804 N.W.2d 388
S.D.2011Background
- Bear Country dispute among family shareholders over management and value; two factions sought judge to determine Bear Country’s value for buyout.
- Pre-trial motions sought to close the courtroom to protect confidential financial and proprietary Bear Country information.
- Judge Delaney explicitly ordered gag and closure of trial and records to protect sensitive material.
- Media intervened asserting lack of authority to gag/close and violation of open courts principles.
- Court granted an alternative writ of prohibition to address whether the orders were proper, jurisdictional, or an abuse of discretion.
- Court ultimately held Judge Delaney abused his discretion and issued a permanent writ prohibiting the gag and closure orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether media/public have a right of access to civil trials and records. | Media asserts a qualified First Amendment and common-law right to attend and access. | Delaney contends closure necessary to protect trade secrets and financial information. | Yes, but closure requires specific findings and narrowly tailored justification; ultimately orders improper. |
| Whether Judge Delaney abused discretion in closing Bear Country’s trial and records. | Media claims closure was broader than necessary and not properly justified. | Delaney relied on trade secrets and financial information protections. | Yes, abuse of discretion; closure not properly supported by statutory procedure or specific findings. |
| Whether the gag order was lawful and within the court’s authority. | Gag impeded media/public access and speech about the case. | Court relied on inherent powers to maintain fair and orderly proceedings. | Gag order rescinded; improper exercise of authority. |
| What relief is appropriate for improper gag/closure orders in this civil case. | Permanent writ of prohibition to rescind orders and prevent enforcement. | Remedy not properly before the court; but review shows overreach. | Permanent writ of prohibition granted, rescinding gag and closure orders. |
Key Cases Cited
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 464 U.S. 501 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (closure must be justified by overriding interest and narrowly tailored; open courts principle)
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (U.S. Supreme Court 1980) (open trials essential to fair process; public access benefits)
- Globe Newspapers Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (circumstances for denial of access must be carefully justified and limited)
- Presley v. Georgia, 130 S. Ct. 721 (U.S. Supreme Court 2010) (trial courts must consider alternatives to closure and articulate overriding interests)
- Publicker Indus. Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059 (3d Cir. 1984) (require explicit findings and narrowly tailored closure; balance interests)
- In re M.C., 527 N.W.2d 290 (S.D. 1995) (right of access to juvenile proceedings; openness generally preferred)
- In re Hughes County, 452 N.W.2d 128 (S.D. 1990) (closure requires specific findings and preservation of higher values)
- Jundt v. Fuller, 2007 S.D. 62, 736 N.W.2d 508 (S.D.) (writ of prohibition used to confine lower court jurisdiction)