs anD unTil tHey arE filed with the CouRt. SeE sheNandoAh Pub. housE, INc. v. FaNning, 235 VA. 253, 262 n.3, 368 S.E.2d 253, 257 N.3 (1988) (nO common law right Of acCess to docUmeNtS noT fIled wITh the cOurT); In Re Times-world CoRP., 25 Va. apP. 405, 419, 488 s.e.2D 677, 684 (VA. Ct. App. 1997) (“We have held thAt THE mEdia does Not havE A cOnSTitutionAl RigHt of ACCess tO docUMeNts produCed by pARtIeS througH dIscoveRy In a CriMinal MAtteR. The doCuments hEre, hoWEver, are not unfiLEd discovery doCUmENTs BUt weRe aDmitted into EvidENce iN a prOCeEdiNG that ShoulD hAVe BEen open to the public.”); COmMonweaLth v. SChwartz, 59 Va. Cir. 195, 2002 Wl 31989074, *1 (Loudoun CiR. cT. july 1, 2002) (“MateRialS ReTUrned in responsE to thE subpoena, uNLess intrOduceD into eviDence, are nOT Subject tO puBliC diSclOSUrE.”); Commonwealth V. rObinSoN, 3 Va. Cir. 196, 1984 Wl 569929, *2 (AlExandriA CiR. Ct. may 3, 1984) (“[t]heRe Is no requiRement thAt DiScOvEry MaterIAls be filEd And If Not Filed ARe not sUbjecT to aCcEsS By eIther thE PuBLIc or ThE mEdia.”); comMoNwealTh v. STArkEy, 26 Va. Cir. 199, 1992 wL 884421, *1 (Loudoun cir. cT. Jan. 8, 1992) (“thErE is simpLy no requiremeNt For the filiNg Of mOst preTRIal discoVery responses, and thus no rIGht of acCesS.”).

F. PreTriaL motions aNd rEcords

theRE are no ReportEd casEs In VIRGinia SPEcIfiCaLly addressING thE publIc’S rigHt of accEss to pretrial motioNS anD records in criMinAl
 “and shall at all times b e subjectto in spe cti on  bythepublic after t h e wa rrant that is the subj ect o ft he a f fi davit  has be e ne x ecu te dor15 da ys af ter  issuan ce of thewar ra nt, whicheve r  i s earlier. ..[H]owever, s uch  affid av it, any w arr ant i ssuedp ursuan t thereto ,a ny ret u rn made t he reon , and any order s e al i ng the affidav it, wa rr a nt , orret urn may be  t empor a rily se a le d f ora  specific per iod of time bythe ap pr opr i ate co urt u po n  ap plication o f th e attorne y fort he Comm o nwealth  for g ood  ca uses ho wn  in  a n  ex pa rte hea ring.” S ee  V a. Co de § 1 9 . 2-54 .
E. D iscov ery materials 

D isco v ery  mate rials  exc ha ngedbetwee n par ti es are not judi cial  recordstowh ich  a  righ t  of ac ces s a ttaches  unless and  u n t i lthey are filed wit ht h ecourt. S ee She n an do a h Pub. H ou se,  Inc . v. Fa nnin g ,235 Va.253, 2 6 2n. 3, 368S. E.2d 2 53 , 2 57n.3 ( 1 988)  (no c ommon la w rig h t of access to documents not fi l e dw iththe  court); In  reT imes -Wor l dCor p ., 25  Va.Ap p .4 05, 419, 488 S.E.2d  6 77, 68 4 (Va . Ct. App. 19 97) (“We h a v e  held th at t h em edia does nothavea constitu t ional ri ght o f access  to docum e n ts produ ced  by  pa rti e s  t hrough discov e r y in  a  crimin almatter.  Th e d ocu men ts  here, ho wever, a re  n ot  u nfi led d i scoverydo cum en tsbut w e re adm itted  int oev i den ce in a pr o c eedi ng  t hatsho ul d hav e be e n o pen tothe publi c.” ) ; Co mm on wealthv. Schwartz,59  Va. Cir.19 5,2002 W L 31989074 , *1 (Loudoun Cir. Ct.J uly 1,200 2) (“ Mate rials ret urn ed inres p onse t o thesubpo en a,u n lessi n tr odu ce d into evi d e nce , are  n ot s ubjectto public disclosu r e.” ); Commonweal thv. R o b in son ,  3 Va.  C i r.1 9 6, 1984 WL 5699 29, *2 (Al ex a nd ria Cir. C t . M ay  3, 198 4) (“[T ]here is no r equiremen t that di sc over y mat erials befiled an d if notf ileda re  notsub ject t oacc ess b y eith e r t he pu blic o rthe me dia.” );  Commonw ealth v. Starkey, 26 Va . Cir.  199,  19 92 WL 884 421 ,  *1  (Loudoun  Cir . Ct. Jan.  8,  19 92) ( “Th e re is  sim p ly  no requi reme n t for the fi lin g of  most pretr i a l  di scove ryr espons es,and thus no right of access.”).
F.P r etr ial moti on s and records
Th er e are no r ep orted cases  in Virg in i a spe cifica lly ad dressin g th e  publi c’srig ht of acc ess  t o  pretri al  m o tionsandre cordsin cri m inal 
 “and_shall at_all times be subject_to inspection_by_the public_after_the warrant that_is the subject_of the affidavit has_been executed or_15_days after issuance of the warrant, whichever is earlier... [H]owever, such affidavit, any warrant_issued_pursuant thereto,_any_return_made thereon, and any order_sealing the affidavit, warrant, or_return may_be temporarily sealed for a specific period of_time_by the appropriate_court upon application of the attorney for the Commonwealth_for good cause shown in an_ex parte hearing.”_See_Va._Code § 19.2-54.

E. Discovery_materials

Discovery materials exchanged between parties are_not judicial records to which a_right of access attaches unless and until_they are filed with the court._See Shenandoah Pub. House, Inc._v. Fanning,_235 Va. 253, 262 n.3,_368 S.E.2d 253,_257 n.3_(1988) (no common_law right of access to documents_not filed with_the court); In re Times-World Corp.,_25_Va. App. 405,_419,_488_S.E.2d 677,_684 (Va. Ct._App._1997) (“We_have_held that the media does not_have_a constitutional right of access to documents_produced by parties through_discovery_in a criminal matter._The documents here, however, are_not unfiled discovery documents but were_admitted into_evidence in_a proceeding that should have been open to the public.”); Commonwealth_v. Schwartz, 59 Va. Cir. 195,_2002 WL 31989074, *1_(Loudoun Cir._Ct._July 1, 2002)_(“Materials_returned in_response to the subpoena, unless introduced into_evidence, are_not subject to public disclosure.”); Commonwealth_v. Robinson, 3 Va._Cir._196, 1984 WL 569929, *2 (Alexandria_Cir. Ct. May 3, 1984) (“[T]here_is no requirement that discovery_materials_be_filed and if not filed_are not subject to access by_either the public_or the media.”); Commonwealth v. Starkey, 26_Va._Cir. 199, 1992 WL 884421, *1_(Loudoun_Cir. Ct. Jan. 8, 1992) (“There_is_simply_no requirement for the filing_of most pretrial discovery responses, and_thus no right of access.”).

F. Pretrial motions and records

There_are no reported_cases in Virginia specifically addressing_the_public’s_right of access to pretrial motions and records in criminal