Hutchison v. Luddy
398 Pa. Super. 505, 581 A.2d 578, 18 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1071 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The public, including the press, generally has a common law and First Amendment right of access to civil pleadings and pretrial proceedings, but this right does not extend to private discovery materials collected during litigation.
Facts:
- Samuel C. Hutchison filed a civil action claiming damages against Father Francis Luddy, Bishop James Hogan, and the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown.
- Hutchison alleged that Father Luddy performed various sexual acts while serving his pastoral duties in Windber, Pennsylvania.
- The complaint also asserted causes of action against Bishop Hogan and the Diocese, alleging a breach of supervisory duties, as well as personnel and program control.
- Father Luddy faced criminal charges stemming from these same alleged acts.
- Pittsburgh newspapers engaged in coverage of both the civil and criminal actions against Father Luddy.
- Bishop James Hogan and the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown believed that public access to the civil case records would make it impossible for them and Father Luddy to obtain a fair trial and would cause irreparable prejudice to their reputations.
Procedural Posture:
- Samuel C. Hutchison filed a civil action in the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County (trial court) against Father Francis Luddy, Bishop James Hogan, and the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown.
- Bishop James Hogan and the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown (Church Parties) filed a Motion to Seal all pleadings, discovery matters, and pretrial proceedings in the trial court.
- The Pittsburgh Press Company filed a Petition to Intervene in the trial court for the limited purpose of opposing the Motion to Seal.
- The trial court granted the Pittsburgh Press Company's Petition to Intervene for the limited purpose of opposing the motion to seal records.
- The trial court denied the Church Parties' Motion to Seal completely regarding pleadings and pretrial proceedings, but granted it in part for discovery (sealing discovery directed at Father Luddy and denying sealing other discovery as premature).
- The Church Parties appealed the trial court's order to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a newspaper have a common law and First Amendment right to intervene in a civil action to oppose a motion to seal all pleadings, pretrial proceedings, and discovery materials, and does the trial court abuse its discretion by denying the motion to seal these materials?
Opinions:
Majority - Hudock, Judge
Yes, a newspaper generally has a common law and First Amendment right to intervene and access civil pleadings and pretrial proceedings, but no, this right does not extend to private discovery materials, and therefore the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to seal discovery materials. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s order. The court first established subject matter jurisdiction under the collateral order exception to the final judgment rule, as the order denying the seal was separable from the main action, involved important rights (fair trial, reputation), and if review were postponed, the claimed rights would be irreparably lost. The court then concluded that the Pittsburgh Press had a "legally enforceable interest" under Pa.R.Civ.P. 2327(4) to intervene to secure its right of access to pleadings and pretrial proceedings, as both common law, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the Pennsylvania Constitution support a principle of openness for these materials. The presumption of public access extends to pleadings and pretrial proceedings, and the Church Parties failed to meet the burden to overcome this presumption under either the First Amendment "good cause" analysis (from Publicker Industries, Inc. v. Cohen) or the common law balancing test (from Bank of America Nat’l and Sav. Ass’n v. Hotel Rittenhouse Associates). However, the court determined that the trial court erred in allowing the Pittsburgh Press to intervene and in denying the motion to seal with respect to depositions and discovery matters. Citing Stenger v. Lehigh Valley Hosp. Center and Seattle Times v. Rinehart, the court reiterated that private documents collected during discovery are not "judicial records" for purposes of public access. Discovery is an essentially private process, and thus there is no common law or First Amendment right of public access to pretrial discovery materials. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by not applying Stenger and by denying the motion to seal all discovery information (except for specific discovery directed at Father Luddy, which it had sealed). The court emphasized that the trial itself would remain open, and all relevant and admissible evidence would be publicly available at that time.
Concurring_dissenting - Beck, Judge
Yes, the Pittsburgh Press has the right to intervene to vindicate its right of access to pleadings and pretrial proceedings, but no, the majority’s substantive evaluation of access to pretrial discovery information was premature because the trial court had not yet made a specific, appealable ruling on that matter. Judge Beck concurred with the majority's finding of subject matter jurisdiction and the Pittsburgh Press' right to intervene to access pleadings and pretrial proceedings. However, Judge Beck dissented from the majority's decision regarding pretrial discovery materials. The trial court had denied the motion to seal other discovery as "premature" and invited the Church Parties to present future objections or motions for protective orders. Judge Beck argued that because the trial court had not yet made a specific, appealable ruling on the sealing of discovery, the issue was not "ripe for review." Therefore, the majority's substantive evaluation of this issue was improper, and the trial court's order should have been affirmed in its entirety.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical distinction regarding public and media access to civil litigation documents, differentiating between publicly filed court records and private discovery materials. It affirms the strong presumption of openness for pleadings and pretrial proceedings, rooted in First Amendment and common law principles, highlighting the high burden required for closure. Conversely, the decision solidifies the privacy of discovery, recognizing its function as a private information-gathering process. This distinction is crucial for attorneys in managing public perception and protecting client information in high-profile cases, while also setting boundaries for media intervention and public oversight of the judicial system. It balances the public's right to know with litigants' rights to privacy and a fair trial.
