Marriage of: Kelly and Camp

Opinion

• t t

01/22/2025

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Case Number: DA 24-0659

DA 24-0659 FILE; IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: JAN 2 2 2025 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court BRIDGET J. KELLY, State of Montana

Petitioner and Appellee, ORDER and

JOSEPH S. CAMP III,

Respondent and Appellant.

Joseph S. Camp III appeals the Sixth Judicial District Court's order denying his motion to set aside the 2018 final decree of dissolution of his marriage to Bridget J. Kelly in light of what Camp alleges were incomplete or inaccurate financial disclosures by Kelly during the dissolution proceedings. The matter comes before this Court on Kelly's motion for protective order, seeking to redact from all filings in the appeal certain information relating to her family—primarily her father, who is deceased. Camp opposes the motion. M. R. App. P. 10(7) requires redaction of confidential personal information, which includes such things as social security numbers, birth dates, and financial account numbers. Rule 10(7)(e) allows the Court, for good cause shown, to require redaction of additional information. Subsection (d) alternatively permits the Court to order that a filing be made under seal without redaction. In compliance with Rule 10(7)(f), Kelly has filed a reference list identifying each item of redacted information she seeks to protect from disclosure. The record of filings with this Court is presumptively public. The limited purpose of Rule 10(7) is to protect information in which a person has an individual privacy interest. Kelly's motion does not substantiate how such a privacy interest protects information regarding a deceased member of her family. Though she makes general reference to other individuals whose privacy interests might be implicated, Kelly does not develop an argument or include any specifics to justify an exception to the public filing of the record. She maintains only that the District Court ordered the entire underlying case file sealed in September of 2018, apparently by stipulation of the parties at that time. We conclude, on the basis of the motion presented, that Kelly has not shown good cause to order the redaction of additional information under M. R. App. P. 10(7)(e). To the extent, as she represents, that some information relates to ancillary litigation and may be subject to a non-disclosure agreement, she bears the responsibility of identifying what specific information is protected by a court order in some other case, which she has not provided with her motion. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for protective order is DENIED. Briefing shall proceed in accordance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Clerk is diroejed to give notice of this order to all counsel of reco d. Dated this r-Zi day of January, 2025.

hief Justice

Justices