TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY, ET AL, APPELLANT/PETITIONER(S),
v.
TERRY GENE BOLLEA, ET AL, APPELLEE/RESPONDENT(S)
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court granted a petition to unseal court records, finding that the trial court improperly sealed documents related to a civil proceeding. The court emphasized that litigants generally do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in matters inherent to such proceedings.
The appellate court held that the trial court's orders sealing the records were improper. The court found that the records did not meet the legal requirements for confidentiality, as their sealing was not necessary to avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties, was inherent to the proceeding, and did not comply with public policy.
[1] Confidentiality of court records is not necessary to avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties when the information is inherent in the proceeding and not require…
[2] Litigants do not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy in matters that are inherent to a civil proceeding.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The orders of October 28, 2015, as amended by the nine-page November 18, 2015, order, as well as the two-page November 18, 2015, order are quashed, and the trial court is directed to unseal the records.”
This quote states the court's direct action in overturning the lower court's sealing orders and mandating the unsealing of records.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court had sealed various documents, including motions, responses, and hearing transcripts, in a civil case. The petitioners sought to unseal…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Confidentiality Of Court Records cases and more on FLexlaw
BY ORDER OF THE COURT.
The respondent Terry Gene Bollea’s motion for clarification is granted to the extent that we substitute the following order in place of our order of March 16, 2016:
The petitioners’ petition filed under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(d) is granted. The orders of October 28, 2015, as amended by the nine-page November 18, 2015, order, as well as the two-page November 18, 2015, order are quashed, and the trial court is directed to unseal the records. By 4 p.m. Friday, March 18, 2016, in compliance with Florida Rule of'Judicial Administration 2.425, Respondent Terry Gene Bollea shall file a redacted version of the appendices, which will then be released to the public docket.
Upon review of record items sealed by the trial court in the aforementioned orders, this court has determined that the record items consist of motions, responses to motions, and other documents filed in support of the motions and responses, as well as transcripts of hearings on motions and we have concluded that confidentiality of the items at issue is not .necessary to avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties, that the information sought to be kept confidential is inherent in the proceeding pending in the trial court,, and that confidentiality is not required to. comply *494■with established public policy. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9)(A)(v), (vi), and (vii). Litigants do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in matters inherent to a civil proceeding. See Carnegie v. Tedder, 698 So.2d 1310, 1312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (“Historically, litigants have had no reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to trial proceedings and court files.”); see also Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So.2d 113, 118 (Fla.1988) (“[A] strong presumption of openness exists for all court proceedings. A trial is a public event, and the filed records of court proceedings are public records available for public examination.”).
No further opinion will follow.
KELLY, SLEET, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dempsey J. Barron v. Fla. Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 1988)
- Carnegie v. Tedder, 698 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)