Bailey v. Bertram, 2015 Ky. LEXIS 1609

Background

Dr. Daniel Bailey and his wife filed for divorce in Marion Circuit Court in 2008; the trial court sealed the divorce file.
Former patients (Spaldings and Joneses) sued Bailey for medical negligence and, in 2011, moved to intervene in the sealed divorce case solely to unseal records they believed might bear on Bailey’s state of mind.
The circuit court granted permissive intervention and ordered the divorce record unsealed, delaying effectiveness 21 days to permit appellate action.
Bailey filed for a writ of prohibition in the Court of Appeals; that court denied relief on the merits while finding no adequate appellate remedy.
Bailey appealed to the Kentucky Supreme Court, which held intervention was improper because intervenors had no common claim or interest in the divorce action and could have pursued discovery in their malpractice suits.
Despite concluding the intervention was erroneous, the Supreme Court affirmed because Bailey had an adequate remedy by appeal (the order was final and appealable and could be stayed pending appeal).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Bailey)	Defendant's Argument (Intervenors)	Held
Were the Intervenors proper parties to intervene in the sealed divorce action?	Intervention was improper because Intervenors had no interest in the marriage or marital estate.	Intervenors claimed a need to access sealed records relevant to their malpractice suits and relied on constitutional access to courts.	Intervention was improper: permissive intervention requires a common claim/interest; Intervenors lacked such an interest and could use discovery in their own suits.
Could private litigants intervene to unseal court records absent a constitutional media interest?	Sealing/unsealing was not properly before the court because Intervenors lacked standing.	Intervenors argued Section 14 (courts open) entitled them to access and intervention.	Private parties do not enjoy the press’s special standing; Section 14 does not confer a right to intervene in unrelated sealed proceedings.
Was a writ of prohibition available to block the intervention/unsealing?	A writ was necessary because unsealing would cause irreparable harm and intervention was erroneous.	Court of Appeals found no adequate appellate remedy but denied writ on merits.	Writ unavailable: Bailey had an adequate remedy by appeal because the order was final and appealable and could be stayed pending appeal.
Did the trial court abuse discretion in ordering the record unsealed?	Unsealing was improper given lack of proper intervenors and availability of discovery in malpractice suits.	Intervenors argued public access presumption and lack of privilege or sensitive information justified unsealing.	Court did not decide ultimate seal/unseal merits (beyond noting impropriety of intervention); disposition affirmed on procedural ground (adequate appellate remedy).

Key Cases Cited

Hoskins v. Maricle, 150 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2004) (standard for extraordinary writs and prohibition).
Bender v. Eaton, 343 S.W.2d 799 (Ky. 1961) (adequate remedy by appeal bars prohibition).
Summe & Ratermann Co. v. City of Covington, 314 S.W.2d 568 (Ky. 1958) (permissive intervention improper when intervenor injects unrelated claims).
Courier-Journal and Louisville Times Co. v. Peers, 747 S.W.2d 125 (Ky. 1988) (press has unique standing to seek access to court proceedings).
Courier-Journal, Inc. v. McDonald-Burkman, 298 S.W.3d 846 (Ky. 2009) (common-law right of access to records is not absolute; trial court has discretionary authority to deny access).
Collins v. Braden, 384 S.W.3d 154 (Ky. 2012) (disclosure orders implicating privilege can warrant extraordinary relief).
Estate of Cline v. Weddle, 250 S.W.3d 330 (Ky. 2008) (availability of an appeal constitutes an adequate remedy barring writ relief).