The "Perversion Files" is defendants' shorthand for the subset of the IV files that involve sexual misconduct by adult leaders. As discussed below, BSA's Perversion Files for 1965–85 were made public pursuant to a court order from the Honorable John Wittmayer, Multnomah County Circuit Judge for the State of Oregon, in the case of Lewis v. Boy Scouts of America, No. 0710–11294 (Cir. Ct. Multnomah Co.). The Oregon Supreme Court upheld the order in Jack Doe 1 v. Corp. of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Chris of Latter–Day Saints, 352 Or. 77, 280 P.3d 377, 380 (2012). The files are available online at http://crewjanci.

Oregonian Publishing Co. v. O'Leary, 303 Or. 297, 301–02, 736 P.2d 173 (1987). In Doe v. Corp. of Presiding Bishop, 352 Or. 77, 280 P.3d 377 (2012), this court recently applied its three-step interpretive paradigm for original constitutional provisions to the open courts clause to determine whether the press was entitled to the release of certain trial exhibits after the conclusion of a trial. In that case, the court began by examining the words of the open courts clause and noted that, in the phrase “[n]o court shall be secret, but justice shall be administered, openly[,]” the key terms are “court,” “secret,” and “openly.”

Id. at 179, 376 P.3d 998 (footnotes omitted). In Doe v. Corp. of Presiding Bishop , 352 Or. 77, 88, 280 P.3d 377 (2012), the court similarly emphasized that the second independent clause prescribes how justice must be administered in Oregon. Looking again at the text, although the first two clauses are grammatically independent, their meaning is not. The first clause, "No court shall be secret," and the second clause, "justice shall be administered," are linked by the conjunction "but."

In a footnote in his brief to this court, the plaintiff stated that in October, 2012, subsequent to Judge Schuman's granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment, more than 1200 files documenting adult volunteers and scout leaders who had been banned from scouting as a result of allegations of suspected abuse between 1965 and 1985 were released to the public. See Doe v. Corp. of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–Day Saints, 352 Or. 77, 280 P.3d 377 (2012). We have read the opinion of the Supreme Court of Oregon and note the following relevant procedural history.

The "open courts" clause of Article I, section 10, of the Oregon Constitution states, "No court shall be secret, but justice shall be administered, openly and without purchase[.]" We analyzed that provision in Doe v. Corp. of Presiding Bishop , 352 Or. 77, 102, 280 P.3d 377 (2012), concluding there that the provision did not require a trial court "to order the release of exhibits that were subject to an earlier protective order requiring that the parties maintain their confidentiality at the close of trial." Unfortunately, aside from listing the factors the court should consider in conducting the required balancing, the report does not specifically describe what evidence the court must examine or how it should weigh the competing interests under subsection (6).

The decision of whether to do so is discretionary. See Doe v. Corp. of Presiding Bishop , 352 Or. 77, 86, 280 P.3d 377 (2012) ("The issuance and vacation of protective orders are matters of a trial court's discretion."). In these circumstances, for mandamus to lie, as noted above, the trial court's decision must amount to "fundamental legal error" or be "outside the permissible range of discretionary choices available."

Contemporaneous dictionary definitions provide a helpful starting point in our determination of that ordinary meaning. Doe v. Corp. of Presiding Bishop , 352 Or. 77, 90, 280 P.3d 377 (2012). As we have noted, Article IX, section 1a, was adopted by the voters in 1910.

It is often stated that our goal is to determine the meaning most likely intended or understood by the framers of the constitution. See e.g., Doe v. Corp. of Presiding Bishop, 352 Or. 77, 87, 280 P.3d 377 (2012) (in interpreting the constitution, the court “attempt[s] to understand the provision, if possible, as the framers would have understood it”). That should not be understood to mean that the purpose of the Priest analysis is to fossilize the meaning of the state constitution so that it signifies no more than what it would have been understood to signify when adopted in the mid-nineteenth century.

We review the court's rulings for an abuse of discretion. See Doe v. Corp. of Presiding Bishop , 352 Or. 77, 101, 280 P.3d 377 (2012) (reviewing for abuse of discretion trial court's ruling redacting trial exhibits subject to protective order in face of Article I, section 10, challenge). There is no explicit statutory authority authorizing a court to seal records protected from disclosure by ORS 676.175, but the authority is implicit.

The Oregon Supreme Court has explained that “[t]he open courts clause of the Oregon Constitution * * * protects both a litigant's access to court to obtain legal redress and the right of members of the public to scrutinize the court's administration of justice by seeing and hearing the courts in operation.” Doe v. Corp. of Presiding Bishop, 352 Or. 77, 93, 280 P.3d 377 (2012). However, we find nothing on the face of Article I, section 10, that suggests that it prohibits a trial court from dismissing a case based upon the inconvenient-forum doctrine, which first requires the availability of another adequate forum, see Novich, 172 Or.App. at 252–53, 18 P.3d 424, and plaintiffs do not develop a reasoned argument explaining their position.