Can courts seal investigative secrecy applications from public view? Kearns-Tribune Corp. v. Wilkinson Explained

In a significant victory for press access rights, the Utah Supreme Court ruled in Kearns-Tribune Corp. v. Wilkinson that investigative secrecy applications filed under Utah’s Investigative Subpoena Powers Act are public documents that cannot be sealed from public view.

Background and Facts

The Salt Lake Tribune requested access to documents the district attorney had filed seeking secrecy for a criminal investigation under the Investigative Subpoena Powers Act. The district court required the Tribune to intervene and file a written motion. After oral argument, the court denied access, ruling that the Tribune lacked standing to seek the records and alternatively that it failed to show good cause for unsealing the documents.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two primary questions: whether the Tribune had standing to challenge the court’s secrecy order, and whether the statute authorized courts to seal investigative secrecy applications themselves. The court also had to interpret the complex structure of the Investigative Subpoena Powers Act and determine which documents could be kept secret under its provisions.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court granted the Tribune’s petition for extraordinary relief. The court found that the Tribune had standing because the Investigative Subpoena Powers Act presumes court records are open to the public unless the district attorney makes the requisite showing for secrecy. More importantly, the court concluded that nothing in the statute authorizes courts to keep investigative secrecy applications themselves secret—only the underlying investigation records can be sealed.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies the public’s right to access court documents under Utah’s investigative subpoena statute. The ruling emphasizes that the burden is on prosecutors to show good cause for secrecy, not on challengers to show good cause for access. Courts must carefully distinguish between sealing underlying investigation records and sealing the applications requesting such secrecy orders.