Case Name: Jennifer Devall COPELAND v. Alvin C. COPELAND
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2007-10-16
Citations: 966 So. 2d 1040
Docket Number: No. 2007-CC-0177
Parties: Jennifer Devall COPELAND v. Alvin C. COPELAND.
Judges: JOHNSON, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 966
Pages: 1040–1054

Head Matter:
Jennifer Devall COPELAND v. Alvin C. COPELAND.
No. 2007-CC-0177.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Oct. 16, 2007.
Correro, Fishman, Haygood, Phelps, Walmsley & Casteix, James Richard Swanson, Loretta Gallaher Mince, Lance C. McCardle, New Orleans, for applicant.
Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, Philip A. Wittmann, Daria, B. Diaz, New Orleans, Magee & Devereux, Mary Cle-menee Devereux, Covington, Lowe, Stein, Hoffman, Allweiss & Hauver, Robert Charles Lowe, Suzette Marie Smith, New Orleans, Joseph Marc Vezina, for respondent.

Opinion:
VICTORY, J.
hWe granted this writ application to address whether the trial court, on remand, abused its discretion in sealing certain documents in the Copeland divorce/custody case. After reviewing the record and the applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for further proceedings.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The divorce proceedings between Jennifer Devall Copeland and Alvin Copeland (the "Copelands") sparked the interest of the Times-Picayune, L.L.C. newspaper (the "Times-Picayune"). The Copelands filed a Joint Motion to Seal the Record, which the trial court granted. The Times-Picayune intervened, seeking to unseal the entire record. The trial court denied the newspaper access by ruling that the Times-Picayune could not intervene and ordering that the entire record remain sealed. The court of appeal also denied the Times-Picayune access, stating that "on the showings made, we find no error" in the trial court's ruling. Copeland v. Copeland, 06-0713 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/27/06). This Court granted the Times-Picayune's writ application and held that "the judgment of the trial court sealing the entire record is vacated and set aside." Copeland v. Copeland, 06-1023 (La.6/2/06), li>930 So.2d 940 ("Copeland /"). We remanded the case to the trial court to conduct a new hearing on the parties' motion to seal consistent with the following reasoning:
Considering the strong constitutional bias in favor of open access by the public to court proceedings, we find the trial court's blanket order sealing the entire record in this case to be overbroad. Although there may be some justification for sealing certain sensitive evidence in a proceeding, the parties have the burden of making a specific showing that their privacy interests outweigh the public's constitutional right of access to the record. The trial court, should it grant such relief, must ensure that its order is narrowly tailored to cause the least interference possible with the right of public access.
Id. at 941.
In accordance with this ruling, the trial court conducted a hearing on July 5, 2006 on the Copeland's motion to seal the record. After the hearing, the court issued a Judgment and Written Reasons for Judgment that left all of the substantive pleadings in the case, except Mrs. Copeland's initial Petition for Divorce, under seal. The substantive pleadings under seal are as follows: A1 Copeland's Answer and Re-conventional Demand and supporting affidavits, filed March 30, 2006; Jennifer De-vall Copeland's Answer to Reconventional Demand, filed April 4, 2006; Joint Stipulation, filed April 4, 2006; two Consent Judgments, entered on February 17, 2006 and April 4, 2006; and a Judgment of Divorce entered April 4, 2006. In support of its ruling, the trial court stated as follows:
In this case the sealing of the record is meant to protect the children from the public, to shield them from the embarrassment, ridicule, and derision of their peers and from unwanted scrutiny of unscrupulous strangers whose knowledge of the finer details of the children's custody and visitation arrangements .might enable them to do the children harm.
The court of appeal denied the Times-Picayune's writ application. Copeland v. Copeland, 06-1941 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/28/06). We granted the Times-Picayune's writ application to consider whether the trial court complied with our ruling in Copeland I. Copeland v. Copeland, 07-0177 (La.3/23/07), 951 So.2d 1102.
J^BISCUSSION
Although there is no express federal constitutional provision providing for access to judicial records and proceedings, as early as 1947, the United States Supreme Court held that "a trial is a public event [and][w]hat transpires in the court room is public property." Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 374, 67 S.Ct. 1249, 91 L.Ed. 1596 (1947). In 1978, the Court also recognized that the public has a right to inspect and copy public court records. Nixon v. War ner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978).
Unlike the federal constitution, the Louisiana Constitution has an "open courts" provision, providing that "[a]ll courts shall be open ." La. Const, art. I, § 22. LCiting this provision, we have held that "[ojpenness in court proceedings may improve the quality of testimony, induce unknown witnesses to come forward with relevant testimony, cause all trial participants to perform their duties more conscientiously, and generally give the public an opportunity to observe the judicial system." State v. Birdsong, 422 So.2d 1135, 1137 (La.1982) (citing Gannett, supra, 443 U.S. at 383, 99 S.Ct. 2898).
In addition, Article 12, § 3 of the Louisiana Constitution provides that "[n]o person shall be denied the right to observe the deliberations of public bodies and examine public documents, except in cases established by law." Louisiana's Public Records Law contains a broad definition of public records and numerous specific exceptions to this law. La. R.S. 44:l(A)(2)(a) (defining "public records" as "[a]ll books, records, writings . having been used, . or retained for use in the conduct, transaction, or performance of any business . under the authority of the constitution or the law of this state . "); La. R.S. 44:31 (mandating that "[ejxcept as otherwise provided in this Chapter or as otherwise specifically provided by law, and in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, any person of the age of majority may inspect, copy, or reproduce any public record"); see also La. C.C.P. art. 251 (providing that "[ejxcept as otherwise provided by law, [the clerk of court] shall permit any person to examine, copy, photograph, or make a memorandum of any of these records at any time during which the clerk's office is required by law to be open").
Recognizing the public's right of access to public records is of constitutional dimension, we held in Title Research Corp. v. Rausch, 450 So.2d 933, 936 (La.1984),e that the right of the public to have access to mortgage and conveyance records on file with the clerk of court "is a fundamental right, and is guaranteed by the constitution." We further held:
The provision of the constitution must be construed liberally in favor of free and unrestricted access to the records, and that access can be denied only when a law, specifically and unequivocally, provides otherwise. Whenever there is doubt as to whether the public has the right of access to certain records, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the public's right to see. To allow otherwise would be an improper and arbitrary restriction on the public's constitutional rights.
Id. Since Title Research Corp., we have reaffirmed that "the public has a constitutional right of access to court records." Copeland I, supra, 930 So.2d at 941 (citing Title Research Corp., supra); In re John Doe, 96-2222 (La.9/13/96), 679 So.2d 900, 901(holding that "[a]s a general rule, pleadings filed in this Court are public records and are not subject to being sealed.")
However, the fact that a document is filed in the court record does not necessarily mean that it will be accessible by the public. In commenting on a court's power to restrict the public's access to court records, the United States Supreme Court held that "the right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute" and that "every court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and [that] access has been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper | fipurposes." Nixon, supra, 435 U.S. at 599, 98 S.Ct. 1306. The Court declined to "identify all the factors to be weighed in determining whether such access is appropriate," but recognized that "the discretion as to access is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case." Id. As we held in Bester v. Louisiana Supreme Court Committee on Bar Admissions, 00-1360 (La.2/21/01), 779 So.2d 715, 721, regardless of the fact that the public records law does not contain any specific exceptions for records and documents maintained by this Court, this Court has a "constitutional, inherent duty and responsibility to regulate all facets of the practice of law," which includes "the right to determine when and under what circumstances sensitive materials under our exclusive superintendency and control should be shielded from disclosure."
A trial court's discretion in exercising this right often comes in the form of sealing all or part of a court record. Although Louisiana has no specific statutory provision allowing trial courts to seal court records, general provisions exist under which trial courts exercise this power. For instance, Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 191 provides that "a court possesses inherently all of the power necessary for the exercise of its jurisdiction even though not granted expressly by law." In addition, La. C.C.P. art. 1631(A) provides that "[t]he court has the power to require that the proceedings shall be conducted with dignity and in an orderly and 17expeditious manner, and to control the proceedings at the trial, so that justice is done."
In this case, the trial court treated the motion to seal as a motion for protective order pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 1426. This article pertains to discovery and provides ' that upon motion, the court "may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." However, this relatively low standard is only applicable to discovery materials, and does not apply to motions to seal documents contained in the court's public record. Courts and commentators have increasingly recognized that there is no presumptive right to public access to discovery materials, as discovery rules allow for broad and searching review of a party's files and review of these materials traditionally takes place in private and the documents may never be presented to, or introduced in, a court. George F. Carpinello, Public Access to Court Records in New York: The Experience under Uniform Rule 216.1 and the Rule's Future in a World of Electronic Filing, 66 Alb. L.Rev. 1089, 1095-96. In contrast, documents filed with the court are presumptively relevant to the court's determination and their placement in the public record, which is in control of the parties, puts them in the public sphere. That is not to say that they cannot be taken out of the public sphere by the trial court upon a motion to seal, it is just that, because they are now public records, the standard from taking them out of the public's view is higher than that provided by La. C.C.P. art. 1426 relative to discovery materials. Thus, the trial court erred in treating this motion to seal as a motion for protective order under La. C.C.P. art. 1426. A party's claim of mere "annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense" is not enough to overcome the public's right of access to public records.
|RAs stated earlier, Louisiana has a constitutional open courts provision and a constitutional public records provision. Further, no state statute excepts divorce proceedings from either provision. While La. Ch.C. art. 407 provides that proceedings before the juvenile court, with certain exceptions, "shall not be public," the law contains no such provisions with regard to divorce or child custody proceedings which would take such proceedings outside the scope of Art. 1, § 22 or Art. 12, § 3. Likewise, La. C.C. art. 135, which provides that "[a] custody hearing may be closed to the public," provides no basis for closing the courts in this case, as there was no "custody hearing" involved. Thus, as we inherently held in Copeland I, this constitutional right of access extends to civil divorce proceedings. Copeland, supra at 941.
However, that being said, even without a statute exempting certain court proceed ings and documents from public review, the constitutional right of access is not unlimited. Article 1, § 5 of the Louisiana Constitution, which provides, in part, that "[ejvery person shall be secure in his person, property, communications, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches, seizures, or invasions of privacy," protects certain documents and information from disclosure. We have defined the right to privacy as "the right to be 'let alone,' . and to be free from 'unnecessary public scrutiny.' " DeSalvo v. State, 624 So.2d 897, 901 (La.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1117, 114 S.Ct. 1067, 127 L.Ed.2d 386 (1994). In Bester, supra, we noted that, in addition to the specific statutory exceptions found elsewhere, the protection provided by Art. I, § 5 has prevailed over the public's right to know and has protected certain documents and information from disclosure. Bester, supra at 720 (citing Trahan v. Larivee, 365 So.2d 294 (La.App. 3 Cir.1978), writ denied 366 So.2d 564 (La.1979)).
l9We have also "defined the limits on the right to privacy [as follows]: 'the right to privacy is not absolute; it is qualified by the rights of others . The right of privacy is also limited by society's right to be informed about legitimate subjects of public interest.' " Plaquemines Parish Comm. Council v. Delta Development Co., Inc., 472 So.2d 560, 567-68 (La.1985) (citing Parish Nat'l Bank v. Lane, 397 So.2d 1282, 1286 (La.1981)). As this Court pointed out in Lane, "[ijndividuals involved in civil litigation may be compelled to give evidence which tends to embarrass them or to produce documents of a confidential nature." 397 So.2d at 1286.
In the context of divorce proceedings, commentators have noted that other state courts have handled access to divorce proceedings in different ways:
Some courts have applied the common-law rule to prevent those not having a legitimate interest in the divorce proceedings from having access to the entire record, while other courts cited statutes mandating the sealing of divorce records. In some cases involving the custody of children, courts have denied access to the divorce records to protect the children. Courts have also held a number of documents and types of information not to be subject to disclosure in relation to divorce proceedings, including financial information and paternity results. Furthermore, a state court may seal the record until the divorce decree has been entered in order to encourage conciliation.
Recently, however, the practice of closing divorce proceedings has been changing to allow the public more access in divorce cases. Privacy interests no longer mandate closure of these proceedings in many jurisdictions, although they are still relevant in balancing the interests involved in disclosure. When all factors are equal, the right of access will prevail despite the parties' privacy interests. Several courts have also permitted access to records obtained in divorce proceedings, including financial information. Moreover, the salaciousness of the details in the divorce records has not been sufficient by itself to prevent disclosure in some states.
Peltz, Leonard, and Andrews, supra at 608 (cites omitted).
Because Louisiana law provides a constitutional right of access to public records and a constitutional open courts provision, and because there is no statutory |inIaw exempting divorce records and proceedings from this right of access, a balancing test must be employed. Thus, in this case, we framed the balancing test to be under taken by the trial court in analyzing the competing constitutional rights as follows:
Considering the strong constitutional bias in favor of open access by the public to court proceedings, we find the trial court's blanket order sealing the entire record in this case to be overbroad. Although there may be some justification for sealing certain sensitive evidence in a proceeding, the parties have the burden of making a specific showing that their privacy interests outweigh the public's constitutional right of access to the record. The trial court, should it grant such relief, must ensure that its order is narrowly tailored to cause the least interference possible with the right of public access.
Copeland, supra at 941. This balancing test properly subjects the parties' request to have the record sealed to the trial court's discretion, which has supervisory power over its own records and files, placing the burden of proof on the parties seeking closure, and balancing the parties' privacy interests against the public's constitutional rights of access to court proceedings and documents.
At the hearing on remand on the joint motion to seal, counsel for the Copelands urged their concern for the emotional well being of their children, as well as their physical safety, alluding that the sealed documents contained the custody arrangements and the financial arrangement between the Copelands. That was basically the extent of their showing that "their privacy interests outweigh[ed] the public's constitutional right of access to the record." M Based upon that showing, the trial court again sealed the record, with the exception of one pleading, finding that "sealing the record is meant to protect the children from the public, to shield them from embarrassment, ridicule, and derision of their peers and from the unwanted scrutiny of unscrupulous strangers whose knowledge of the finer details of the _JiJchildren's custody and visitation arrangements might enable them to do the children harm."
We agree that the Copelands have a constitutionally protected privacy interest relating to the safety and protection of their children. This privacy interest is both subjective and objective, in that an expectation in the protection and safety of the children of divorcing parents is "of a type which society at large is prepared to recognize as being reasonable." Capital City Press v. East Baton Rouge Parish Metropolitan Council, 96-1979 (La.7/1/97), 696 So.2d 562, 566. If disclosure of cer tain information would imperil the safety of the Copeland children, then the Copeland's interest in keeping this information private would outweigh the public's right of access to this information.
Thus, we have reviewed the sealed documents to determine if they contain any information which would jeopardize the children's safety, such that the children's privacy interests outweigh the public's right of access to the court's records. Upon review, we find that these documents do contain general information about custody and financial arrangements regarding the children, but that the vast majority of the | ^information, if released, would not impinge on the safety or security of the children. In fact, the custody information is not specific enough to inform anyone where the children might be at any particular time. As we ordered in Copeland I, if relief was to be granted because a privacy interest was shown that outweighed the public's constitutional right of access to the record, it must be "narrowly tailored to cause the least interference possible with the right of public access." Id. The court's order sealing six of the seven substantive pleadings filed in the case was not "narrowly tailored" and is once again too broad. Redaction of the record, rather than sealing, is the appropriate method of protecting the children in this case. Accordingly, we order the entire record unsealed, with redaction of the following information: (1) the name of the children's school; and (2) the location of the family home.
DECREE
For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this ruling.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
JOHNSON, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
. The Supreme Court's jurisprudence on these issues is summarized as follows. In Nixon, supra, a case involving the press's right of access to tapes that had been admitted into evidence in the Watergate trial, the Court held that "the courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents." 435 U.S. at 597, 98 S.Ct. 1306. In Nixon, the Court expressly rejected the idea that the press had a First Amendment right to inspect and copy the tapes, holding that the press did not have a right of access superior to that of the general public. 435 U.S. at 608-611, 98 S.Ct. 1306. In Gannett, Co. v. DePasquale, the Court appeared to be split on whether the press had a First Amendment right to access pretrial hearings. 443 U.S. 368, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 61 L.Ed.2d 608 (1979). One year later, in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980), the Court held that the First Amendment included a right to attend criminal trials. However, the plurality's seven separate opinions created confusion about the definition and scope of that right. In Globe Newspapers Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982), involving the mandatory closure of a rape trial Juring a minor's testimony, the Court held that mandatory closure violated the First Amendment right of access. The Court recognized that the right of access was not absolute and set forth that the closure must be necessitated by a compelling governmental interest, and must be narrowly tailored to serve that interest. 457 U.S. at 607, 102 S.Ct. 2613. See also Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 104 S.Ct. 819, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 (1984) ("Press-Enterprise I") (finding a First Amendment right of access to criminal pretrial jury selection and holding that the strict scrutiny test applied to attempts to close jury selection). The last word from the Supreme Court on this issue came from Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) ("Press-Enterprise II "), where the Court, relying on "experience and logic," held that the public has a qualified First Amendment right of access to preliminary hearings in a criminal case. Commentators have remarked that the lack of clear guidelines in the field of public access had led to confusion and inconsistent outcomes by lower courts. Richard J. Peltz, Joi L. Leonard, Amanda J. Andrews, The Arkansas Proposal on Access to Court Records: Upgrading the Common Law with Electronic Freedom of Information Norms, 59 Ark L.Rev. 555 (2006).
. Not all states have open court provisions in their constitutions. Those others that do provide a variety of access rights ranging from a qualified right to a nearly absolute right: Ala.Const. art. I, § 13; Colo. Const. art. II, § 6; Conn. Const. art. I, § 10; Del. Const. art. I, § 9; Fla. Const. art. I, § 21; Idaho Const. art. I, § 18; Ind. Const. art. I, § 12; Ky. Const. § 14; Miss. Const. art. III, § 24; Mont. Const. art. II, § 16; Neb. Const. art. I, § 13; N.C. Const. art. I, § 18; N.D. Const, art. I, § 9; Ohio Const, art. I, § 16; Okla. Const, art. II, § 6; Or. Const, art, I, § 10; Pa. Const, art. I, § 11; S.D. Const, art. VI, § 20; Tenn. Const, art. I, § 17; Tex. Const, art. I, § 13; Utah Const, art. I, § 11; W.Va. Const, art. Ill, § 17; Wyo. Const, art. I, § 8.
.Federal courts have differing views on what constitutes a "judicial record." The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that judicial records are not limited to evidence but applies to anything the court relied on to determine substantive rights. Smith v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, 956 F.2d 647, 650 (7th Cir.1992). Accord F.T.C. v. Standard Financial Management Co., 830 F.2d 404, 409, 412-13 (1st Cir.1987). The Sixth Circuit has held that a transcript that had not been admitted into evidence was not a judicial record. U.S. v. Beckham, 789 F.2d 401, 411 (6th Cir.1986). The Third Circuit held that documents submitted to the court but not physically on file with the court and returned to the parties after closure of the case were not judicial records. Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 781-82 (3rd Cir.1993). Finally, the Second Circuit has held that the mere filing of a document is insufficient to make it subject to a presumption of access; the court must actually rely on that document in the course of performing its judicial functions. United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141 (2nd Cir.1995); United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044 (2nd Cir.1995).
. The Court did specifically note that "common-law right of inspection has bowed before the power of a court to insure that its records are not 'used to gratify private spite or promote public scandal through the publication of the painful and sometimes disgusting details of a divorce case.' " Id. (Cites omitted).
. See Peltz, Leonard, and Andrews, supra at 591-603 for a discussion of the various approaches state courts have used in determining the right of access to judicial proceedings, applying either the common law, their constitutions, the U.S. Constitution, and state statutory law to determine the right of access.
. The trial court seemed to excuse this lack of proof, stating "I understand the position, it's hard to argue, articulate the need for privacy without letting the cat out of the bag."
. Capital City Press involved a newspaper's right of access to resumes for public employment. We held that "Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution applies only where one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the matter sought to be protected." Further, we held that "[t]he test for determining whether one has a reasonable expectation of privacy which is constitutionally protected 'is not only whether that person had an actual or subjective expectation of privacy, but also whether that expectation is of a type which society at large is prepared to recognize as being reasonable.' " Id. at 566, 567 (citing State v. Ragsdale, 381 So.2d 492, 497 (La.1980); State v. Harper, 27, 278 (La.App. 2 Cir. 8/23/95), 660 So.2d 537, 547, writ denied, 95-2318 (La. 1/12/96), 666 So.2d 320). We held that an applicant for public employment had no constitutionally protected right to privacy in his resume because statutory law did not exempt such resumes from the public records law and because "the resumes at issue have not been shown to contain facts which would expose the applicants to public disgrace or would intrude upon the applicant's seclusion, solitude, or private affairs." Id. at 568-69. Thus, there was no need to balance the conflicting constitutional rights in that case. Id.
. On the other hand, Mr. Copeland has made no showing that he has a expectation of privacy in his financial information that is constitutionally protected or that would outweigh the public's right of access to this information.