The motion’s most forceful argument is that many of the letters address Langston’s cooperation, and should be confidential because of that. He also argues that they are a part of the presentence report, which is confidential, an argument that Judge Biggers expressly rejected in the Scruggs case. Another argument is that the public disclosure in Scruggs highlights the problem becuase the disclosure of those letters lead to calls for the resignation of a public official who had written letters for Scruggs. There is also a thorough review of the law on the subject, obviously from the perspective of keeping the letters confidential (any lawyer wanting a form to respond to such a request should add this to their forms file).
The motion also anticipates other requests in asking for a negative ruling. The ball is very much in Paul Quinn’s court now to respond to a fairly hard-hitting argument. Here’s the Langston response on sentencing letters.