Ober v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Safety

• Decision Date: 06 April 2015
• Docket Number: No. 111,990.,111,990.
• Citation: 364 P.3d 659
• Parties: Tammy OBER, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. STATE of Oklahoma, ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Defendant/Appellant.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

364 P.3d 659

Tammy OBER, Plaintiff/Appellee,

v.STATE of Oklahoma, ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 111,990.

Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 2.

April 6, 2015.

Rehearing Denied July 9, 2015.

John Hunsucker, Hunsucker Legal Group, Oklahoma City, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellee.

Brian K. Morton, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Public Safety, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendant/Appellant.

JERRY L. GOODMAN, Vice–Chief Judge.

¶ 1 State of Oklahoma ex rel., Department of Public Safety (DPS) appeals a June 17, 2013, order granting Tammy Ober's (Ober) application for a protective order sealing the public records. Based on our review of the facts and applicable law, we reverse.

FACTS

¶ 2 On August 14, 2011, Ober was arrested for operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Ober timely requested an administrative hearing, which was held on September 27, 2012. DPS ultimately issued an Order of Revocation revoking Ober's driver's license for a period of 180 days.

¶ 3 On December 21, 2012, Ober filed a petition in the District Court of Cleveland County appealing the Order of Revocation. However, the parties settled the case by agreeing to the statutory modification which permitted driving privileges with the statutorily required installation of an interlock device. A final order was signed by the district court incorporating the agreement on March 4, 2013.

¶ 4 On March 11, 2013, Ober filed an application for protective order seeking to have the record sealed. After a hearing on June 17, 2013, the district court issued an order directing the entire record be sealed from the general public, subject to reopening by court order. DPS appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 5 "Records of a court are in that courts custody and control, and a court pursuant to its general equity powers may issue an order which impounds and seals papers or records." Shadid v. Hammond, 2013 OK 103, ¶ 6, 315 P.3d 1008, 1010, as corrected (Dec. 11, 2013)(Edmondson, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part). "An order sealing a record is the functional equivalent of an injunction adjudicating rights of the parties to the principal proceeding as well as the public's right to the information in a public record." Id., at ¶ 14, at 1013. Accordingly, the appellate court applies the same standard of review imposed for the issuance of a temporary injunction. Collier v. Reese, 2009 OK 86, ¶ 11, 223 P.3d 966, 971. The granting or denying of injunctive relief is an equitable matter within the sound discretion of the district court and a judgment issuing or refusing to issue an injunction will not be disturbed on appeal unless the court has abused its discretion or the decision is clearly against the weight of the evidence. Collier v. Reese, 2009 OK 86, ¶ 11, 223 P.3d 966, 972 ; Sharp v. 251st Street Landfill, Inc., 1996 OK 109, ¶ 4, 925 P.2d 546, 549.

ANALYSIS

I. Protective Order

¶ 6 On appeal, DPS contends the district court erred in issuing the protective order and in sealing the records in the court file from the general public. DPS asserts Ober failed to cite any authority for the district court's actions other than a vague reference to the "Open Records Act and other applicable law."

¶ 7 Ober disagrees, asserting no statute or case law prohibits the district court from sealing the entire record and that the court correctly found the potential harm to her far exceeded any benefit the public might gain from leaving the record unsealed.

¶ 8 Title 51 O.S.2011 and Supp. 2012, § 24A.29 of the Oklahoma Open Records Act provides:

A. Unless confidentiality is specifically required by law, any order directing the withholding or removal of pleadings or other material from a public record shall contain:

1. A statement that the court has determined it is necessary in the interests of justice to remove the material from the public record;

2. Specific identification of the material which is to be withheld, removed or withdrawn from the public record, or which is to be filed but not placed in the public record; and

3. A requirement that any party seeking to file protected materials place such materials in a sealed manila envelope clearly marked with the caption and case number, the word "CONFIDENTIAL", and stating the date the order was entered and the name of the judge entering the order.

¶ 9 In Shadid, 2013 OK 103, 315 P.3d 1008, the Oklahoma Supreme Court, in a special concurrence, addressed the sealing of a court record under § 24A.29.

[ ]Court records are public records. There are specific statutory exceptions to this general rule (juvenile, adoption, mental health, etc.). Otherwise, documents filed with the Court Clerk's office are public records and available for public access.

[ ]Sealing a public record should be a very rare event that occurs in only the most compelling of circumstances.

If after very careful and independent consideration a District Court decides to seal a public record, it "shall" make a specific finding that sealing the public record is "necessary in the interests of justice to remove the material from the public record". 51 O.S. 24A.29. That is a very high standard for good reason and is required in every case.

All of this current litigation and expense demonstrates the very reason why courts should rarely take the drastic measure of sealing public records ....

My future guidance to the District Courts is to not block public access to court records unless it is absolutely "necessary in the interests of justice". Public records should remain public except in the most compelling of circumstances.

Id., 2013 OK 103, at ¶¶ 2–5, 315 P.3d at 1009 (Taylor, J., concurring) (emphasis added). Accordingly, there is a strong presumption in Oklahoma in favor of public access to judicial proceedings and court records.

¶ 10 In the present case, Ober testified why the court should grant her application for protective order sealing the record:

As a teacher and a coach, I feel like it's my responsibility to be a positive role model for my students and my players. I just feel like I don't want my players or my students to look up that information, or to even stumble upon it, because I feel like it could lead to a disruption due to my lapse in judgment one evening. And I don't want that to disrupt my classroom or to disrupt what I do on the court with my players....

I feel like you should have a right to know information about the teachers, but this is the one mistake that I've made in my life, and I feel like it should not follow me around for the rest of my career.... I feel like ... they don't need to know ... because if they do ... they're going to hold it as part of my character and as part of defining me, and that's not what defines me whatsoever....

I feel that, one, the mistake should not follow my career around, especially being so early in my career....

In granting Ober's application, the district court stated:

The motion will be granted. My primary reason, ... if the school wants to know, they can come ask me to open the record, ask somebody to open the record, and they'll do that.... I think potential harm here far exceeds any benefit that the public might gain. Parents, for example, aren't prohibited from finding out about their teachers by asking the district attorney in the local area or [DPS], for example, or anybody. They can call the DA's office and ask for criminal records if they hadn't been expunged. They can call the DA's office and ask for any DUI cases or anything like that. So those are the main reasons that I would grant this motion.

¶ 11 We find the trial court abused its discretion in granting the application and sealing the record. Ober has failed to establish a compelling reason why it is necessary in the interests of justice to seal the record, instead merely speculating that leaving the record open could lead to disruption at work, could interfere with employment endeavors in the future, or could cause others to erroneously define her character. Ober is not asking for the sealing of specific pleadings or confidential information, including a social security number or financial information. Rather, concerned over the potential consequences of her actions, Ober seeks to seal the entire record and prevent public access and knowledge of her conviction for driving under the influence and revocation of her driver's license. If this Court took Ober's assertion to its logical conclusion, any individual convicted of a crime or quasi-crime would be entitled to a protective order sealing the record from public access. However, as stated in Shadid, in a special concurrence,

Sealing a public record should be a very rare event that occurs in only the most compelling of circumstances.... Public records should remain public except in the most compelling of circumstances.

Id., 2013 OK 103, at ¶¶ 2 & 5, 315 P.3d at 1009.

¶ 12 Accordingly, we find the district court abused its discretion in granting Ober's application for protective order sealing the record. The June 17, 2013, order is therefore reversed.

II. DPS's Jurisdiction

¶ 13 In her response brief on appeal, Ober asserted the underlying Order of Revocation should be set aside because the record does not contain an officer's affidavit, required to invoke DPS's jurisdiction. Ober contends her failure to timely appeal this issue to the district court is immaterial because a void judgment can be attacked at any time.

¶ 14 Ober is correct that "[q]uestions of jurisdiction may be raised at any time, either in the trial court or on appeal; and even in the absence of an inquiry by the litigants, [this] Court may examine jurisdiction." Woods Petroleum Corp. v. Sledge, 1981 OK 89, ¶ 1, 632 P.2d 393, 394. Questions concerning a district court's jurisdictional power invoke the de novo standard of review.

Jackson v. Jackson, 2002 OK 25, ¶ 2, 45 P.3d 418, 422. However, a district court's decision comes to a court of review clothed with a presumption of correctness. "Every fact not disputed by...