A federal judge on Monday refused a litigant’s request to completely shield his civil case from public view, noting in a strongly worded order that the man had chosen to bring his otherwise private arbitration dispute into the federal court system.

“Federal judges and their court staff are not legal pawns to be deployed in secret by wealthy disputants trying to get private answers to their problems,” wrote U.S. Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter on June 9.

Leon D. Black, the former CEO of Apollo Global Management, paid $158 million to accused child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, who appeared to die by suicide while awaiting trial. Black subsequently paid a $62.5 settlement to the U.S. Virgin Islands related to Epstein’s alleged trafficking, and he also faced a since-terminated lawsuit brought by a woman who accused him of raping her at Epstein’s mansion.

On March 31, Black filed a petition in Colorado’s federal trial court seeking to enforce a request for documents issued in an arbitration case currently unfolding in New York. The subpoena was issued against Richard Emerson, who is not a party to the arbitration. Emerson allegedly refused to comply by producing only minimal documentation, leading Black to seek a federal court order to compel Emerson to disclose the materials.

However, Black asked that the entire case be restricted from public view, arguing there was a confidentiality provision in the arbitration proceedings.

Public disclosure would “undermine their bargained-for contractual right to a confidential proceeding,” argued Black’s lawyers.

Emerson responded by advocating for some documents to be shielded to protect the rights of himself and other non-parties to the arbitration. But he did not maintain the entire federal case should be confidential. Emerson also described the arbitration as being related to the Epstein revelations.

Neureiter, in his order, observed the federal judiciary’s policymaking body has referred to sealing of entire cases as “a last resort” to be done pursuant to a rule, a law or “extraordinary circumstances.” He elaborated that the courts frown upon the practice because it conceals “the very existence of lawsuits from the public.”

“The public has a fundamental interest in understanding the disputes presented to and decided by our courts, so as to assure that they are run fairly and that judges act honestly,” Neureiter wrote. “Sealing an entire case prevents critical public monitoring of the judge and judicial process.”

Black’s request, he concluded, is “is an affront to the public right of access to judicial proceedings and judicial documents.”

Neureiter confirmed that parties to an arbitration may agree to conduct the business confidentially. But there is always the possibility that someone will seek the intervention of federal courts — and with it, public disclosure.

“Any request for court intervention or assistance in an arbitration proceeding necessarily calls upon the public resources of a judicial officer to examine and decide the question presented. This is the basic functioning of the judicial process that the public has a right to see, understand, and criticize if they choose,” Neureiter wrote.

He denied Black’s request to seal the entire case, instead granting Emerson’s motion for a “more moderate restriction of material.”

At the same time, Neureiter gave Black three days to notify U.S. District Court Senior Judge William J. Martínez, who is also assigned to the case, if Black plans to object. Otherwise, Neureiter’s order unsealing the majority of the case would take effect.

As of midday Friday, the docket displayed no indication of an objection.

The case is Black v. Emerson.