Written by Admin | Oct 8, 2017 5:00:00 AM
CHICAGOLAWBULLETIN.COM WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2017 ® Volume 163, No. 193 Serving Chicago’s legal community for 162 years Private lives, right to know a balancing act T oday, the line between To restrict access to judicial burden of establishing (1) a com- personal and private records, the Illinois Supreme MODERN FAMILY pelling interest why access information seems Court has stated that the trial should be restricted and (2) that blurred due to the court should use its discretion the protective order is drafted in overwhelming use of and take into account all of the the manner least restrictive of social media in society. facts and circumstances unique the public’s interest. Whether Facebook, Twitter or to a case. Skolnick v. Altheimer & Whether to restrict the pub- Instagram, we now know more Gray,191 Ill.App.2d 214, 231 KIMBERLY lic’s access to judicial records is about the everyday lives, (2000). A. COOK “left to the sound discretion of whether mundane events or ex- Illinois courts have also framed the trial court, a discretion to be traordinary acts, of our col- this in terms of a balancing test exercised in light of the relevant leagues, clients, neighbors and where courts consider the inter- facts and circumstances of a par- friends than we ever expected ests supporting access, including Kimberly A. Cook is a partner at ticular case. See, Nixon v. Warner (or cared) to know. Yet, the pub- the presumption favoring public Schiller DuCanto & Fleck LLP. Communications Inc., 435 U.S. lic access to or sharing of “pri- access, against interests asserted Kimberly’s family law practice is 589, 599 (1978). vate” information is not a new for restriction. See, In re Marriage informed by an intimate understanding Illinois law does provide cer- of the needs, challenges, and family trend but rather an established of Johnson, 232 Ill.App.3d 1068, tain protections to public access. dynamics of her contemporaries. She public policy. 1072 (4th Dist. 1992). For example, Illinois Supreme can be reached at kcook@sdflaw.com. For example, judicial proceed- Even so, the court must be Court Rule 201(c) (1) (allows pre- ings in the United States are gen- sensitive to the rights of the pub- trial protective orders as justice erally open to the public by force lic in determining whether the York Supreme Court (Civil requires) and 735 ILCS 5/2- of tradition. See, A.P. v. M.E.E., public should be prohibited from Branch), stated, “I appreciate the 401(e) (provides for the use of a 354 Ill.App.3d 989 (1st Dist. the proceedings or whether doc- parties’ request to keep this as fictitious name for good cause 2004). From the 1934 custody uments are appropriately under quiet as possible. But, it doesn’t shown). trial of Gloria Vanderbilt, where seal. appear that this is possible.” In addition, Illinois law allows more than 100 reporters covered Recently, former U.S. repre- The New York court has taken certain information to be kept the trial in great detail, to the sentative Anthony Weiner and under advisement the parties’ confidential including privileged O.J. Simpson murder trial infa- his estranged wife, Huma Abe- motion to identify both parties as information (i.e. attorney-client mously dubbed “the trial of the din, requested the court to ex- “anonymous” in court paperwork information) and information re- century” with the entire trial tend orders to protect their and will issue a later ruling on quired by statute to remain as being broadcast on 24-hour cable privacy in their pending divorce the privacy request. confidential (i.e. name of a minor networks to a nationwide audi- victim in a sexual assault, juve- ence captivated by the evidence nile identity in certain criminal ... the public access to or sharing of and testimony. matters). The common-law right of ac- “private” information is not a new trend As practitioners, we must cess to court records or proceed- make sure that our clients are but rather an established public policy. ings is essential to the proper aware that, except in certain in- functioning of a democracy; it stances as approved by the ensures the public’s ability to by the joint filing of a motion to The mere fact that a person court, court filings and proceed- monitor the functioning of their bar photographers from the pro- may suffer embarrassment or ings are generally open to the courts and to form educated and ceedings. damage to reputation as a result public. knowledgeable opinions about “Because there’s a child in- of allegations is not enough to Finding the balance between their judicial system. volved,” the parties argued, “we’d justify the court sealing a court the public’s “need to know” ver- However, the right of access is like to keep these proceedings file or prohibiting public access. sus “want to know” is something not absolute as it may be evaded secret to the extent the court will However, the presumption of the judicial system has been try- by the court limiting or restrict- allow.” public access can be overcome ing to do long before the world ing public access including the In denying their motion, Jus- under the balancing approach if was inundated with “Likes,” sealing of court files. tice Michael L. Katz of the New the moving party meets the “Tweets” and “Snapchats.” Copyright © 2017 Law Bulletin Media. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission from Law Bulletin Media.