## Facts

- In October 2003, Karla Smith filed a divorce complaint against Scott Smith in New Jersey.
- By December 2003, Karla and Scott were separated.
- In 2004, Karla sought court approval to relocate with the parties’ two minor children from New Jersey to South Carolina.
- Karla’s stated reason for relocation was a job opportunity offered by her parents, described as wealthy business owners and philanthropists in South Carolina.
- Scott opposed the relocation request and alleged that Karla’s parents and sister consumed excessive amounts of alcohol, creating a danger to the children.
- Karla denied those allegations and asserted they were unsupported and driven by spite.
- Before trial on the relocation dispute, Karla’s parents (non-parties) moved to seal portions of the Family Part case file that referred to them.
- The parents argued that the allegations about alcohol use were baseless and that public access to those references would harm their family’s reputation and adversely affect their business and charitable activities.

## Issues

1. Whether non-party relatives in a matrimonial/relocation matter may obtain an order sealing portions of the court record that reference them, based primarily on asserted reputational and business harm from disputed allegations.
2. What showing is required to overcome the presumption of public access to New Jersey court records in a Family Part matter, and whether the parents satisfied that burden.
3. If any protection is warranted, whether the court should consider narrower alternatives (such as limited redactions) rather than sealing broad portions of the file.

## Decision

- The court ruled on the non-party parents’ pretrial motion seeking to seal portions of the matrimonial record that referred to them.
- The court declined to grant the requested broad sealing relief.
- The court reasoned that New Jersey recognizes a strong presumption of public access to judicial records, including in civil matters handled in the Family Part.
- Generalized claims that publicity might harm reputation, business interests, or charitable activities—without a more concrete and specific showing—were insufficient to justify sealing substantial parts of a court file.
- The court treated the motion as seeking to limit public access to information placed before the court in connection with a disputed relocation request, and held that the movants had not carried the burden required for sealing.

## Legal Principles

- Court records are presumptively open to the public under New Jersey’s strong tradition of public access to judicial proceedings and files.
- Sealing (or restricting access to) court records requires a specific, fact-based showing that the need for confidentiality outweighs the public’s right to access; conclusory assertions are not enough.
- Reputational concerns, standing alone, ordinarily do not justify sealing allegations or filings that are part of a judicial dispute, even when the moving parties are non-parties.
- In family cases, privacy interests may justify tailored protections in appropriate circumstances (for example, to protect minor children), but a request aimed mainly at shielding adult relatives from embarrassment or adverse publicity faces a demanding standard.
- When confidentiality is justified, courts should consider narrower measures before sealing large portions of a record.

## Conclusion

In *Smith v. Smith*, the New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division, Family Part addressed a non-party motion by the relocating parent’s own parents to seal parts of a divorce and child-relocation file that included allegations about their alcohol use. Applying New Jersey’s presumption of public access to court records, the court refused to seal broad portions of the file based on generalized claims of reputational and business harm, concluding that the movants had not made the kind of specific showing required to restrict access to judicial records.


Smith v. Smith, 879 A.2d 768 (2004)