In re Marriage of Kelly
174 N.E.3d 950
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Robert Kelly filed for dissolution of marriage in 2006; an agreed 2013 order sealed the entire court file due to the parties' celebrity status and concern about media exposure.
- In 2019 Chicago Public Media (WBEZ) and the Chicago Tribune intervened to unseal the record; the court granted limited intervention and opened most of the file but ordered redactions/sealing of specific documents, including Count II ("Modify Visitation") of a March 2014 motion.
- The written July 2019 order directed the clerk to redact paragraphs 26–37 and A–D of Count II and allowed public access to the remainder; the clerk later mistakenly posted some sealed material to the public docket.
- Andrea's counsel alerted the trial judge after WBEZ obtained an unredacted version; the judge emailed parties reiterating the sealing order; WBEZ said it would not publish immediately and then moved to clarify/modify the order to confirm it could publish information already in the public record.
- The trial court denied WBEZ’s motion to modify in December 2019; WBEZ appealed in January 2020. The appellate court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the July 2019 order and October emails (untimely), but had jurisdiction over the December 19, 2019 order denying modification.
- On the merits the appellate court reviewed the sealed portions and concluded the court abused its discretion in redacting paragraphs 26–29 of Count II and the corresponding prayer for relief; it reversed that aspect of the sealing and remanded with directions to make that material public.
Issues
| Issue | WBEZ's Argument | Robert/Andrea's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Properness of redacting/sealing portions of March 2014 motion (Count II) | The challenged paragraphs and prayer (paras 26–29 and Count II prayer) do not implicate children’s confidential medical or identifying information and should be public | Sealing/redaction was necessary to protect the children’s best interests and to avoid exposing sensitive family information | Court abused its discretion in sealing paras 26–29 and the prayer for Count II; those parts must be made public (reversed and remanded) |
| Whether the clerk’s inadvertent public disclosure + court emails created an unconstitutional prior restraint on publication | Once material was publicly accessible, WBEZ argued any court-imposed restriction on publication would be an unconstitutional prior restraint | The parties and trial judge maintained the sealing order to protect children and argued publication would violate the court’s protective rulings | Appellate court did not reach the prior-restraint constitutional question as its decision to unseal the identified material made consideration unnecessary |
| Jurisdiction/timeliness under Ill. S. Ct. Rule 307 for appeals of interlocutory sealing/orders | WBEZ appealed the July order, October emails, and the December denial of its motion to modify | Robert argued WBEZ’s notice of appeal was untimely for the July order and emails and that some e‑mails were nonappealable advisory rulings | Appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review the July 2019 order and October e‑mails (appeal untimely) but had jurisdiction to review the December 19, 2019 denial of the motion to modify under Rule 307; it reversed that denial in part |
Key Cases Cited
- Skolnick v. Altheimer & Gray, 191 Ill. 2d 214 (discusses judicial supervisory power and requirements to overcome presumption of public access)
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, 435 U.S. 589 (recognizes public’s right of access to judicial records and limits on that right)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, 478 U.S. 1 (principles governing public access to judicial proceedings)
- Levenstein v. Salafsky, 164 F.3d 345 (7th Cir.) (litigation is presumptively public; complaints generally must be public)
- Grove Fresh Distributors, Inc. v. Everfresh Juice Co., 24 F.3d 893 (7th Cir.) (suppression must be essential to preserve higher values and narrowly tailored)
- In re Marriage of Johnson, 232 Ill. App. 3d 1068 (discusses least-restrictive tailoring for sealing in family-law context)
- Zimmerman, 2018 IL 122261 (Illinois Supreme Court affirming principles on public access and interlocutory review under Rule 307)