In a per curiam opinion, Energy and Policy Institute v. Drummond Company, Inc., et al., [Ms. SC-2023-0651, Nov. 8, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2024), the Court (Special Justices Stewart, Lyons, Baschab, Welch, and Joiner concur; Parker, C.J., dissents, which Mendheim, J., joins; Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Sellers, Mitchell, and Cook, JJ., recuse) reverses the Jefferson Circuit Court’s denial of the Energy and Policy Institute’s (“EPI”) motion to intervene for the purpose of unsealing court records. The underlying case involves allegations of fraud and negligence related to a public-relations campaign by Drummond and Balch that resulted in David Roberson’s conviction for bribery.
The circuit court had sealed the record in 2021 to prevent prejudicial pretrial publicity. Applying the four-factor test from Holland v. Eads, 614 So. 2d 1012, 1017 (Ala. 1993), the Court finds EPI’s motion to be timely, holding that a two-year delay did not unduly prejudice the parties under Public Citizen v. Liggett Group, Inc., 858 F.2d 775 (1st Cir. 1988), as EPI sought access to non-discovery records critical to the public interest. Ms. **12-22. The Court emphasizes that the public has a presumptive right to access judicial records under Holland and Brewer v. Watson, 61 Ala. 310, 311 (1878), and rejects the defendants’ arguments that unsealing the record would impose undue burdens. Ms. **22-23.
The Court distinguishes between pretrial discovery materials, which are not typically subject to public access, Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1312 (11th Cir. 2001)), and filings relevant to judicial decision-making. Ms. **19-20. While the Court acknowledges the circuit court’s concerns about leaks and potential harm from pretrial publicity, it holds that such concerns do not warrant a blanket sealing of the record, especially in cases implicating significant public health and environmental issues, as noted in Public Citizen and Mokhiber v. Davis, 537 A.2d 1100 (D.C. 1988). Ms. *22. The Court remands for a document-specific review to balance transparency with privacy under Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). Ms. *23. In dissenting, Chief Justice Parker and Justice Mendheim argue that the circuit court had not abused its discretion in prioritizing the parties’ right to a fair trial. Ms. *24.