Opinion ID: 1233074
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sealed records

Text: We have not previously addressed the requirements necessary to the sealing of judicial records. The trial court here stated merely that it believed sealing the record would encourage private settlement between the parties. While this may be an appropriate factor , it is, standing alone, insufficient. The courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents. Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. , 435 U.S. 589, 597, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 1312, 55 L.Ed. (2d) 570, 579 (1978). This presumption of access, however, may be rebutted where counter-vailing interests outweigh the public interests in access. Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc. , 846 F. (2d) 249, 253 (4th Cir.1988). The burden is on the party who seeks to overcome the presumption of access to show that the interest in secrecy outweighs the presumption. Bank of America National Trust v. Hotel Rittenhouse , 800 F. (2d) 339, 344 (3rd Cir.1986). On the record before us, Respondents make no such showing. There is no evidence that the order was instrumental in reaching the settlement, or that it remains necessary for protection of the parties' interests. Accordingly, we remand for a trial court determination based upon all relevant factors. Hereafter, when a protective order sealing the record is sought, the trial court shall make specific factual findings, on the record, which weigh the need for secrecy against the right of access. Factors to be considered may not be limited to, but should include: the ensuring of a fair trial; the need for witness cooperation; the reliance of the parties upon confidentiality; the public or professional significance of the lawsuit; and the harm to parties from disclosure. See, e.g., Mokhiber , 537 A. (2d) at 1116-1117. Reversed and remanded. GREGORY, C.J., and HARWELL, FINNEY and TOAL, JJ., concur.