You can read the order here. The judge has stayed the order until Sept. 30 to give the parties a chance to appeal. Here is the relevant discussion of potential chill of expert witnesses:
Defendant-Intervenors contend that “public dissemination of the [digital recording] could
have a chilling effect on . . . expert witnesses’ willingness ‘to cooperate in any future proceeding.’” ( Opp’n at 7.) However, the Court finds that this contention is mere “unsupported hypothesis or ” which may not be used by the Court as a basis for overcoming the strong presumption favor of access to court records. Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434.
Once again, a court requires actual evidence of potential chill to support non-disclosure.