Doe v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
280 P.3d 377
Or.2012Background
- Open mandamus petitions challenge trial court order releasing redacted 1,247 ineligible BSA volunteer files from 1965–1985.
- Trial court ordered redaction of victims’ and reporters’ names and released exhibits with confidentiality stay.
- Open courts clause Article I, section 10 required public accountability for court proceedings and administration of justice.
- BSA argues Article I, §10 only covers in-court attendance, not access to trial exhibits or records.
- Intervenors argue Article I, §10 requires unredacted public access to exhibits reviewed by the jury at trial.
- This court consolidates petitions; mandamus relief is sought to compel/uncompell access and dissolution of protective order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Article I, section 10 require public access to trial exhibits? | Intervenors: yes, unredacted access required. | BSA: no absolute right; access governed by discretion and open-courts limits. | No absolute right; court may exercise discretion |
| Can the court release redacted trial exhibits without violating Article I, section 10? | Intervenors: redaction unnecessary; release all. | BSA: redaction violates public access and fairness. | Redacted release permissible under discretion |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion in vacating the protective order and releasing redacted files? | Intervenors: must release unredacted; court failed to protect public interest. | BSA: court abused discretion by new release方式. | No abuse; discretionary power exercised reasonably |
| Does Article I, section 10 permit staying disclosure pending appellate review? | Intervenors: stay violates open courts; must release now. | BSA: stay permissible to permit review. | Stay permissible; no violation |
| Does mandamus lie to compel unredacted disclosure or vacate redacted release? | Intervenors seek mandamus to force unredacted access. | BSA seeks mandamus to undo redacted release. | Writs dismissed; decisions upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel Juv Dept v. Cornett, 121 Or App 264 (1993) (case cited for anonymity practices)
- Oregonian Pub. Co. v. Deiz, 289 Or 277 (1980) (open courts applies broadly to proceedings)
- O'Leary v. Oreg. Pub. Co., 303 Or 297 (1987) (open courts; visibility; public accountability)
- State ex rel KOIN-TV v. Olsen, 300 Or 392 (1985) (copying exhibits; discretion of trial court)
- Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (trial court discretion to control access)
- Priest v. Pearce, 314 Or 411 (1992) (methodology for constitutional interpretation)