Opinion ID: 391003
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Particularized Privacy Interests Which May Weigh in Favor of Denying Public Access

Text: 73 To be weighed against the particularized reasons which may justify public access are the particularized privacy or other interests that the Church or the individual defendants may assert. 116 Some of these interests have already been weighed by the trial judge. 74 In his order of October 30, denying reconsideration of the earlier unsealing order, Judge Richey explained: 75 The defendants cite instances in which documents discuss the sex lives of members of the Church, tax returns of individuals, and attorney-client material of law firms. In order to make certain that such material, which would violate rights of innocent third-parties is not released, the Court will examine the documents at issue and will keep under seal those documents or portions of documents which would result in an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Of course such an exercise will be time consuming; however, fairness requires such a procedure. 117 76 The kinds of interests cited by the defendants below do not, we think, exhaust the types of particularized privacy interests that might be asserted in the supplemental proceedings, nor do we think that the privacy interests to be protected are limited to those of innocent third-parties. Valid privacy interests might be asserted either by the Church or by the individual defendants in documents as to which they (or Church members if the Church proceeds representatively) could assert a privilege against evidentiary use 118 or in documents which reveal the intimate details of individual lives, sexual or otherwise, 119 whether or not they concern innocent third parties. Other valid privacy interests might also be asserted; we do not decide now which are valid and which are not. 77