30 Pa. D. & C.5th 91
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2013Background
- This action originated from an August 23, 2011 order sealing the record from public view; media plaintiffs sought unsealing via petitions to intervene and motions to unseal.
- The Hallowiches initiated a civil action in 2010 and settled to the extent of a minor's settlement; no complaint was filed.
- The press sought access to the sealed record, and an evidentiary hearing in 2013 produced no witnesses.
- The Superior Court remanded to address merits of the petitions to unseal, prompting this court’s plenary review.
- The court ultimately held there is no business-entity right of privacy; the common-law presumption of openness applies and requires reversal of the sealing order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the common-law presumption of openness governs | Hallowich press rights require unsealing | Respondents claim privacy and confidential settlements justify sealing | Presumption of openness governs; record must be unsealed |
| Whether business entities may assert a constitutional right of privacy | Press rights override business privacy claims | Corporations may have privacy rights under PA Constitution | No business-entity privacy right under PA Constitution; only natural persons have such right under the text and history |
| Burden of proof on unsealing after prior sealing | Press bears burden to show good cause | Burden on press is offset by prior sealing; burden shifts | Press bears burden to demonstrate good cause; defendants failed to rebut presumption |
| Edmunds framework applied to privacy claims | Edmunds factors support openness | Edmunds analysis supports privacy rights for entities | Edmunds factors favor openness; no privacy justification for entities |
| Impact of settlement confidentiality on unsealing | Unsealing does not breach confidentiality; records may be open | Unsealing could undermine confidentiality agreements | Confidentiality obligations remain; openness preserved through access to court records |
Key Cases Cited
- PA ChildCare LLC v. Flood, 887 A.2d 309 (Pa. Super. 2005) (set open-record analysis; openness favored when public funds involved)
- Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1991) (Edmunds factors guide state-constitutional privacy analysis)
- Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288 (1936) (avoid constitutional questions when other grounds exist)
- In re Estate of duPont, 606 Pa. 567; 2 A.3d 516 (Pa. 2010) (reaffirmed burden on access seekers in open-record decisions)
- Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp., 195 Cal. Rptr. 393; 147 Cal. App. 3d 770 (Cal. App. Dist. 1983) (corporations lack privacy rights under California constitutional provision)