Teresa Kocher v. Laua Bearden
546 S.W.3d 78
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- A 13-year-old Kocher child was struck by a truck driven by Laua Bearden; the Kochers and Beardens filed a joint petition to approve a minor’s settlement in Shelby County, and the court entered an agreed order sealing the case file and barring public access (parties + guardian ad litem only).
- The Kochers later sued Durham School Services in federal court alleging negligent school-bus operation contributed to the child riding his bicycle; Durham raised Bearden’s comparative fault in its answer.
- Durham sought discovery in federal court for documents exchanged between the Kochers and Bearden (including any settlement), but Kochers refused citing the Shelby County agreed sealing order.
- A magistrate judge directed Durham to seek relief from the Shelby County court to unseal the record; Durham moved to intervene in the sealed Shelby County case (permissive intervention under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 24.02) and to modify the sealing order for limited access to defend itself.
- Shelby County denied both motions; on appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed denial of intervention, vacated the denial of modification, and remanded for further findings balancing the public’s presumptive right of access against privacy interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Durham) | Defendant's Argument (Kochers/Beardens) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Durham permissively may intervene to seek modification of the sealing order | Durham argued it has a question of law/fact in common with the sealed case because it seeks to challenge the protective order to obtain documents relevant to its defense | The appellees argued the underlying case is concluded, no live issue remains, and intervention would inject new claims and prejudice privacy/settlement interests | Reversed: intervention permitted under Rule 24.02 because challenging the protective order presents a common question with the main action; no undue delay or prejudice shown |
| Whether the sealing order should be modified to allow Durham limited access | Durham sought limited, nonpublic access (and federal protective order) to defend against claims; emphasized public presumption of access | Appellees relied on privacy of minor, settlement confidentiality, guardian ad litem confidentiality, and insurer financial/privacy concerns | Vacated trial court denial and remanded: court must make articulated, specific findings and apply the ‘‘compelling/ narrowly tailored’’ standard balancing presumptive openness against privacy interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Ballard v. Herzke, 924 S.W.2d 652 (Tenn. 1996) (third parties may intervene to challenge protective orders; intervention satisfies Rule 24.02 when the intervenor contests the protective order)
- In re NHC-Nashville Fire Litig., 293 S.W.3d 547 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (judicial records presumptively open; closure requires compelling, narrowly tailored reasons with specific findings)
- Tennessean v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville, 485 S.W.3d 857 (Tenn. 2016) (Tennessee presumes openness of governmental records; courts should favor public access)
- Knoxville News-Sentinel v. Huskey, 982 S.W.2d 359 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (public, including media, may intervene to seek unsealing; protective orders must balance privacy and public’s right to know)
- State v. Drake, 701 S.W.2d 604 (Tenn. 1985) (closure of proceedings requires articulated findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and be narrowly tailored)