The Veil of Secrecy-The Steve Shine Divorce

The public right to know and Steve Shine's need to be protected from embarrassment has swung in favor of the Teflon attorney. According to Fort Wayne.Com, "a special judge has sealed the divorce filings of Allen County Republican Party Chairman Steve Shine."

But what I found to be more interesting read was what I found on Indiana Law Blog. On ILB there is an article about a judge deciding the public right to know weighted more in favor of the public than hiding salacious information contained in the documents. The reason cited by the judge, "the openness of court files must be maintained, so that the public ... can be assured that there is no favoritism shown to the rich and the powerful." There is an article also about the docket sheets.

However, a judge decided to keep sealed a divorce record because of the financial records of other folks. In other words the disclosure of the financial information of others was the controlling reason, the divorce record "contained trade secrets and confidential financial information, which are specifically excepted from the public access provisions of the Public Records Act." Under section 4(a), trade secrets See footnote and confidential financial information are mandatory exceptions. Public records containing mandatory exceptions, such as trade secrets and confidential financial information, “may not be disclosed by a public agency, unless access to the records is specifically required by a state or federal statute or is ordered by a Court under the rules of discovery.” I.C. § 5-14-3-4(a)(4), (5).

A decision to seal all or part of a public record must be based on findings of fact and conclusions of law, showing that the remedial benefits to be gained by effectuating the public policy of the state declared in section 1 of this chapter are outweighed by proof by a preponderance of the evidence by the person seeking the sealing of the record that:

(1) a public interest will be secured by sealing the record;
(2) dissemination of the information contained in the record will create a serious and imminent danger to that public interest;
(3) any prejudicial effect created by dissemination of the information cannot be avoided by any reasonable method other than sealing the record;
(4) there is a substantial probability that sealing the record will be effective in protecting the public interest against the perceived danger; and
(5) it is reasonably necessary for the record to remain sealed for a period of time.

Hmmm, check, check, oh it must be for the 3rd reason that the judge decided to seal the record, prejudicial effect. But how did the file fall under any of the
5-14-3-4(a) exceptions and there is a whole laundry list.

But, what about my first amendment rights to know something, or just to read the docket sheets?

I'm still reading.