## Facts

- Brian Z. France and Megan P. France, spouses, executed a separation agreement addressing property, support, custody, and alimony.
- The agreement contained a broad confidentiality clause restricting disclosure of financial and personal information and treating breach as a material breach.
- The confidentiality clause contemplated litigation and required the parties to use “best efforts” to file any agreement-related court filings under seal with prior notice to the other party.
- In 2008, Brian filed an action seeking an order directing the clerk to seal his complaint and future pleadings and documents related to the agreement.
- A superior court judge entered an order directing the clerk to seal pleadings and other documents in that action and in subsequent related actions between the parties, with unsealing permitted only by further court order after notice.
- Later, in district court proceedings between the parties, media entities moved to intervene and sought access to the courtroom and court records.
- The district court entered orders in 2009 addressing public access and the effect of the earlier sealing order, declining to maintain blanket closure/sealing.
- Brian appealed the district court’s access-related rulings, arguing that the confidentiality agreement and the earlier sealing order required closed proceedings and sealed records.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by declining to close proceedings and seal records based on the parties’ confidentiality agreement and privacy concerns.
2. Whether an earlier order directing the clerk to seal filings in agreement-related actions bound a later trial judge to keep subsequent proceedings and records sealed.
3. Whether a private confidentiality clause in a separation agreement can control public access to court proceedings and judicial records.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s 2009 orders.
- The court held that the presumption of public access to court proceedings and records was not overcome on the record by a compelling countervailing interest.
- The court held that the earlier sealing order did not require continued blanket closure or sealing and could be revisited by a later judge.
- The court held that the parties’ confidentiality agreement could not, by itself, mandate closed proceedings or sealed records.

## Legal Principles

- Court proceedings and judicial records are presumptively open to the public under North Carolina law and constitutional principles.
- Sealing or closure requires a showing of a compelling countervailing public interest sufficient to justify restricting access.
- Parties may contract for confidentiality, but private agreements do not bind the judiciary or displace the public’s right of access.
- Prior sealing orders remain subject to later judicial review and modification by further court order, particularly when intervenors seek access.
- When privacy interests are implicated, courts should consider narrower measures (such as redaction) rather than blanket closure if adequate to protect sensitive information.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed orders permitting public access in a family-law dispute, holding that neither a confidentiality provision in a separation agreement nor an earlier sealing order automatically justifies closed proceedings or sealed records without a demonstrated compelling countervailing interest.


France v. France, 705 S.E.2d 399 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011)