## Facts

- Charles Daines served as a deputy sheriff in Park County, Colorado from February 1989 to September 1991.
- Sheriff Robert Harrison terminated Daines, citing performance problems; Daines alleged retaliation for testimony given for a criminal defendant that implicated other deputies.
- Daines sued Harrison in federal court under civil rights and employment-related theories; the case settled at a magistrate-led settlement conference on March 11, 1993.
- As part of the settlement, the parties sought confidentiality; the magistrate orally ordered confidentiality at the settlement conference and later issued a written confidentiality order on May 24, 1993.
- In early May 1993, Arkansas Valley Publishing Co. (publisher of *The Fairplay Flume*) and reporter Carol Wilburn sought access to the settlement agreement.
- After learning that a court order barred disclosure, the newspaper and reporter filed a petition in district court to rescind the confidentiality order.

## Issues

1. Whether the newspaper and reporter had Article III standing to challenge the confidentiality order without formally intervening in the underlying action.
2. Whether the magistrate abused discretion by ordering confidentiality of the settlement agreement and restricting public access to court-related records, where the dispute involved public officials and potentially public funds.

## Decision

- The district court held the petitioners had standing because denial of access to the settlement terms was a concrete informational injury caused by the confidentiality order and redressable by vacatur.
- The court granted the petition and vacated the confidentiality order.
- The court held the magistrate abused discretion because confidentiality was not supported by compelling justifications and improperly concealed a settlement involving a public official and potential public expenditures.

## Legal Principles

- A third party seeking access to judicial records must satisfy Article III standing (injury in fact, causation, and redressability); formal intervention is not necessarily required to challenge an access-restricting order.
- Judicial records are subject to a strong presumption of public access, which carries particular weight when government officials’ conduct and possible public spending are implicated.
- A confidentiality or sealing order requires specific, compelling justification (e.g., trade secrets, national security, or comparably sensitive interests); party preference for secrecy, standing alone, is insufficient.
- State open-records policies may reinforce the public interest in disclosure, even when not controlling the federal court’s access analysis.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the press to challenge a settlement confidentiality order without intervening and vacated the order because it lacked compelling justification and improperly restricted public access to information about a dispute involving a public sheriff and potential public funds.


Daines v. Harrison, 838 F. Supp. 1406 (D. Colo. 1993)