State of Tennessee v. Randall C. Johnson, M2024-00959-SC-R10-CO

Background

A criminal judge recused, the case was transferred, and three Rule 10B filings had been sealed without any written sealing order. 1
The Nashville Banner intervened and moved to unseal the motion to disqualify and two supporting affidavits. 2
The trial court allowed intervention but denied unsealing, citing harms such as embarrassment, due process concerns, and delay. 3
The Court of Criminal Appeals refused Rule 10 review, reasoning that only the State and defendant may seek it in criminal cases. 4
The Supreme Court granted review to decide media intervention under Rule 10 and the sealing of judicial records. 5
The Court reversed and ordered the documents made available to the public after de novo review. 6
The opinion distinguishes protective orders in discovery from sealing judicial records, which implicates the public's access rights. 7

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May media intervenors seek Rule 10 review in criminal sealing matters? 8	Nashville Banner argued Rule 10 review was available to challenge sealing.	State argued Rule 10(e) limits review to the State and defendant.	Yes; Rule 10 review is available to media intervenors. 9
What standard governs sealing Rule 10B judicial records? 10	Nashville Banner urged a compelling-interest standard with written findings.	State and trial court relied on broader confidentiality and good-cause concepts.	Sealing First Amendment-protected judicial records requires a compelling interest. 11
Was a written sealing order required before the clerk withheld the documents? 12	Banner said no seal was effective without a written order.	The records remained confidential under the court's later orders.	Yes; without a written order, the seal was ineffective. 13
Did the sealed Rule 10B filings satisfy the compelling-interest standard? 14	Banner argued the documents involved public judicial proceedings and should be open.	State claimed disclosure risked embarrassment, burden, and delay.	No compelling interest justified sealing; the documents must be unsealed. 15

Key Cases Cited

Heyne v. Metro. Nashville Bd. of Pub. Educ., 380 S.W.3d 715 (Tenn. 2012) (describes certiorari as limited review for illegality, arbitrariness, or lack of evidence 16)
State v. McKim, 215 S.W.3d 781 (Tenn. 2007) (explains when certiorari is appropriate in extraordinary circumstances 17)
State v. Willoughby, 594 S.W.2d 388 (Tenn. 1980) (recognizes loss of a right that may never be recaptured as a basis for extraordinary review 18)
State v. Drake, 701 S.W.2d 604 (Tenn. 1985) (holds media intervenors may seek interlocutory review of closure orders and requires written findings for sealing 19)
State v. James, 902 S.W.2d 911 (Tenn. 1995) (confirms Rule 10 review for media intervenors in criminal matters 20)
In re NHC Nashville Fire Litigation, 293 S.W.3d 547 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (extends openness principles to judicial records and discusses sealing requirements 21)
Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1978) (recognizes a general right to inspect and copy public records and judicial files 22)
Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1984) (requires closure to be justified by an overriding interest and narrowly tailored 23)
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk County, 457 U.S. 596 (U.S. 1982) (supports the First Amendment's presumption of openness and compelling-interest requirement 24)
Ballard v. Herzke, 924 S.W.2d 652 (Tenn. 1996) (discusses openness, good-cause factors, and limits on protective orders 25)
Kocher v. Bearden, 546 S.W.3d 78 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017) (reaffirms that courts cannot seal records merely because a party requests it 26)
State v. Strode, 232 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2007) (holds interlocutory issues are decided like appeals as of right once review is granted 27)