From as we speak’s nonprecedential resolution in John Doe P v. Zink:
After the trial court docket allowed the plaintiffs to litigate in pseudonym, it directed them to file a sealed doc containing their precise names (Disclosure Doc)…. We maintain that the document doesn’t help the trial court docket’s discovering that continued sealing was justified by compelling privateness or security issues that outweighed the general public curiosity in entry to court docket information….
In 2014, Zink despatched a Public Data Act (PRA) request to Thurston County looking for numerous intercourse offender information, together with registration information, particular intercourse offender sentencing different (SSOSA) evaluations, and particular intercourse offender disposition different (SSODA) evaluations. John Doe P, John Doe Q, John Doe R, and John Doe S (collectively Does) sued to enjoin the county from releasing the information. John Does P, Q, and S are stage I intercourse offenders {these categorized because the least more likely to reoffend} who alleged they complied with registration necessities. John Doe R alleged he was convicted of a intercourse offense in juvenile court docket, had accomplished therapy, and had been relieved of the obligation to register. The Does alleged that releasing the information Zink requested would trigger irreparable hurt as a result of they’d reveal the id of intercourse offenders, like themselves, who weren’t statutorily required to be listed on the state’s publicly accessible web site.
Zink finally largely prevailed on the substantive Public Data Act claims, after a number of totally different choices of appellate courts and the state supreme court docket (together with John Doe A and John Doe P II). And on this resolution, she additionally prevailed in her argument that the paperwork wherein Does recognized themselves to the court docket wanted to be made public:
“In determining whether court records may be sealed from public disclosure, we start with the presumption of openness.” Whereas “[o]penness is presumptive, … it is not absolute.” GR 15 units forth typically relevant requirements for sealing and redacting court docket information. Below GR 15(c)(2), a court docket can seal or redact a document provided that “the court makes and enters written findings that the specific sealing or redaction is justified by identified compelling privacy or safety concerns that outweigh the public interest in access to the court record.” …
Right here, the trial court docket’s 2021 findings state, in related half:
The [Does] … established compelling privateness and security issues and a severe imminent menace of quite a few types of hurt if their names are revealed, by means of their movement and … declarations …, that sufficiently outweigh the general public curiosity and [Zink’s] curiosity[ ] within the disclosure of the [Does]’ identities.
However the document displays that by 2019, after our Supreme Courtroom held in John Doe A that intercourse offender registration information aren’t exempt from PRA disclosure, Zink was receiving yearly updates of a Washington State Patrol database figuring out all stage I intercourse offenders registered in Thurston County, together with juvenile offenders. It’s undisputed that Zink made the database accessible on-line and shared it with others who requested it. She additionally filed part of the database under in response to the Does’ 2019 movement to stay below pseudonym. In the meantime, this court docket held that many of the information Zink requested from Thurston County needed to be disclosed. It’s also undisputed that after John Doe P II, Thurston County started releasing the information that Zink was entitled to, together with registration information figuring out stage I intercourse offenders.
In brief, the data the Does sought to guard by submitting their lawsuit— their identities as intercourse offenders—grew to become publicly accessible effectively earlier than their September 2022 movement to maintain the Disclosure Doc sealed. So, to help a discovering that continued sealing of the Disclosure Doc was justified by compelling privateness or security issues below GR 15(c)(2), the Does wanted to establish privateness or security issues particular to their identities because the plaintiffs on this lawsuit, which is distinct from their identities as intercourse offenders.
The Does did not establish such issues. They filed most of their supporting declarations earlier than our Supreme Courtroom’s resolution in John Doe A, they usually describe solely anticipated harms related to revealing their identities as intercourse offenders. Neither the Does’ nor their consultants’ declarations clarify why, provided that this info was already publicly accessible, any compelling privateness or security concern remained that outweighed the presumption in favor of openness and justified sealing the Disclosure Doc.
Nonetheless, the Does declare that new declarations they filed in 2022 “articulat[ed] the on-going nature of their compelling safety and privacy concerns if their names were to be released in association with the lawsuit.” However these declarations didn’t establish any separate compelling privateness or security issues associated to their identities as plaintiffs. The proof doesn’t help the trial court docket’s discovering that the Does happy the necessities of GR 15(c)(2), so the trial court docket abused its discretion by ordering that the Disclosure Doc stay sealed….