Opinion ID: 1495397
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Court Records

Text: Relator contends that she and several parents were denied access to the records in this case after the gag order went into effect. She argues that this constitutes an unwritten sealing order, in violation of Rules 76 and 76a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. One such parent whose child was not represented by the principal plaintiffs' attorneys, Akins and Pettiette, was repeatedly told by a court clerk the file was sealed and that the Judge had put a gag order on the file. Affidavit of Cheryl Finley. Another parent swore that he was told by Judge Garcia personally that the record was closed until after the settlement hearing. Affidavit of Larry Carter. The co-owner of a community newspaper indicates that she and the paper's editor were told by a court clerk that the record was sealed. Affidavit of Marie Plickinger. The former Official Court Reporter for the 151st District Court in Harris County explained that a local reporter had requested access to the transcript of a hearing which considered whether the firm which would potentially administer a settlement had acted improperly. Affidavit of Jacquelyn Miles. When the Court Reporter told the court about this request, Judge Garcia informed [her] that the file was sealed to members of the general public until after the settlement had been finalized. Id. [69] The Real Parties in Interest, Joseph Edward Powell and Farm & Home Savings Association respond that Judge Garcia never ordered the file sealed. They present an affidavit from the Clerk of the 151st District Court which maintains that there is no order sealing this file by Judge Garcia, and also that Judge Garcia has not told me that access to this file is restricted, nor, to my knowledge, has she told anyone else that access to this file is restricted. Affidavit of Chris Sarrat. A parent of one of the children represented by Akins and Pettiette also states that Judge Garcia never represented to her that the files were sealed, and that she was never prohibited from looking at the court's file. Affidavit of Janice Villanueva. Court records are presumed to be open to the general public. Tex.R.Civ.P. 76a(l), and access to them is separately guaranteed to [e]ach attorney at law practicing in any court ... at all reasonable times to inspect. Tex.R.Civ.P. 76. The sealing of a record must meet the procedural prerequisites set forth in Rule 76a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See Chandler v. Hyundai Motor Co., 829 S.W.2d 774 (1992) (per curiam). A court may not escape the strict obligations of those rules by tacitly closing the record through an unwritten order. In this instance, however, we are presented with conflicting affidavits as to whether the court records were made available to the public. These affidavits create a fact issue which this court may not address on mandamus. See Brady v. Fourteenth Court of Appeals, 795 S.W.2d 712, 714 (Tex.1990, orig. proceeding). Additionally, it is the understanding of this court that with the gag order lifted, there should be no impediment to viewing the court records. If, after this opinion issues, Relator should find her access to the records in any way obstructed, she remains free to pursue appropriate remedies.