IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF JOSEPHINE COSIO, AN INCAPACITATED PERSON. CARL W. COSIO, APPELLANT,
v.
LEROY H. MERKLE, JR., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a trial court must make specific written findings to justify sealing court records.
[1] Court records may be sealed only for compelling reasons, which must be set forth by the court to facilitate review.
[2] Access to court records may be restricted to protect the interests of litigants only after a showing that the measure is necessary to prevent a serious and imminent threa…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court sealed a litigant's response to his attorney's motion to withdraw, rather than striking it as requested. The response contained dispar…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sealing Of Court Records cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
The order under review sealed Carl Co-sio’s response to his former attorney’s motion to withdraw as his counsel. We reverse. While the court in this guardianship proceeding was considering the guardian’s petition for compensation and attorney’s fees filed through her counsel, LeRoy Merkle, Cosio’s counsel, George Kickliter, filed a motion to withdraw from Cosio’s representation. In turn, Cosio filed a lengthy response that disparaged his counsel, the guardian’s counsel, and several members of the judiciary. The guardian moved to strike the response. Following a hearing, the court instead ordered the response sealed.
Under certain circumstances, a court may exclude the public from its proceedings, but such authority must be cautiously exercised. News-Press Publ’g Co. v. State, 345 So. 2d 865, 867 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (citation omitted). Court records may be sealed only for compelling reasons, which should be set forth by the court in order to facilitate review. Id. Access to court records may be restricted to protect the interests of litigants only after a showing that the following three-prong test has been met: (1) the measure limiting or denying access (closure or sealing of records or both) is necessary to prevent a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice; (2) no less restrictive alternative measures are available which would mitigate the danger; and (3) the measure being considered will in fact achieve the court’s protective purpose. Bundy v. State, 455 So. 2d 330, 337 (Fla.1984).
The order in this case contains no findings, nor does the record generally, that would permit us to determine the propriety of the order. Therefore, we reverse and remand for further consideration of the motion to strike. If the court again determines that Cosio’s filing should be sealed, it shall enter written findings specifying its reasons for such.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
SILBERMAN, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F. (Senior) Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Media Gen. Operations, Inc. v. State of Fla. & David Lee Onstott, 933 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…ejudicial or privileged information). After hearing, if the trial court concludes that the discovery materials should be sealed, its order should contain sufficient findings of fact to support its decision. See Lewis, 426 So. 2d at 7-8; In re Cosio, 841 So. 2d 693, 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Petition granted. SALCINES and DAVIS, JJ., Concur. . In Camera and Ex Parte Proceedings. (1) Any person may move for an order denying or regulating disclosure of sensitive matters. The court may consider the matters cont…
-
THE News & Observer Publ'g Co. v. A.Q., 953 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…ildren themselves which is confidential and the names of the persons involved in this case have been widely reported in the press. Petitioner suggests, therefore, that closure of the file was error under the rationale of In re Guardianship of Cosio, 841 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). We conclude that petitioner’s interpretation of the scope of protections provided for by section 63.162 is too narrow. In re Adoption of Rand, 347 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Accordingly, the petition for review is denied. P…
Authorities Cited
- Bundy v. State, 455 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1984)
- Carageorge v. Fid. & Guar. Life Ins. Co., 345 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- News-Press Publ'g Co., Inc. v. State, 345 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)