Oct. 28—Crawford County Court of Common Pleas ordered records in a civil case filed this summer unsealed following a legal challenge by The Meadville Tribune.
On Sept. 27, The Meadville Tribune filed a motion with Crawford County Court of Common Pleas to unseal the records.
A formal hearing on the matter had been scheduled for next week in Crawford County Court.
However, Judge Francis J. Schultz issued an order Thursday unsealing the case’s records.
Attorney Paula Knudsen Burke of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, who represented The Meadville Tribune, was pleased with the outcome.
“When court proceedings happen behind closed doors and in secret, the public is cut off from understanding if justice has been fairly administered,” Knudsen Burke said. “We applaud the court’s order opening up this divorce proceeding and ensuring that there is transparency in the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas.”
All records in the divorce case, which had been filed in July, were sealed completely from the public, including the identification of the two parties involved. The court’s sealing order also had been sealed.
In its motion, the Tribune says such secrecy violated both the U.S. and Pennsylvania constitutions by preventing the Tribune and the public from obtaining any information.
The Tribune generally does not publish divorce records and is not publishing the names of those involved in this particular case.
Both the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution guarantee members of the press and public a qualified right of access to proceedings and judicial records in civil matters like the divorce case in question, the motion argued.
The Tribune argued before sealing a record or closing a proceeding, a court must provide the public with notice and an opportunity to object. In addition, courts must make specific, on-the-record findings as to why closure is proper.
When making a closure determination, the court also must consider less-restrictive alternatives like redaction. The motion argued the court must make specific findings as to why alternative methods would not satisfactorily protect the interests of those involved.
Any on-the-record findings must be detailed sufficiently to allow a reviewing court to determine whether the closure was proper, the Tribune argued.
“No details except for the docket number are available. The decision to seal the matter in its entirety was made without any notice to the public and interested third parties, like the Tribune, were not given the opportunity to oppose this action,” the motion argued.
With the sealing document also sealed, the unnamed parties had not asserted a general privacy interest — much less specific, on-the-record findings — to justify the continued sealing of the matter, the Tribune argued.
Keith Gushard can be reached at (814) 724-6370 or by email at kgushard@meadvilletribune.com.