Motion to Seal Court Records in Texas

What Is a Motion to Seal Court Records?

Background

In 1989, the Texas Legislature enacted Tex. Gov't Code Ann. Sec. 22.010 (Vernon Supp. 1994), directing the Supreme Court to adopt rules “establishing guidelines for the courts of this state to use” in determining whether the records in a civil case, including settlements, should be sealed. In compliance with that statute, the Supreme Court adopted Rule 76a. That rule states the heavy burdens which a movant must satisfy in order to secure an order sealing court records. (Boardman v. ELM Block Development Ltd. Partnership (1994) 872 S.W.2d 297, 298-99.)

Rule 76a provides that the trial court may determine motions to seal court records "in accordance with the procedures prescribed by [Tex.R.Civ.P.] 120a." Paragraph 3 of that rule provides that the court can make its determination:

[O]n the basis of the pleadings, any stipulations made by and between the parties, such affidavits and attachments as may be filed by the parties, the results of discovery processes, and any oral testimony. The affidavits, if any, shall be served at least seven days before the hearing, shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth specific facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify.

(Boardman v. ELM Block Development Ltd. Partnership (1994) 872 S.W.2d 297, 299.)

How to Structure the Motion

Rule 76a(3) sets out notice requirements, including that the movant “shall post a public notice” stating:

that a hearing will be held in open court on a motion to seal court records in the specific case;
that any person may intervene and be heard concerning the sealing of court records;
the specific time and place of the hearing;
the style and number of the case;
a brief but specific description of both the nature of the case and the records which are sought to be sealed; and
the identity of the movant.

(Lindberg v. Callahan (2020) No. 01-19-00559-CV, at *5 n.3 quoting Tex. R. Civ. P. 76a(3).

Rule 76a(4) provides the requirements for the hearing, including that it be "open to the public" and occur "not less than fourteen days after the motion is filed and notice is posted." (Id. R. 76a(4).) Rule 76a(6) provides requirements for an order on a motion to seal court records. (Id. R. 76a(6).)

Rule 76a states that certain “court records, as defined in this rule, are presumed to be open to the general public and may be sealed only upon a showing of ... a specific, serious and substantial interest which clearly outweighs" the presumption of openness, that “any probable adverse effect that sealing will have upon the general public health or safety,” and that “no less restrictive means than sealing records will adequately and effectively protect the specific interest asserted.” (Tex. R. Civ. P. 76a(1).)

Rule 76a(2) defines “court records” as including “all documents of any nature filed in connection with any matter before any civil court, except”:

documents filed with a court in camera, solely for the purposes of obtaining a ruling on the discoverability of such documents;
documents in court files to which access is otherwise restricted by law;
documents filed in an action originally arising under the Family Code.

(Tex. R. Civ. P. 76a(2)(a).)

“Court records” also include discovery, not filed of record, concerning matters that have a probable adverse effect upon the general public health or safety, or the administration of public office, or the operation of government, except discovery in cases originally initiated to preserve bona fide trade secrets or other intangible property rights. (Tex. R. Civ. P. 76a(2)(c).)

Thus, the presumption of openness and the special procedures outlined in Rule 76a apply only to "court records" as defined in that rule. (See id. R. 76(a)(1)-(2), (9) [“Access to documents in court files not defined as court records by this rule remains governed by existing law.”]; General Tire, Inc. v. Kepple (1998) 970 S.W.2d 520, at 524; Biederman v. Brown (2018) 563 S.W.3d 291, 302.)

The Court’s Decision

Sealing Discovery

Rule of Civil Procedure 192.6, among other provisions, grants authority for a trial court to make orders sealing or protecting discovery:

To protect the movant from undue burden, unnecessary expense, harassment, annoyance, or invasion of personal, constitutional, or property rights, the court may make any order in the interest of justice and may—among other things—order that . . . the discovery be undertaken only by such method or upon such terms and conditions or at the time and place directed by the court [or] the results of discovery be sealed or otherwise protected, subject to the provisions of Rule 76a.

(Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.6(b)(4)-(5); see also In re Collins (2009) 286 S.W.3d 911, 919 [trial court has discretion to grant protective order to control nature and form of discovery.])

Trial courts likewise have discretion to determine whether in camera inspection is necessary. (See In re M-I L.L.C. (2016) 505 S.W.3d 569, 578-80; In re Strategic Impact Corp. (2007) 214 S.W.3d 484, 488.)

Appellate Court

In reviewing a district court's determination as to the extent to which information should be restricted from the public under Rule 76a, the court of appeals employs an abuse of discretion standard. (See General Tire, Inc. v. Kepple (1998) 970 S.W.2d 520, 526.) “A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner without reference to any guiding rules or principles.” (Walker v. Gutierrez (2003) 111 S.W.3d 56, 62.) Thus, the pertinent question ... “is whether the judge [has] acted unreasonably and arbitrarily [if] concluding that [the movant] had failed to carry its burden [under Rule 76a(1)] as to at least one essential element.” (McAfee, Inc. v. Weiss (2011) 336 S.W.3d 840, 844.)

Settlement Negotiations

Concerning the question of “whether the trial court abused its discretion in sealing portions of plaintiff's petition after the settlement negotiations were concluded ... [i]f the record does not show ‘a specific, serious and substantial interest which clearly outweighs this presumption of openness,’ [the reviewing court] must find that the trial court abused its discretion in sealing this court record.” (Boardman v. ELM Block Development Ltd. Partnership (1994) 872 S.W.2d 297, 299.)

Documents for Motion to Seal Court Records in Texas

Sort By

MUNOZ, JASMIN (INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRES vs. TESLA INC PERSONAL INJ (NON-AUTO) document preview

LETTER REQUESTING MOTION TO SEAL

2 pages

Ww | Jackson Walker LLP Javier Gonzalez (713) 752-4453 (Direct Dial) jgonzalez@jw.com LECTRIC _ILING Re: Cause No. 2022-27251: Munoz v. Tesla Inc. et al., in the 152 Judicial District …

Case Name MUNOZ, JASMIN (INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRES vs. TESLA INC