Opinion
1180978
10-30-2020
EX PARTE Paula DINARDI (In re: Paula DiNardi v. Ronan Francis McSharry)
Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Baldwin Circuit Court, CV-19-900614); Joseph Stankoski, J. David A. McDonald, Mobile; and Blakely W. Barnes of The Barnes Firm LLC, Fairhope, for petitioner. James B. Pittman, Jr., and Jon C. Archer II of James B. Pittman, Jr., PC, Daphne, for respondent.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Baldwin Circuit Court, CV-19-900614); Joseph Stankoski, J.
David A. McDonald, Mobile; and Blakely W. Barnes of The Barnes Firm LLC, Fairhope, for petitioner.
James B. Pittman, Jr., and Jon C. Archer II of James B. Pittman, Jr., PC, Daphne, for respondent.
SHAW, Justice.
PETITION DENIED; NO OPINION.
Parker, C.J., and Bolin, Wise, Bryan, Mendheim, and Mitchell, JJ., concur.
Sellers and Stewart, JJ., dissent.
SELLERS, Justice (dissenting).
This case is before this Court on Paula DiNardi's petition seeking a writ of mandamus directed to the Baldwin Circuit Court regarding two separate orders entered by that court. I would issue the writ and direct the trial court to vacate its August 14, 2019, order sealing certain filings in this case. It is my belief that before sealing the record in a case, which prevents the public from gaining knowledge of the issues involved in the litigation, a trial court is required, pursuant to this Court's established precedent, to determine whether a movant has met his or her burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that the requested filings are due to be sealed. See Holland v. Eads, 614 So. 2d 1012 (Ala. 1993). I further believe that the aggrieved party here, on the issue of having sealed or unsealed records, is the general public, so the hearing pursuant to Holland is required for the trial court to review the information and to issue written findings, thus balancing the right of the general public to know against a litigant's right to nondisclosure.
Stewart, J., concurs.