State v. McEnroe

• Citation: 174 Wash.2d 795,279 P.3d 861
• Decision Date: 28 June 2012
• Docket Number: No. 86084–0.,86084–0.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington
• Parties: STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Joseph Thomas McENROE, Petitioner.

174 Wash.2d 795

279 P.3d 861

STATE of Washington, Respondent,

v.Joseph Thomas McENROE, Petitioner.

No. 86084–0.

Supreme Court of Washington,

En Banc.

Argued Nov. 10, 2011.

Decided June 28, 2012.

Kathryn Lund Ross, Leo J. Hamaji, William J. Prestia, The Defender Association, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Daniel Todd Satterberg, Andrea Ruth Vitalich, Scott Michael O'Toole, King County Prosecutor's Office, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.

Colleen E. O'Connor, David P. Sorenson, Society of Counsel, Seattle, WA, amicus counsel for Michele Anderson.

MADSEN, C.J.

[174 Wash.2d 798]¶ 1 This case is about determining the proper procedure when a party files documents contemporaneously with a motion to seal. GR 15 governs the general procedure for sealing court records. King County has adopted Local General Rule (LGR) 15 whereby documents are submitted along with the sealing motion directly to the hearing judge. If the motion is denied, the documents in question are filed by the judge with the clerk and are open to the public.

¶ 2 The defendant, Joseph T. McEnroe, wants to file a motion to seal documents that would be used in support of a separate motion (his separate motion asks that he be tried second, following his codefendant's severed trial). Before doing so, he filed a motion to waive LGR 15 and requested the opportunity to withdraw those documents in the event his motion to seal was denied. The trial court denied his motion, ruling that GR 15 and its local counterpart preclude withdrawal.

¶ 3 We hold that LGR 15, as written, does not apply to criminal proceedings and that GR 15 does not require documents submitted with a motion to seal to be open to the public while the court considers the motion. Further, we hold that GR 15 allows withdrawal of those documents if the trial court denies the motion to seal. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court and remand with instructions to allow withdrawal in the event defendant's request for sealing is denied.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 4 Joseph McEnroe and Michele Anderson are charged with six counts of aggravated murder, and the State has given notice it intends to seek the death penalty. The trial court severed the trials of the codefendants but has not determined who will be tried first.

¶ 5 McEnroe wants to be tried second and advised the trial court he will file a motion in support of this position.¹ He further advised that in order to properly evaluate the merits of that motion, the court would need to understand the defense theory of McEnroe's mitigation case, including possible mental health mitigation. McEnroe is concerned that premature disclosure of his defense strategies regarding mitigation will prejudice his case, both at the guilt and penalty phase, should there be a conviction. To protect this sensitive information, McEnroe sought to file his motion to be tried second, and accompanying documents, under seal.

¶ 6 The trial court cautioned the parties that King County's LGR 15 would apply to all motions to seal. That rule provides the following procedure: “Contemporaneously with filing the motion to seal, the moving party shall provide ... the original unredacted copy of the document(s) the party seeks to file under seal to the hearing judge in an envelope for in camera review.” LGR 15(c)(3)(A)(i). “If the hearing judge denies the motion to seal, the judge will file the original unredacted document(s) unsealed with an order denying the motion.” LGR 15(c)(3)(B). In other words, documents sought to be sealed are provided directly to the hearing judge and, if the party's motion to seal is denied, the documents are filed by the hearing judge and open to the public.

¶ 7 Foreseeing the possibility of sensitive documents being made public, McEnroe filed a motion to waive LGR 15 ² for the purpose of filing his motion to seal. He asked the trial court to rule on his motion to seal prior to consideration of his motion regarding the order of trials. In the event the court denied his motion to seal, he asked for the opportunity to seek review of the ruling prior to the judge filing the documents and for the opportunity to withdraw his motion to be tried second along with the supporting documents before they are unsealed.

¶ 8 The trial court denied McEnroe's motion to waive LGR 15 and denied his request to withdraw his motion and supporting documents in the event the court refused to seal them. The order nevertheless acknowledged that “having painstakingly reviewed LGR 15, it appears that an argument could be made that LGR 15 as written only applies to civil and domestic relations court records.” Clerk's Papers (CP) at 23 (Order on Def.'s Mot. to Waive LGR 15 (hereinafter Order)). Finally, the trial court also ruled that if the motion to seal was eventually denied, the unredacted documents would be filed under seal for no less than 30 days to permit counsel an opportunity to seek review of that ruling.

¶ 9 McEnroe moved for discretionary review, arguing that GR 15, as adopted by the Washington Supreme Court, “contains no such drastic consequence [as LGR 15] for parties unsuccessful in their efforts to seal sensitive documents.” CP at 5 (Mot. to Waive LGR 15). His underlying concern is that LGR 15 forces parties to choose between risking release of confidential information or withholding from the court's consideration potentially relevant information in support of a motion.

ANALYSIS

¶ 10 Resolution of this case requires interpretation of a court rule, which is subject to de novo review. State v. Osman, 168 Wash.2d 632, 637, 229 P.3d 729 (2010). We interpret court rules using the rules of statutory construction. Wiley v. Rehak, 143 Wash.2d 339, 343, 20 P.3d 404 (2001). Rules are construed so as to effectuate the drafters' intent, avoiding readings that result in absurd or strained consequences. See Whatcom County v. City of Bellingham, 128 Wash.2d 537, 546, 909 P.2d 1303 (1996).

[174 Wash.2d 801]¶ 11 Our state constitution provides that “[j]ustice in all cases shall be administered openly.” Const. art. I, § 10. Although openness is presumed, it is not absolute. Dreiling v. Jain, 151 Wash.2d 900, 909, 93 P.3d 861 (2004). “The public's right of access may be limited to protect other significant and fundamental rights, such as a defendant's right to a fair trial.” Id. Although the right generally applies to court records, GR 15(a), it does not apply to all court documents. For example, our constitution “ ‘does not speak’ to the disclosure of information surfacing during pretrial discovery that does not otherwise come before the court because it ‘does not become part of the court's decision-making process.’ ” Rufer v. Abbott Labs., 154 Wash.2d 530, 541, 114 P.3d 1182 (2005) (quoting Dreiling, 151 Wash.2d at 909–10, 93 P.3d 861).

¶ 12 This case raises questions about the status of documents filed contemporaneously with a motion to seal those documents. GR 15(a) “sets forth a uniform procedure for the destruction, sealing, and redaction of court records.” King County adopted LGR 15 in an attempt to address what it believed was an unintended consequence of GR 15–that all documents are deemed filed prior to a motion to seal, rendering documents open to the public prior to a ruling sealing those documents.LGR 15 provides that unredacted documents must be provided to the hearing judge contemporaneously with filing a motion to seal those documents. LGR 15(c)(3)(A)(i). If the court grants a motion to seal, the redacted document is then filed. However, the local rule also requires the filing of unredacted original documents if the motion to seal is denied. LGR 15(c)(3)(B).

¶ 13 In response to McEnroe's motion to waive LGR 15, the trial court interpreted the local rule to require immediate filing of the motion and supporting documents in open court (with no opportunity to withdraw) if and when the motion to seal is denied. See CP at 19 (Order) (“should the court deny the defendants' respective motions to seal, the court will immediately file unredacted copies of the documents”).According to the trial court, “GR 15 contemplates that a party seeking to seal a document will file the motion and document as they would any other motion and supporting documentation.” Id. at 21. Thus, the motion to seal, and documents sought to be sealed, would be open to the public prior to the motion being considered by the court. The trial court opined that “the reason why GR 15 does not contain the ‘drastic consequence’ of subsequent filing of the unredacted document is because the rule assumes that the documents have already been filed.” Id. Based on this construction, the trial court concluded LGR 15 actually affords McEnroe “greater protection tha[n] GR 15, which affords no procedure for review prior to filing the document in the record.” Id. at 22.

¶ 14 First, we address whether LGR 15 applies to this case at all. The trial court acknowledged the application of LGR 15 to criminal cases was debatable. It nevertheless applied the rule in this case “to avoid further potential confusion, and to provide guidance to the parties.” Id. at 23.

¶ 15 In construing the rule, we begin with the plain language. Gourley v. Gourley, 158 Wash.2d 460, 466, 145 P.3d 1185 (2006). By its terms, the rule addresses only procedures for “Motions to destroy, redact or seal all or part of a civil or domestic relations court record.” LGR 15(c)(1) (emphasis added). This limiting language appears in the first subsection of LGR 15(c) and provides that such motions shall be presented to the assigned judge, where possible. LGR 15(c)(1). The ensuing subsections (2) and (3) add further specificity to the procedures related to orders to destroy, redact or seal, and motions to seal or redact that are filed contemporaneously with confidential documents, respectively. Neither subsection references criminal cases. The context and the placement of the limiting language in the introductory section strongly suggests that LGR 15 is...