Tillotson v. Meerkerk

• Decision Date: 04 June 2015
• Docket Number: No. 20130686–CA.,20130686–CA.
• Citation: 353 P.3d 165,2015 UT App 142
• Parties: Sandra N. TILLOTSON, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Diederik Van Nederveen MEERKERK, Defendant and Appellee. The Salt Lake Tribune, Proposed Intervenor and Appellant.
• Court: Utah Court of Appeals

353 P.3d 165

2015 UT App 142

Sandra N. TILLOTSON, Plaintiff and Appellee

v. Diederik Van Nederveen MEERKERK, Defendant and Appellee.The Salt Lake Tribune, Proposed Intervenor and Appellant.

No. 20130686–CA.

Court of Appeals of Utah.

June 4, 2015.

Edward L. Carter, Orem, for Appellant.

Jeffrey L. Silvestrini, Bradley M. Strassberg, and Joshua K. Peterman, Salt Lake City, for Appellee Sandra N. Tillotson.

Judge MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN authored this Opinion, in which Judges GREGORY K. ORME and STEPHEN L. ROTH concurred.

Opinion

CHRISTIANSEN, Judge:

¶ 1 The Salt Lake Tribune appeals from the district court's denial of its motion seeking to intervene and to challenge the classification of court records as private in a closed defamation case. We vacate the district court's order denying the motion to intervene and remand the matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 The Salt Lake Tribune (the Tribune) is a daily newspaper company based in Salt Lake City, Utah. Sandra N. Tillotson is a founder of Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc., a direct-sales and network-marketing company headquartered in Provo, Utah. On May 21, 2012, Tillotson filed a complaint alleging that her ex-husband, Diederik Van Nederveen Meerkerk, threatened to publish defamatory statements about her. After filing the complaint, Tillotson filed a motion to classify as private the entire case file in her case to prevent dissemination of the allegedly defamatory statements. On the same date, the district court granted Tillotson's motion and entered an order classifying the case file as private under rule 4–202.04(3) of the Utah Rules of Judicial Administration.

¶ 3 On October 9, 2012, the Tribune filed a motion captioned “Motion to Intervene and for Access to Records.” The Tribune sought to intervene in the case pursuant to rule 24(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure to access the case file and to challenge the court's classification of that record as private. On March 11, 2013, the district court denied the Tribune's challenge without ruling on its intervention motion. Subsequently, the Tribune filed a proposed order stating that the district court had denied the motion to access records and had granted the motion to intervene. On June 7, 2013, the district court entered a minute entry on the docket, indicating that “the Court did not grant intervention to the Tribune and [the Tribune's motion] was denied.” On June 18, 2013, the district court entered a written order denying the Tribune's motion to intervene. The order did not contain any reasons for the court's denial. Thereafter, on May 4, 2014, the district court dismissed the defamation case with prejudice. The Tribune appeals from the denial of its motion to intervene.

ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 4 The Tribune challenges the district court's denial of its motion to intervene, arguing that the district court failed to properly analyze the Tribune's motion under rule 24(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure and to give any reasons for the denial of the motion.

¶ 5 “A motion to intervene involves questions of law and fact.” Taylor–West Weber Water Improvement Dist. v. Olds, 2009 UT 86, ¶ 3, 224 P.3d 709. “[T]he factual findings underpinning an intervention ruling are subject to a clearly erroneous standard, and the district court's interpretation of [rule 24(b) ] is reviewed for correctness.” Supernova Media, Inc. v. Shannon's Rainbow, LLC, 2013 UT 7, ¶ 14, 297 P.3d 599 (citation omitted). Because “[a] trial court's grant [or denial] of intervention pursuant to rule 24(b) involves the discretion of the trial court, ... we will not overturn its ruling absent a clear abuse of discretion.” State ex rel. Department of Soc. Servs. v. Sucec, 924 P.2d 882, 887 (Utah 1996).

ANALYSIS

¶ 6 The Tribune moved to intervene as a party in Tillotson's defamation case pursuant to rule 24(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure and sought to challenge the classification of the court records as private. Under the Utah Code of Judicial Administration, “[c]ourt records are public unless otherwise classified by this rule.” Utah R. Jud. Admin. 4–202.02(1). In most cases not involving juveniles or domestic relations, “case files,” among other records, are public. Id. R. 4–202.02(2)(E). In classifying a record as private, the district court must (1) “make findings and conclusions about specific records”; (2) “identify and balance the interests favoring opening and closing the record”; and (3) “if the record is ordered closed, determine there are no reasonable alternatives to closure sufficient to protect the interests favoring closure.” Id. R. 4–202.04(3). The party filing a motion to close a record must serve the motion on any member of the press who has requested notice in the case. Id. R. 4–202.04(2)(D). The district court need not conduct a hearing on a closure request unless the motion to close the record is contested or the press member has requested notice of such closure motions in the case. Id.

¶ 7 Here, because the court's order classifying the case file as private was entered on the same day the complaint was filed, the Tribune had no opportunity, as a practical matter, to file a request for notice before Tillotson's motion to close the record was submitted. The Tribune was therefore not served with notice of the motion, and no hearing on the motion was held before the court granted the motion. The Tribune then sought to intervene to challenge the court's order classifying the record as private.

¶ 8 An individual or entity that is not a party to the underlying action has two possible avenues of relief in challenging an order classifying court records.¹ First, as here, the nonparty could move to intervene as a party in the case and would be entitled to challenge the classification of court records through direct appeal of the district court's order.See Supernova Media, Inc. v. Shannon's Rainbow, LLC, 2013 UT 7, ¶ 61, 297 P.3d 599 (reversing the denial of a media company's motions to intervene as of right and setting aside a sealing order because the district court had failed to make the findings required by rule 4–202.04(3) ). Second, as a nonparty, the Tribune could seek a writ of mandamus to challenge the classification of the record. See Society of Prof'l Journalists v. Bullock, 743 P.2d 1166, 1168 n. 1 (Utah 1987) (noting that “the Society's pursuit of an extraordinary writ [was] procedurally correct” because it had “no alternative course to follow” as a nonparty who could not directly appeal the district court's order classifying records as sealed). Thus, only a party to an action can challenge the classification of a record on appeal, while a nonparty cannot. See Supernova, 2013 UT 7, ¶ 61, 297 P.3d 599 ; Society of Prof'l Journalists, 743 P.2d at 1168 n. 1. Therefore, our principal inquiry is whether the district court properly denied the Tribune's motion to intervene as a party in the underlying action. Before we reach that issue, we must first address Tillotson's claim that the Tribune's challenge is moot.

I. The Tribune's Challenge to the District Court's Intervention Ruling Is Not Rendered Moot by Dismissal of the Underlying Defamation Case.

¶ 9 Tillotson argues that the Tribune's motion to intervene is moot because the underlying action in this case was dismissed during the pendency of this appeal. Generally, “a case is deemed moot when the requested judicial relief cannot affect the rights of the litigants.” Burkett v. Schwendiman, 773 P.2d 42, 44 (Utah 1989). In the context of permissive intervention, the Utah Supreme Court has held that, as a general rule, “final settlement of all issues by all parties to a controversy renders a permissive intervenor's motion to intervene moot.” Millard County v. Utah State Tax Comm'n ex rel. Intermountain Power Agency, 823 P.2d 459, 461 (Utah 1991) (citing Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3533.2, at 236 (2d ed.1984) ).

¶ 10 Here, the Tribune moved for permissive intervention specifically to challenge the classification of the case file as private. Thus, the Tribune's interest in access to the case record is not tied to the resolution of the controversy between the parties, and that interest is not terminated by the dismissal of the case. With respect to the specific relief sought by the Tribune, had permissive intervention been granted, the Tribune would have been able to mount a direct challenge to the district court's order classifying the record as private in the defamation case. See Supernova, 2013 UT 7, ¶ 61, 297 P.3d 599. Because the motion to intervene was denied, the Tribune is presently precluded from challenging the classification order on appeal, barring public access to the record.² See Society of Prof'l Journalists, 743 P.2d at 1168 n. 1. Accordingly, the requested judicial relief of permissive intervention does affect the legal rights of the Tribune because the disposition of its motion to intervene will dictate whether it may challenge the district court's classification order on appeal—an issue neither resolved nor extinguished by the dismissal of the case. See Burkett, 773 P.2d at 44. Therefore, the Tribune's challenge to the district court's ruling on its motion to intervene in the defamation case is not rendered moot by the dismissal of the underlying case.

II. The District Court's Failure to Provide Reasons for Its Denial of the Tribune's Motion to Intervene Precludes Meaningful Appellate Review.

¶ 11 An order denying a motion to intervene is a final disposition of the claims asserted by the applicant for intervention and is appealable. Millard County, 823 P.2d at 461. Rule 24(b) governs permissive intervention and provides that “upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action ... when an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common.” Utah R. Civ. P. 24(b). In exercising its discretion...