## Facts

- Frank and Teri Johnson were parties to both a personal-injury lawsuit and a dissolution of marriage proceeding.
- The dissolution judgment was entered in December 1989, with property issues (including the personal-injury claim) reserved for later resolution.
- The personal-injury case settled in October 1991 under an agreement requiring confidentiality of its terms, and the settlement materials were placed in the court file.
- In December 1991, the parties presented an agreement in the dissolution case distributing the personal-injury settlement proceeds.
- At the parties’ request, the trial court impounded the entire dissolution file and also impounded the settlement agreement in the personal-injury case.
- In January 1992, Professional Impressions Media Group, Inc., doing business as the News-Gazette, petitioned to intervene in both cases and sought access to the impounded records, documents, and transcripts.
- The trial court allowed limited intervention to litigate access but declined to vacate the impoundment orders, reasoning that the parties had settled in reliance on confidentiality and impoundment.

## Issues

1. Whether court records and transcripts in civil proceedings are presumptively open to the public, and under what standard they may be sealed or impounded.
2. What burden parties must meet to justify restricting public access to judicial records.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by maintaining impoundment based primarily on the parties’ confidentiality expectations and settlement reliance.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the orders refusing to vacate the impoundment of the dissolution file and the personal-injury settlement agreement.
- The court held that judicial records are subject to a strong presumption of public access grounded in common law and Illinois authority.
- The court concluded that the parties’ confidentiality provisions and their reliance on secrecy in settling did not constitute a compelling interest sufficient to overcome the presumption of openness.
- The matter was remanded with directions consistent with lifting the impoundment absent a properly justified, narrowly tailored restriction.

## Legal Principles

- Court records are presumptively open to the public; restrictions on access require more than private agreement or preference.
- A trial court’s inherent authority to control its files does not permit sealing without substantial justification that outweighs the public right of access.
- The party seeking impoundment bears the burden to show, with specific facts, a compelling interest supporting secrecy; generalized privacy claims and settlement confidentiality terms ordinarily are insufficient.
- Orders restricting access must be supported by legally adequate findings and should be no broader than necessary.

## Conclusion

The Illinois Appellate Court held that public access to judicial records is the default rule and that sealing based on settlement confidentiality or the parties’ expectations of secrecy, without a compelling and specific justification, is an abuse of discretion requiring reversal and remand to permit access.


In re Marriage of Johnson, 598 N.E.2d 406 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992)