Dream Fields, L.L.C. v. Bogart
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Dream Fields, L.L.C. v. Bogart, 175 Ohio App.3d 165, 2008-Ohio-152.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO DREAM FIELDS, L.L.C., Appellant, : : : v. APPEAL NO. C-061029 TRIAL NO. A-0600334 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION TO SEAL RECORDS. : BOGART, : Appellee. January 18, 2008 Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, L.L.P., and Craig A. Hoffman, for appellant. Santen & Hughes and Deepak K. Desai, for appellee. M ARK P. PAINTER, J UDGE . {¶1} This court decided this case in September 2007. The parties now request that the court order all records, pleadings, and proceedings sealed. We must deny their request because the records (which we assume include proceedings and pleadings) are public records and thus must remain open to the public. {¶2} Courts have traditionally recognized the right of the public to inspect judicial records.1 Grand-jury transcripts and warrant materials during pre-indictment investigations, trade secrets, and medical records are exceptions 1 Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. (1978), 435 U.S. 589, 597, 98 S.Ct. 1306. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS to this rule.2 But unless an exception clearly exists, there is a strong presumption that the records are public.3 {¶3} Ohio s Sunshine Laws govern public records and open meetings.4 Under R.C. 149.34, public records are defined as records kept by any public office. The Ohio Supreme Court has determined that records under the jurisdiction of a state court are public records under R.C. 149.43 unless an exclusion applies.5 Under the statute, public records shall be available for inspection. If we were to seal the records, it would deny the public s right to inspect those records. {¶4} The memorandum supporting the motion does not discuss any of the stated exceptions to the availability of public records in R.C. 149.43. This was a breach-of-contract case and does not appear to involve any information that must be kept confidential under the statute.6 {¶5} Unless a court record contains information that is excluded from being a public record under R.C. 149.43, it shall not be sealed and shall be available for public inspection. And the party wishing to seal the record has the duty to show that a statutory exclusion applies. Neither party has alleged a reason for sealing the records except that part of the consideration for the settlement was that it was to remain confidential. {¶6} We see here no applicable statutory exclusion. Just because the parties have agreed that they want the records sealed is not enough to justify the sealing. If it were, the public could be barred from examining most court records. Times Mirror Co. v. United States (C.A.9, 1989), 873 F.2d 1210, 1219. Id. 4 R.C. 121.22 and 149.43. 5 State ex rel. MADD v. Gosser (1985), 20 Ohio St.3d 30, 33, 485 N.E.2d 706. 6 R.C. 149.34(A)(1). 2 3 2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶7} The joint motion to seal the records in this case is denied. Motion denied. HILDEBRANDT AND WINKLER, JJ., CONCUR. RALPH WINKLER, RETIRED, OF THE FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT , SITTING BY ASSIGNMENT. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
