Case Information
*1
T HE U TAH C OURT OF A PPEALS
S ANDRA N. T ILLOTSON , Plaintiff and Appellee, v.
D IEDERIK V AN N EDERVEEN M EERKERK , Defendant and Appellee.
T HE S ALT L AKE T RIBUNE , Proposed Intervenor and Appellant. Opinion No. 20130686-CA Filed June 4, 2015 Third District Court, Salt Lake Department The Honorable L.A. Dever No. 120903476 Edward L. Carter, Attorney for Appellant Jeffrey L. Silvestrini, Bradley M. Strassberg, and Joshua K. Peterman, Attorneys for Appellee Sandra N. Tillotson J UDGE M ICHELE M. C HRISTIANSEN authored this Opinion, in which J UDGES G REGORY K. O RME and S TEPHEN L. R OTH concurred.
CHRISTIANSEN, Judge: The Salt Lake Tribune appeals from the district court’s
denial of its motion seeking to intervene and to challenge the classification of court records as private in a closed defamation case. We vacate the district court’s order denying the motion to intervene and remand the matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BACKGROUND The Salt Lake Tribune (the Tribune) is a daily newspaper
company based in Salt Lake City, Utah. Sandra N. Tillotson is a founder of Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc., a direct-sales and network-marketing company headquartered in Provo, Utah. On May 21, 2012, Tillotson filed a complaint alleging that her ex- husband, Diederik Van Nederveen Meerkerk, threatened to publish defamatory statements about her. After filing the complaint, Tillotson filed a motion to classify as private the entire case file in her case to prevent dissemination of the allegedly defamatory statements. On the same date, the district court granted Tillotson’s motion and entered an order classifying the case file as private under rule 4-202.04(3) of the Utah Rules of Judicial Administration. On October 9, 2012, the Tribune filed a motion captioned
“Motion to Intervene and for Access to Records.” The Tribune sought to intervene in the case pursuant to rule 24(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure to access the case file and to challenge the court’s classification of that record as private. On March 11, 2013, the district court denied the Tribune’s challenge without ruling on its intervention motion. Subsequently, the Tribune filed a proposed order stating that the district court had denied the motion to access records and had granted the motion to intervene. On June 7, 2013, the district court entered a minute entry on the docket, indicating that “the Court did not grant intervention to the Tribune and [the Tribune’s motion] was denied.” On June 18, 2013, the district court entered a written order denying the Tribune’s motion to intervene. The order did not contain any reasons for the court’s denial. Thereafter, on May 4, 2014, the district court dismissed the defamation case with prejudice. The Tribune appeals from the denial of its motion to intervene.
ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶4 The Tribune challenges the district court’s denial of its motion to intervene, arguing that the district court failed to properly analyze the Tribune’s motion under rule 24(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure and to give any reasons for the denial of the motion. “A motion to intervene involves questions of law and
fact.”
Taylor–West Weber Water Improvement Dist. v. Olds
, 2009 UT
86, ¶ 3, 224 P.3d 709. “[T]he factual findings underpinning an
intervention ruling are subject to a clearly erroneous standard,
and the district court’s interpretation of [rule 24(b)] is reviewed
for correctness.”
Supernova Media, Inc. v. Shannon’s Rainbow, LLC
,
ANALYSIS The Tribune moved to intervene as a party in Tillotson’s
defamation case pursuant to rule 24(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure and sought to challenge the classification of the court records as private. Under the Utah Code of Judicial Administration, “[c]ourt records are public unless otherwise classified by this rule.” Utah R. Jud. Admin. 4-202.02(1). In most cases not involving juveniles or domestic relations, “case files,” among other records, are public. Id. R. 4-202.02(2)(E). In classifying a record as private, the district court must (1) “make findings and conclusions about specific records”; (2) “identify and balance the interests favoring opening and closing the record”; and (3) “if the record is ordered closed, determine there are no reasonable alternatives to closure sufficient to protect the interests favoring closure.” Id. R. 4-202.04(3). The party filing a motion to close a record must serve the motion on any member of the press who has requested notice in the case. Id. R. 4- 202.04(2)(D). The district court need not conduct a hearing on a closure request unless the motion to close the record is contested or the press member has requested notice of such closure motions in the case. Id. Here, because the court’s order classifying the case file as
private was entered on the same day the complaint was filed, the Tribune had no opportunity, as a practical matter, to file a request for notice before Tillotson’s motion to close the record was submitted. The Tribune was therefore not served with notice of the motion, and no hearing on the motion was held before the court granted the motion. The Tribune then sought to intervene to challenge the court’s order classifying the record as private. An individual or entity that is not a party to the
underlying action has two possible avenues of relief in
challenging an order classifying court records.
[1]
First, as here, the
nonparty could move to intervene as a party in the case and
would be entitled to challenge the classification of court records
1. The Utah Code of Judicial Administration provides a
mechanism for accessing sealed or private court records: “A
person not authorized to access a non-public court record may
file a motion to access the record. If the court allows access, the
court may impose any reasonable conditions to protect the
interests favoring closure.” Utah R. Jud. Admin. 4-202.04(2)(B).
In deciding whether to allow access to court records, the judge
must engage in the same three-step analysis outlined above for
the classification of court records as sealed or private.
See id.
R. 4-202.04(3). However, the disposition of a motion to access
court records does not affect the classification of the record as
sealed or private. Therefore, a motion to access court records is
distinct from a challenge to the classification order itself.
through direct appeal of the district court’s order.
See Supernova
Media, Inc. v. Shannon’s Rainbow
,
LLC
,
I. The Tribune’s Challenge to the District Court’s Intervention
Ruling Is Not Rendered Moot by Dismissal of the Underlying Defamation Case. Tillotson argues that the Tribune’s motion to intervene is
moot because the underlying action in this case was dismissed
during the pendency of this appeal. Generally, “a case is deemed
moot when the requested judicial relief cannot affect the rights of
the litigants.”
Burkett v. Schwendiman
specifically to challenge the classification of the case file as
private. Thus, the Tribune’s interest in access to the case record
is not tied to the resolution of the controversy between the
parties, and that interest is not terminated by the dismissal of the
case. With respect to the specific relief sought by the Tribune,
had permissive intervention been granted, the Tribune would
have been able to mount a direct challenge to the district court’s
order classifying the record as private in the defamation case.
See
Supernova
,
II. The District Court’s Failure to Provide Reasons for Its Denial of the Tribune’s Motion to Intervene Precludes
Meaningful Appellate Review. An order denying a motion to intervene is a final
disposition of the claims asserted by the applicant for intervention and is appealable. Millard County , 823 P.2d at 461. Rule 24(b) governs permissive intervention and provides that 2. We note that the Tribune could obtain access to individual records by filing additional motions to access court records, although this alternative would not alter the classification of the case records in this case. See supra note 1.
“upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action . . . when an applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common.” Utah R. Civ. P. 24(b). In exercising its discretion to permit intervention under this rule, “the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.” Id. Generally, a court’s determination under rule 24(b) is
reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Department of Soc. Servs. ex rel.
State v. Sucec
Tribune’s motion regarding access to the case record without addressing the motion to intervene. While the court set out the Tribune’s arguments in favor of granting permissive intervention, the court performed no analysis of these arguments before moving on to consider the Tribune’s challenge to the classification of the case file. The district court then restated its classification of the case file as private and denied the Tribune’s request to access records without ruling on the motion to intervene. In response to the Tribune’s confusion over the status of its intervention motion, the district court attempted to clarify its order in a minute entry, stating, “The Court issued a ruling on March 11, 2013 denying the Tribune[] access. The Tribune filed a proposed Order noting that access was denied but intervention was granted. The Court’s Ruling stands. For clarification, the Court did not grant intervention to the Tribune and [the Tribune’s motion] was denied.” On June 18, 2013, the district court issued an order specifically denying the motion to intervene but failed to state any reasons for its denial. The district court simply stated that “in connection with a minute entry dated June 7, 2013, it is hereby ordered that [the Tribune’s] Motion to Intervene is denied.” Based on the record before us, we cannot conduct
meaningful review of the district court’s decision on the intervention motion. Neither the order nor the minute entry provides any explicit findings or articulates any basis for the district court’s denial of the motion to intervene. We are unable to determine whether the district court found that the Tribune’s claim for intervention lacked “a question of law or fact in common” with the main action. See Utah R. Civ. P. 24(b). We also cannot determine whether the court “consider[ed] whether the intervention [would] unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.” Id. For these reasons, this court is unable to “ascertain the basis of the trial court’s decision,” and thus, we are “prevented from effectively reviewing the trial court’s decision and may remand for the entry of [the required] findings.” See Allen v. Ciokewicz , 2012 UT App 162, ¶ 42, 280 P.3d 425 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We therefore vacate the district court’s denial of the Tribune’s motion to intervene and remand the matter to the district court for further proceedings. [3] III. We Lack Jurisdiction to Consider the Tribune’s Challenge to
the District Court’s Classification Order Because
the Tribune Is a Nonparty. As it stands, the Tribune is a nonparty. Unless and until it
is made a party, it may not appeal the district court’s classification order. See Society of Prof’l Journalists v. Bullock 743 P.2d 1166, 1168 n.1 (Utah 1987). We therefore lack jurisdiction to 3. We express no opinion on whether the district court should grant the Tribune intervenor status.
consider the Tribune’s challenge to the district court’s
classification of the case record on direct appeal from the district
court’s denial of the Tribune’s motion to intervene.
See Weber
County v. Ogden Trece
, 2013 UT 62, ¶ 28, 321 P.3d 1067 (noting
that because the appellants were nonparties, they were “not
entitled to an appeal as of right”);
Brigham Young Univ. v. Tremco
Consultants, Inc.
,
CONCLUSION Based on the record before us, we are unable to determine
whether the district court properly denied the Tribune’s motion to intervene pursuant to rule 24(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order denying the Tribune’s motion to intervene and remand this matter for further proceedings. On remand, the district court shall enter adequate findings and reasoning to support its ultimate decision to grant or deny the Tribune’s motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of rule 24(b).