09

IX. Interests often cited in opposing a presumption of access

IX. Interests often cited in opposing a presumption of access

Overview

Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Superior Court described the sorts of interests that can justify closure:

[T]he public may be excluded, temporarily or permanently, from court proceedings or the records of court proceedings to protect private as well as public interests: to protect trade secrets, or the privacy and reputations of innocent parties, as well as to guard against risks to national security interests and to minimize the danger of an unfair trial by adverse publicity. These are not necessarily  [***4] the only situations where public access can properly be denied. A bright line test has yet to be formulated. Meanwhile, the decision as to public access must rest in the sound discretion of the trial court.

Zdrok v. Zdrok, 829 A.2d 697, 700 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citing Katz v. Katz, 356 Pa. Super. 461, 514 A.2d 1374 (Pa. Super. 1986) (citations omitted).

IX. Interests often cited in opposing a presumption of access

Overview

7th Cir.

The Seventh Circuit will not seal an entire opinion or brief because of trade secret information; it is only inclined to redact the information specifically identifying trade secrets themselves. See Pepsico Inc. v. Redmond, 46 F.3d 29 (7th Cir. 1995).

IX. Interests often cited in opposing a presumption of access

Overview

Oregon

Those seeking to oppose access under Article I, section 11 of the Oregon Constitution must make a “substantial showing of need.” State v. Bowers, 58 Or. App. 1, 4, 646 P.2d 1354 (1982). Because the protections under Article I, section 10 are intended to be absolute, it is unclear what types of arguments would be advanced to overcome the access provided therein. State v. Jackson, 178 Or. App.