On a motion in a civil sexual-assault appeal, the moving party sought broad privacy protections including full sealing of the appeal file, an in camera hearing, anonymization, and a prospective ban on publication of the court’s future reasons.
Applying the Sherman Estate framework, the motion judge held that the parties’ allegations of sexual assault, sexual-orientation information, and parts of their medical records engaged an important public interest in protecting dignity, but that the requested restrictions were overbroad.
The court ordered a publication ban prohibiting publication of the parties’ names or identifying information, continued the initialized style of cause, and directed a limited sealing order only for specified medical records.
The request to seal the entire file, exclude the public from the appeal hearing, and pre-emptively ban publication of future reasons was refused.
No costs were awarded.
