/FILE IN CLEftiCI OFFICE . . .• COURT, IWIOf'WMIINCm:IN
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) No. 85665-6 Respondent, ) ) v. ) EnBanc ) MATTHEW H. RICHARDSON, ) ) Respondent, ) ) MIKE SIEGEL, ) ) Petitioner. ) ) Filed MAY -'0 9 2013
C. JOHNSON, J.-This case involves a challenge to a trial court's order
denying a motion to unseal records. In 2010, Mike Siegel moved to intervene and
to unseal the court file in the criminal case of State v. Richardson, King County
Superior Court No. 93-1-02331-2. The court file was originally sealed in 2002. The
trial court authorized intervention but denied the motion to unseal. Siegel
petitioned this court for direct review of the trial court's order denying his motion
to unseal. The deputy clerk denied appeal as a matter of right and redesignated the
matter as a motion for discretionary review. We granted direct discretionary No. 85665-6
review. Siegel argues that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to unseal
because it failed to perform an Ishikawa 1 analysis and failed to comply with GR
15, (2) the denial of his motion to unseal is appealable as of right, and (3) he
should be entitled to attorney fees under RAP 18 .1. Because the trial court failed to
apply Ishikawa and GR 15(e)(2); and failed to articulate its reasons for continued
sealing on the record, we remand to the trial court to determine if the records
should remain sealed under Ishikawa and GR 15(e)(2).
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Mike Siegel's claims arise out of a 1993 criminal case involving the
defendant, Matthew H. Richardson. In 201 0, the Seattle Times reported that
Richardson, then a ninth grade teacher and candidate for the state senate, had
entered an Alford2 plea to one count of communicating with a minor for immoral
purposes in 1993. The article reported that the charges stemmed from allegations
of sexual misconduct with two female relatives, ages 8 and 5, when Richardson
was 16. According to the article, the allegations were made 10 years after the
alleged misconduct took place. It also reported that the trial court imposed a
1 Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d 30, 640 P.2d 716 (1982).
2 North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160,27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970).
2 No. 85665-6
deferred sentence requiring community service and payment of counseling costs
for one of the girls.
In the criminal action, the King County Superior Court granted Richardson's
motion to withdraw his guilty plea and dismiss the charges in 1994. In January
2002, the trial court entered an order vacating his record of conviction.
Approximately one month later, the trial court granted an order sealing the court
file. All of the court records and the court docket were sealed, including the order
granting sealing.
In light of the Seattle Times article, Siegel filed a motion to intervene and a
motion to unseal the file. The trial court granted the motion to intervene but denied
the motion to unseal. The trial court's order denying Siegel's motion to unseal
states in part, "ORDERED that the Intervenor's Motion to Unseal the court file
under the provisions ofGR 15, the Washington State Constitution, and applicable
case law, is hereby DENIED." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 107.
Siegel petitioned this court for direct review of the trial court's order
denying his motion to unseal. The deputy clerk of this court invited comment from
the parties on whether the order was appealable as a matter of right. After receiving
responses from Siegel and Richardson, the deputy clerk redesignated the matter as
3 No. 85665-6
a motion for discretionary review without prejudice to the parties' right to argue
the appealability issue. We granted direct discretionary review.
ISSUES
1. What standard must the trial court apply when considering a motion to unseal court records?
2. Is an order denying an intervenor's motion to unseal records in a criminal case appealable as a matter of right?
3. Is Siegel entitled to attorney fees under RCW 4.84.080 and RAP 18.1?
ANALYSIS
1. Standard for Unsealing Records
Appellate courts review a trial court's decision to seal or unseal records for
abuse of discretion. Rufer v. Abbott Labs., 154 Wn.2d 530, 540, 114 P.3d 1182
(2005). But where the trial court applied an incorrect legal rule, the appellate court
remands to the trial court to apply the correct rule. State v. Waldon, 148 Wn. App.
952, 957, 202 P.3d 325 (2009) (citing Rufer, 154 Wn.2d at 540).
The parties in this case, Mike Siegel and the State of Washington, agree that
remand is appropriate here. 3 However, the parties and amici disagree over the
3 Richardson requested appointment of counsel at public expense, which was denied. As such, he did not file briefing before us and therefore, did not present any oral argument. Four amici briefs were filed: (1) Washington Coalition for Open Government, (2) Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington and Washington Newspaper Publishers Association, (3) American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, and (4)Washington Defender Association and Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. The latter two presented oral argument.
4 No. 85665-6
correct rules that the trial court should apply on remand. The petitioner, Mike
Siegel, seems to suggest that on remand, the trial court should apply the five-factor
Ishikawa analysis and the current general rule for sealing, GR 15(c). The
respondent, State of Washington, seems to agree that the trial court should apply
GR 15(c) on remand and reasons that it would be unfair for the trial court to apply
the current general rule for unsealing, GR 15(e), given that the file was initially
sealed under the old general rule for sealing, former GR 15(c) (2000). 4 Amici
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) agrees with the parties that this case
should be remanded, but ACLU argues that although the case file was sealed under
former GR 15(c), the trial court should simply correct any procedural deficiencies
in the public record if possible, then apply GR 15(e) normally, with Siegel bearing
the burden to show compelling circumstances for unsealing. In contrast, amici
Washington Defender Association and Washington Association of Criminal
Defense Lawyers (collectively amici Defender Association) seems to argue that the
five-factor Ishikawa analysis does not apply in the context of a motion to unseal.
Amici Defender Association also seems to agree with the amici ACLU that the 4 At the time of the original sealing order in 2002, the general rules allowed records to be sealed when "there are compelling circumstances requiring such action." Former GR 15(c)(l)(B) (2000). Likewise, the general rules at that time allowed records to be unsealed "upon proof of compelling circumstances." Former GR 15(d)(l) (2000). In 2006, GR 15(c) was substantially revised. See GR 15(c). However, the current general rule for unsealing records in criminal cases still provides that records should be unsealed "upon proof of compelling circumstances." GR 15(e)(2).
5 No. 85665-6 ,
trial court should apply GR 15(e) and that Siegel has the burden under the rule to
show proof of compelling circumstances.
In this case, our ability to review the trial court's order denying Siegel's
motion to unseal is hampered somewhat by the lack of a record before us. The
record does not contain any of the pleadings that Richardson filed in 2002 in
support of his motion to seal the file. In addition, we do not have a written record
supporting the trial court's order sealing the file, such as findings made by the trial
court or factors applied by the trial court in ordering the files sealed. 5 Although the
record currently reveals that the victims filed declarations in support of the motion
to unseal, their declarations do not provide any indication of the basis supporting
the initial order sealing the file. This lack of a record similarly hampers the parties
and amici in their ability to craft their arguments on how this particular motion to
unseal should be analyzed.
Based on the limited record before us, it appears that the underlying
proceeding in this case involves a presumptively open criminal action and
5 The trial court's order in 2002 simply states, "This matter having come on regularly for hearing before the undersigned upon motion of the Respondent pursuant to GR 15, the court having been duly advised by Certification of the pertinent behavior and circumstances ofthe Respondent subsequent to the within-referenced incident and finding that the statements contained in the Certification are true and correct, and reasonable attempts having been made to notify the victims ofthe offense of this hearing, now, therefore, it is hereby "ORDERED that the King County Superior Court Clerk's records and files herein, including those on microfilm, shall be sealed." CP at 90.
6 No. 85665-6
disposition. As such, the proper rules that a trial court should apply in deciding a
motion to unseal records in a criminal case are the Ishikawa factors and GR
15(e)(2).
a. Ishikawa analysis
Generally, in deciding a motion to unseal records in a criminal case, the trial
court must apply the Ishikawa factors to ensure that continued sealing remains
justified under current circumstances. Because court records are presumptively
open, the burden of persuasion rests on the proponent of continued sealing. In
addition, because the presumption that court records are open would be
meaningless if court dockets could be sealed without justification, the same
constitutional standards apply to the sealing or unsealing of court dockets.
Although the Ishikawa factors are written from the perspective of a motion to seal,
we take this opportunity to clarify how the Ishikawa factors should be applied in
the context of deciding a motion to unseal.
As we stated in Ishikawa, the first factor requires the proponent of sealing to
make some showing of the need therefor and to "state the interests or rights which
give rise to that need as specifically as possible without endangering those
interests." Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d at 37. We also stated that the "quantum of need
which would justify restrictions on access differs depending on whether a
7 No. 85665-6
defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial would be threatened." Ishikawa,
97 Wn.2d at 37. In the context of unsealing, the proponent of continued sealing
must make some showing of the "ongoing need therefor." Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d at
42 (emphasis added). Thus, if the initial sealing order was granted to protect a
defendant's fair trial rights, a higher threshold will be required to justify continued
sealing if the defendant's fair trial rights are no longer threatened.
The second Ishikawa factor requires that '" [a]nyone present ... must be
given an opportunity to object to the [suggested restriction]."' Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d
at 3 8 (last alteration in original) (quoting Federated Pub! 'gs, Inc. v. Kurtz, 94
Wn.2d 51, 62, 615 P .2d 440 ( 1980)). In Ishikawa, we explained:
For this opportunity to have meaning, the proponent must have stated the grounds for the motion with reasonable specificity, consistent with the protection of the right sought to be protected. At a minimum, potential objectors should have sufficient information to be able to appreciate the damages which would result from free access to the proceeding and/or records. This knowledge would enable the potential objector to better evaluate whether or not to object and on what grounds to base its opposition.
Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d at 38. In the context of unsealing, this factor requires the trial
court to ensure that the proponent of continued sealing discloses the justification
for continued sealing with reasonable specificity so the moving party can make
informed arguments opposing the sealing. In addition, this factor requires the trial
court to ensure that the named parties receive appropriate notice of the motion to
8 No. 85665-6
unseal. The trial court may also consider whether any third party interests are
implicated in the sealed information and whether or not these interests would be
adequately protected by the parties. Interested third parties may be afforded
reasonable notice and an opportunity to present argument where appropriate.
The third factor provides that "[t]he court, the proponents and the objectors
should carefully analyze whether the requested method for curtailing access would
be both the least restrictive means available and effective in protecting the interests
threatened." Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d at 38. When analyzing a motion to unseal, this
factor requires the trial court to consider whether any less restrictive means to
continued sealing are available, such as redaction. The trial court must also analyze
whether sealing remains effective in protecting the interests threatened (such as
victims or other privacy concerns) under the current circumstances.
The fourth Ishikawa factor requires the court to "'weigh the competing
interests of the defendant and the public' and consider the alternative methods
suggested." Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d at 38 (quoting Kurtz, 94 Wn.2d at 64). The court's
"consideration of these issues should be articulated in its findings and conclusions,
wh~ch should be as specific as possible rather than conclusory." Ishikawa, 97
w·n.2d at 3 8 (citation omitted). As in the sealing context, in the context of
unsealing this factor requires the trial court to decide whether to keep the records
9 No. 85665-6
sealed based on the outcome of an interest balancing test. In doing so, the trial
court must articulate its factual findings and conclusions on the record in order to
demonstrate that it considered the competing interests at stake and any available
alternatives to continued sealing.
Finally, the fifth Ishikawa factor provides that the
"'order must be no broader in its application or duration than necessary to serve its purpose." If the order involves sealing of records, it shall apply for a specific time period with a burden on the proponent to come before the court at a time specified to justify continued sealing.
Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d at 39 (quoting Kurtz, 94 Wn.2d at 64). This factor requires the
trial court to consider durationallimits on a continued sealing order where
appropriate.
We have adopted these factors as a framework, which must be
satisfied in order to overcome the constitutional presumption of openness
under article I, section 10 of the state constitution to justify sealing court
records.
b. GR 15(e)(2)
Consistent with the Ishikawa analysis, the trial court is also guided by GR
15(e)(2) when deciding a motion to unseal court records in a criminal case. GR
15(e)(2) provides that "[a] sealed court record in a criminal case shall be ordered
unsealed only upon proof of compelling circumstances." The State, amici ACLU,
10 No. 85665-6
and amici Defender Association argue that this rule places the burden on the
person seeking to unseal the file to show "compelling circumstances" for
unsealing. Amici Daily Newspapers of Washington and Washington Newspaper
Publishers Association argue that placing the burden on the public to show the
need for openness in an unsealing action would erase the presumption of openness
required by article I, section 10. See Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d at 37-38 ("Because courts
are presumptively open, the burden of justification should rest on the parties
seeking to infringe the public's right.").
The rule must be read and applied consistent with the constitutional
principles of openness. We find that GR 15(e) can be harmonized under these
principles by equating the rule with the five-factor Ishikawa analysis. This makes
sense ~ecause the Ishikawa analysis similarly requires proof that compelling
circumstances exist in order to justify continued sealing. As such, we reject the
argument that the proponent of unsealing must overcome a presumption of
continued sealing and show that "compelling circumstances" for unsealing exist.
Instead, we hold that "compelling circumstances" for unsealing exist when the
proponent of continued sealing fails to overcome the presumption of openness
under the five-factor Ishikawa analysis. In either case, the trial court must apply
the factors and enter findings supporting the decision.
11 No. 85665·-6
In this case, based on the limited record before us, the decision to unseal the
file would seem straightforward, in fact, the file was unsealed from 1993 until
2002. The underlying proceeding involves a presumptively open criminal action
and disposition. The privacy interests of the victims might be implicated but the
victims have evidently expressed support for unsealing. However, since the record
before us lacks any findings of fact by the trial court or the factors applied by the
trial court, a new hearing is appropriate. Accordingly, we remand this case to the
trial c<)urt to conduct a new hearing to determine if continued sealing remains
justified under Ishikawa and GR 15(e)(2).
2. Appealability
Siegel also asks us to decide that, as an intervenor in a criminal case, he has
a right to appeal the trial court's order as a matter of right under RAP 2.2(a)(l)
because a sealing or unsealing order is a "final judgment." RAP 2.2( a)(l) permits
an appeal as a matter of right from the "final judgment entered in any action or
proceeding, regardless of whether the judgment reserves for future determination
an award of attorney fees or costs." CrR 7.3, which pertains to the judgment in a
criminal case, states in pertinent part, "[i]f the defendant is found not guilty or for . .
any other reason is entitled to be discharged, judgment shall be entered
accordingly." Under this rule, judgment in this case was entered in 1994 when the
12 No. 85665-6
trial court ordered that the plea of guilty previously entered be withdrawn and the
charges be dismissed with prejudice. Thus, Siegel's appeal does arise from the
criminal proceeding, as such, but a decision on unsealing records is not the same as
the "final judgment" entered in the criminal proceeding.
Siegel also argues that he has a right to appeal the trial court's order as a
matter of right under RAP 2.2(a)(3) as a "decision determining action." RAP
2.2(a)(3) provides that a "decision determining action" is "[a]ny written decision
affecting a substantial right in a civil case that in effect determines the action and
prevents a final judgment or discontinues the action." (Emphasis added.) Because
this rule by its text applies only to a written decision in a civil case, the rule is
inapplicable here since the trial court's order is a written decision in a criminal
case. Therefore, Siegel fails to show that he is entitled to appeal as a matter of right
under RAP 2.2(a)(3).
Although the preceding analysis applies in cases where a criminal action is
still pending, in cases where the underlying criminal action has concluded,
different rules apply. Specifically, RAP 2.2(a)(l3) permits an appeal as a matter of
right from "[a]ny final order made after judgment that affects a substantial right."
RAP 2.2(a)(13) (emphasis added). For the rule to apply, the order must affect a
substantial right "other than those adjudicated by the earlier final judgment." State
13 No. 85665-6
v. Campbell, 112 Wn.2d 186, 190, 770 P.2d 620 (1989) (citing Seattle-First Nat'!
Bank v. Marshall, 16 Wn. App. 503, 508, 557 P.2d 352 (1976)). Here, the trial
court entered an order denying Siegel's motion to unseal in 2010, six years after
final judgment in the underlying criminal action was entered. The right affected
was not adjudicated by the underlying criminal action, and the order affected a
substantial right, namely, the right of public access to court records.
Moreover, limiting intervenors to discretionary review after their motions to
unseal are denied would diminish their right to the open administration of justice
enshrined in our constitution. CONST. art. I,§ 10. We have recognized that
discretionary review is seldom granted. See In re Dependency of Grove, 127
Wn.2d 221,235-36, 897 P.2d 1252 (1995) (noting that fewer than 10 percent of
motions for discretionary review filed in the Court of Appeals were granted).
Because discretionary review would limit the rights of third party intervenors
seeking; court records, the trial courts considering motions to unseal would often
become the ultimate arbiters on these significant constitutional interests. This
might encourage parties to circumvent the intervention procedure we outlined in
Yakima County v. Ya~ima Herald-Republic, 170 Wn.2d 775, 783, 246 P.3d 768
(20 11 ), by filing independent actions for the unsealing of records, thereby
obtaining final judgments that are appealable. Worse yet, parties unable to obtain
14 No. 85665-6
discretionary review might be tempted to revert to the extraordinary writ system
that dis·cretionary review was designed to supplant. See 2A KARL B. TEGLAND,
WASHINGTON PRACTICE: RULES PRACTICE RAP 2.3 task force cmt. at 201 (7th ed.
2011 & Supp. 2012) ("The various extraordinary writs are consolidated into a
single action called discretionary review."). Discretionary review is simply too
limited to protect the constitutional interests of intervening parties asserting a right
of access to court records.
Accordingly, we hold that an intervenor seeking to unseal criminal records
has a right to appeal as a matter of right under RAP 2.2(a)(13), where the order
denying unsealing is entered after final judgment in the underlying criminal
proceeding and the right affected was not previously adjudicated.
3. Attorney Fees
Siegel seeks attorney fees under RCW 4.84.080 and RAP 18.1. We have
held that RAP 18.1 (b) requires " [a]rgument and citation to authority" as necessary
to inform the court of grounds for an award, not merely "a bald request for attorney
fees." Wilson Court Ltd. P'ship v. Tony Maroni's, Inc., 134 Wn.2d 692, 710 n.4,
952 P.2d 590 (1998). Here, Siegel cites RCW 4.84.080 in support of an award for
attorney fees. However, because that statute deals with the $200 "costs to be called
the attorney fee," it does not provide a statutory basis for attorney fees under RAP
15 No. 85665-6
18.1. Because Siegel fails to cite to any other authority in support of his request,
we deny Siegel's attorney fees request. 6
CONCLUSION
We reverse the order denying the motion to unseal and remand to the trial
court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
6 Siegel does not indicate who would pay fees if fees were authorized. In this case, since Richardson did not participate, no basis exists to assess fees against him.
16 No. 85665-6
WE CONCUR:
17 State v. Richardson, No. 85665-6 (Gonzalez, J., concurring)
No. 85665-6
GONZALEZ, J. (concurring)-The majority has made an earnest attempt to meld
the test laid down for sealing court records in Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d
30, 640 P.2d 716 (1982) with the GR 15(e) process for unsealing sealed court records
into a 6 part (or possibly 11, including subsections and unincorporated portions of GR
15(e)) analytical framework. But Ishikawa concerned whether a pending criminal
court proceeding or record should be sealed. 97 Wn.2d at 32. It is ill suited for
deciding whether a court record or docket should be unsealed. The test the court
announces today will confound both the parties seeking to open or protect sealed
records and the trial bench. While I agree that remand is appropriate, I simply cannot
agree that the constitutional injunction that "UJustice in all cases shall be administered
openly" means that we must ignore the age-old legal principle that the party seeking
judicial relief bears the burden of showing that the relief is appropriate. CONST. art. I,
§ 10. Nor do I agree that we should set aside another age-old principle: that a party
collaterally attacking a court judgment bears the burden of showing either error or
changed circumstances.
I would instead adopt a two step process, governed by the general procedures
set forth in GR 15(e). 1 First, I would place on the person attacking the sealing order
1 Most relevantly, our rules require:
Grounds and Procedure for Requesting the Unsealing of Sealed Records. (1) Sealed court records may be examined by the public only after the court records have been ordered unsealed pursuant to this section or after entry of a court order allowing access to a sealed court record. State v. Richardson, No. 85665-6 (Gonzalez, J., concurring)
the burden of showing either that the order was improper when it was entered (under
article I, section 10, GR 15, or our open courts case law) or that there has been a
material change in circumstances that could justify modification of the order. I would
allow, though not require, trial judges to make this decision in a preliminary
procedure. If the trial judge concludes the sealing was improper initially, then the
proponent of maintaining the seal would bear the burden of showing that it was
appropriate under our constitution, rules, and case law. If the proponent of unsealing
demonstrates that there has been a material change in circumstances that could justify
unsealing, then that proponent would also bear the burden of showing that unsealing is
appropriate. In either case, a record or docket could be sealed only upon a showing
that the sealing was proper under both GR 15 and article I, section 10, either initially
in a proper order sealing the record or in response to a motion to unseal. In either
case, the notice and comment provisions for GR 15 would remain in force.
This two part approach is consistent with the principle that a settled court
judgment is worthy of respect. State v. Sisouvanh, 175 Wn.2d 607, 619, 290 P.3d 942
(2012) (quoting State v. Wade, 138 Wn.2d 460, 464, 979 P.2d 850 (1999)). Further, a
party seeking to bring what is, in essence, a collateral attack on a settled court
judgment should bear the burden of showing it is appropriate to disturb that judgment.
Id.,· see also In re Coats, 173 Wn.2d 132, 131, 267 P.3d 324 (2011) (citing In re Pers.
(2) Criminal Cases. A sealed court record in a criminal case shall be ordered unsealed only upon proof of compelling circumstances, unless otherwise provided by statute, and only upon motion and written notice to the persons entitled to notice ....
GR 15(e).
2 State v. Richardson, No. 85665-6 (Gonzalez, J., concurring)
Restraint of Cook, 114 Wn.2d 802, 810-12,792 P.2d 506 (1990)). Putting at least the
initial burden on the person attacking the order is also consistent with GR 15(e)(2),
which requires "proof of compelling circumstances" before a sealed criminal record
can be unsealed.
Ishikawa is an important decision, but the rule it announced was designed for
courts facing a motion to seal in a pending criminal case. Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d at 32.
It was designed to give those trial courts a reasoned way to balance the constitutional
issues at stake during trial. Id. at 32, 37-39. It is certainly relevant to whether a trial
court entered a proper order sealing a record. I do not find it helpful for deciding a
motion to unseal, except in a very generalized way.
I do not agree with the majority that third party interveners are entitled to
review as of right to a judge's decision on motions to seal or unseal. An order sealing
or unsealing a record is not a "final judgment" under RAP 2.2(a)(1) or a "decision
determining action" under RAP 2.2(a)(3). Thus only discretionary review is available
under RAP 2.3. I do agree that the petitioner has shown no basis for an award of
attorney fees.
The orders sealing the record 2 and docket in this case plainly do not comply
with article I, section 10 or the Ishikawa standards. See Clerk's Papers at 90, 92.
2 The trial court's order states:
THIS MATTER having come on regularly for hearing before the undersigned upon motion of the Respondent pursuant to GR 15, the court having been duly advised by Certification of the pertinent behavior and circumstances of the Respondent subsequent to the within-referenced incident and finding that the statements contained in the Certification are true and correct, and reasonable attempts having been made to notify the victims of the offense of this hearing, now, therefore, it is hereby
3 State v. Richardson, No. 85665-6 (Gonzalez, J., concurring)
Neither shows the court weighed the important constitutional considerations at stake.
Given that, and given the fact that the parties have not had an opportunity to brief the
motion to unseal under the appropriate standard, I agree with the majority that remand
is appropriate.
I respectfully concur in result.
ORDERED that the King County Superior Court Clerk's records and files herein, including those on microfilm, shall be sealed.
Clerk's Papers at 90.
4 State v. Richardson, No. 85665-6
7!f« ~/IC). -~~J"q.
PI