Carter v. Utah Power & Light Co., 870340
| Citation | 800 P.2d 1095 |
| Decision Date | 22 October 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 870340,870340 |
| Parties | 18 Media L. Rep. 1497 Janice Faye CARTER, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. UTAH POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, a Utah corporation, and Savage Industries, Inc., a Utah corporation, Defendants and Appellants. Society of Professional Journalists, KUTV, Inc., Kearns-Tribune Corp., Deseret News Publishing Co., The Standard Corp., Bonneville International, Inc., and United Television, Inc., Intervenors and Appellees. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Stephen B. Nebeker, Keith A. Kelly, Robert Gordon, David A. Westerby, Michael G. Jenkins, Salt Lake City, for Utah Power & Light Co.
W. Brent Wilcox, Edward B. Havas, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs Carter and Hamlin.
Ross C. Anderson, Salt Lake City, for Society of Professional Journalists, KUTV, Inc., Kearns-Tribune Corp., Deseret News Pub. Co., The Standard Corp., Bonneville Intern., Inc., United Television, Inc.
Edward P. Moriarity, Jackson, Wyo., and Lynn C. Harris, Provo, for plaintiffs Wilsey, Snow and Howard.
Stewart M. Hanson, Jr., Fred R. Silvester, Virginius Dabney, Barbara Anne Dabney, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs Nevitt, Hersh and Jennings.
Robert D. Moore, James R. Black, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs Bell and Bocook.
Aaron Alma Nelson, Salt Lake City, and George S. Diumenti, Bountiful, for plaintiff Christensen.
Stanford B. Owen, Jamis M. Johnson, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff Conover.
Gary E. Atkin, David C. Anderson, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff Waldoch.
Joane Pappas White, Price, for plaintiffs Anna Cingolani.
S. Rex Lewis, Provo, for plaintiff Joan Cingolani.
Raymond M. Berry, Robert H. Henderson, Joy L. Sanders, Salt Lake City, for defendant Savage Industries.
Raymond J. Etcheverry, Salt Lake City, and James Jensen, Price, for Emery Min.
H. Wayne Wadsworth, Salt Lake City, for Ingersoll-Rand Co. ZIMMERMAN, Justice:
Utah Power & Light ("UP & L") appeals from an order entered by the district court for the fourth judicial district granting the motion of the Utah Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, KUTV, Inc., Bonneville International, Inc., United Television, Inc., Kearns-Tribune Corp., Deseret News Publishing Co., and The Standard Corp. (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the media") for access to filed pretrial depositions. UP & L argues, inter alia, that the district court erred in holding that depositions filed with the court but not used in the litigation are public court records. We affirm the district court's order granting access to the depositions.
In Carter v. UP & L, the surviving spouses and children of twenty-six 1 coal miners killed in a fire in the Wilberg Mine sued UP & L alleging that the miners' deaths resulted from UP & L's negligence. After much discovery, including almost two hundred depositions, the case was settled in February of 1987. In April of 1987, the media filed a motion to intervene in Carter, seeking access to portions of the record. Specifically, they sought the settlement agreements and portions of the depositions relating to UP & L's possible responsibility for the fire and the consequent deaths of the twenty-six miners.
The media's motion to unseal the judicial records was bifurcated, and Judge Harding was assigned the portion of the motion relating to the settlement documents he had previously ordered sealed. He denied that part of the motion, a ruling that is not before us.
Judge Christensen was assigned the portion of the motion relating to the depositions. The depositions had been filed with the Utah County clerk, but had not been used by the litigants in court. The depositions were withheld from public inspection solely by reason of the clerk's understanding of Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 30(f)(1), which provides that depositions shall be "securely seal[ed]" in an envelope by the officer taking the deposition before filing it with the clerk of the court. 2 UP & L objected to the media's motion to disclose the contents of the depositions, arguing, apparently in accordance with the clerk's practice, that filing sealed depositions with a court does not subject them to public inspection. It also contended that publication of the depositions might prejudice product liability suits it is pursuing against various companies whose products may have contributed to the disaster.
Judge Christensen filed a memorandum decision granting disclosure. He first found that there is a public right to inspect court records based on sections 78-26-1 and 78-26-2 of the Code, which are portions of the Utah Public and Private Writings Act ("the Act"). See Utah Code Ann. §§ 78-26-1 to -8 (1987). These sections provide that every citizen has a right to inspect any "public writing," and the statute defines "public writings" as including "judicial records." Utah Code Ann. § 78-26-1, -2 (1987). The term "judicial records" is not defined in the statute, nor has it been defined by prior case law. 3 Therefore, Judge Christensen looked to the Code of Judicial Administration, the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, and the common law in coming to the conclusion that filed, sealed depositions are "judicial records" and subject to inspection. The judge then held that this statutory right of inspection can be restricted for good cause shown under the protective order provision of Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). He concluded that UP & L had not made such a showing with respect to its claim of harm to its pending products liability claims litigation and ordered the depositions made public.
On appeal, UP & L does not challenge the trial court's finding that it has not made a rule 26(c) showing of good cause that would justify issuance of a protective order. It does, however, attack the court's conclusion that filed, sealed deposition transcripts are "judicial records" under the Act. Therefore, this appeal presents only questions of law. We review a trial court's conclusions of law under a correctness standard and accord them no particular deference. E.g., Transamerica Cash Reserve, Inc. v. Dixie Power & Water, Inc., 789 P.2d 24, 25 (Utah 1990); Scharf v. BMG Corp., 700 P.2d 1068, 1070 (Utah 1985).
It is important at the outset to observe that the question presented is only whether the public has a "right to inspect and take a copy" of sealed deposition transcripts filed with the court, a right that can, in effect, be overcome by a showing of the good cause necessary to secure a protective order from the court. There is nothing in the Act which suggests that the protective order provisions of Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) do not apply to judicial records. 4 See Utah R.Civ.P. 26(c).
In determining whether the depositions at issue fall within the term "judicial records" as it is used in the Act, we look to a variety of sources, as Judge Christensen did. In reviewing those sources, our point of departure is the legislative policy, embodied in the Act, that records in the hands of public agencies should be available for inspection by the public unless there is a good reason for keeping them from public view. KUTV v. Board of Educ., 689 P.2d 1357, 1360-61 (Utah 1984). This policy suggests that if we find a split of relevant authorities on the question of the public availability of sealed, filed depositions, we should follow those authorities that favor public access.
In his memorandum decision, Judge Christensen relied on rule 4-1(1) of the Code of Judicial Administration, promulgated in 1986. The stated intent of the rule is to "adopt uniform guidelines for the dissemination of information from court records." Utah Code Judicial Admin.R. 4-1. 5 The rule provides that "judicial records which are public writings" include, inter alia, "casefiles." Utah Code Judicial Admin.R. 4-1(1). Certain items within casefiles are defined by the rule to be private writings not available to the public. This listing does not include sealed, filed depositions. Utah Code Judicial Admin.R. 4-1(2). While it may be true, as UP & L argues, that a subsequently promulgated administrative rule should not control the interpretation given a statutory term, the fact remains that the Judicial Council has constitutional authority to promulgate rules "for the administration of the courts of the state." Utah Const. art. VIII, § 12. At a minimum, rule 4-1(1) represents a statement of what a body of judges charged with fixing such rules views as the appropriate dividing line between materials that generally should be available to the public and those that should not. The council has drawn that line so as to make the documents at issue publicly available. That is certainly a fact to be accorded some weight in deciding how such documents should be treated under the Act, and it weighs in favor of a presumption of disclosure.
Judge Christensen also looked to the common law from other jurisdictions and there found support for the proposition that filed, sealed depositions have generally been presumed available to the public. In fact, the cases are fairly evenly split on the question. 6 Judge Christensen took great pains to distinguish the cases finding filed pretrial depositions to be private. We see no need to belabor this point. We recognize that there are cases that go against us. The fact that the common law in other jurisdictions splits on the issue, and the precise balance of that split, is simply one more factor to be weighed in deciding how sealed, filed depositions should be treated under the Act.
In our view, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and their Utah counterpart support the view that a filed deposition is public. Several rules imply that once filed, discovery is public. For example, rule 5(d) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure states:
All papers after the complaint required to be served upon a party shall be filed with the court either before service or within a reasonable time thereafter, but the court may upon motion of a party or on its own initiative order that depositions,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. Ihc Hosps., Inc.
...that section 26–25–3 is unconstitutional pursuant to article 8, section 4 of the Utah Constitution. See Carter v. Utah Power & Light Co., 800 P.2d 1095, 1097 n. 4 (Utah 1990). Accordingly, we express no opinion with respect to that issue.FN1 These instances include one—involving a question ......
-
Walker v. Union Pacific R. Co.
...determination is a legal conclusion which we review for correctness, according it no particular deference. Carter v. Utah Power & Light Co., 800 P.2d 1095, 1097 (Utah 1990). However, we concur with the trial court that the Salt Lake City ordinance purports to prohibit extended delays in sit......
-
Christiansen v. Holiday Rent-A-Car, RENT-A-CAR
...the trial court's decision that Holiday was not covered under Airport's policy, but review it for correctness. Carter v. Utah Power & Light Co., 800 P.2d 1095, 1097 (Utah 1990). The Insuring Agreements of Airport's insurance policy state, in relevant part: "Coverage E--Liability: This compa......
-
State v. Lee
...or (b) alleged to have been part of a common scheme or plan. Lee contends that under principles announced in Carter v. Utah Power & Light Co., 800 P.2d 1095 (Utah 1990), Rule 9 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure is controlling here. In Carter, the Utah Supreme Court held that when inte......