The Nevada Supreme Court ruled in favor of a coalition of major news organizations seeking to unseal court records in a trust case, delivering a victory for press freedom and public access to judicial proceedings.
Seven prominent media companies - The New York Times Company, Cable News Network Inc., The Associated Press, National Public Radio Inc., WP Company LLC, Reuters News & Media Inc., and American Broadcasting Companies Inc. - filed a writ of mandamus challenging the Second Judicial District Court's decision to seal all records and close proceedings in a case involving the DOE 1 Trust.
The petition, filed as case No. 89347, targeted orders issued by District Judge David A. Hardy and Probate Commissioner Edmund Gorman Jr. in Washoe County. The media coalition argued that the wholesale sealing of court records violated principles of judicial transparency and public access.
The case centers on proceedings involving the DOE 1 Trust and unnamed parties designated as Does 1 through 9, who sought to maintain confidentiality over the trust matters. The district court had granted broad sealing orders that prevented public access to court filings and closed all hearings to the public and press.
The Nevada Supreme Court's decision to grant the petition represents a significant ruling on the balance between privacy interests in trust proceedings and the public's right to access court records. Trust cases often involve sensitive financial and family matters, leading some parties to seek confidentiality protections. However, courts must weigh these privacy concerns against the fundamental principle that judicial proceedings should generally be open to public scrutiny.
The media coalition was represented by McLetchie Law, with attorneys Margaret A. McLetchie and Leo S. Wolpert handling the case. The petitioners argued that blanket sealing orders violate both Nevada law and constitutional principles requiring court proceedings to be presumptively open to the public.
Real Party in Interest Doe 9 was represented by multiple law firms, including Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP with attorneys Jordan T. Smith and Brianna Smith, as well as Solomon Dwiggins Freer & Steadman Ltd. with Alexander G. LeVeque, Alan D. Freer, and Dana A. Dwiggins. Additional representation came from Snell & Wilmer LLP and Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP.
The case highlights ongoing tensions between transparency in judicial proceedings and privacy rights, particularly in matters involving trusts and estates where parties often seek to keep family and financial information confidential. Nevada, like many states, has specific procedures for trust administration that can involve sensitive personal and financial details.
Press freedom advocates view the ruling as an important precedent for challenging overly broad sealing orders. Courts have increasingly faced pressure to balance legitimate privacy concerns with the public's right to know about judicial proceedings. The involvement of major national news organizations in this case underscores the broader implications for media access to court records.
The Supreme Court's decision to grant the writ of mandamus means the high court found that the district court exceeded its authority or failed to properly consider the legal standards for sealing court records. Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy typically reserved for situations where lower courts have clearly erred on important legal questions.
Trust litigation often involves complex family dynamics, significant financial assets, and disputes over inheritance or estate administration. While these matters can be highly personal, courts generally require specific findings and narrow tailoring when considering requests to seal records or close proceedings.
The ruling may have broader implications for how Nevada courts handle requests for confidentiality in trust and estate matters. It could establish precedent requiring more rigorous analysis before granting sealing orders and may encourage greater scrutiny of blanket confidentiality requests.
For the media organizations involved, the victory reinforces their ability to challenge court secrecy and advocate for public access to judicial proceedings. The coalition's successful petition demonstrates the continuing importance of press oversight in ensuring government transparency.
The case also reflects the evolving landscape of court access issues, as digital court records and increased media attention to judicial proceedings have heightened debates about the proper balance between transparency and privacy. As more proceedings move online and court records become more easily accessible, these tensions are likely to continue generating litigation.
The Nevada Supreme Court's ruling sends a clear message that courts cannot simply seal entire cases without proper justification and consideration of less restrictive alternatives. The decision reinforces that the presumption of public access to court proceedings remains strong, even in sensitive matters involving private trusts and family disputes.