Friday’s decision from the Ohio Supreme Court Indicate the previous relationship. Schubert v. Broux:
In February 2024, Jeremiah Stoehr was indicted in Summit County Civil Court on one count of rape, two counts of kidnapping, one count of aggravated sexual imposition and one count of communicating Charges of juvenile harmful content. The record contains some ambiguity as to the number of alleged victims, but at least one alleged victim was under the age of ten. Stoll was a high school student at the time this lawsuit was filed, and the criminal case against him received media attention. Judge [Alison] Broux is presiding over Stoll’s pending criminal case…
On May 9, Stoll filed a motion with the trial court to seal the case file and prohibit public access to the case file while Stoll’s case is pending. Stoll’s motion to seal states that after the media began reporting on his case, Stoll was assaulted and threatened, his parents were stalked and his address was posted online. The motion was not supported by any affidavit. On the same day the motion was filed, Judge Broux issued an order granting the motion.
On May 16, Judge Breaux sua sponte issued a revised seizure order. The amended order states that the trial court held an in-room conference with prosecution and defense attorneys before Stoll filed the motion to seal. During the meeting, “the court noted” that Storr, his family and his attorneys were subjected to threats, intimidation and confrontation. Prosecutors also expressed concerns about the identification of underage victims. The court of first instance “weighed[ed] Risk of personal injury, public safety, and fairness of the trial process (subject to public access to docket cases) [found]through clear and convincing evidence, limit [of] In this case, the information was necessary to protect the client and attorney.
The amended order directs the Summit County Clerk of Courts to remove any online Public can access files or images from Stoll case and delete them any Public access “regarding subpoenas, subpoena returns, search warrants, service returns, any court document containing information protected by Marsy’s Law, and any court document containing private information about a defendant or state, federal, or common law.” …
“[Craig] Schubert, a former journalist and member of the public interested in the case, sought review of the lockdown order, which the Ohio Supreme Court agreed was improperly issued:
[Under the Rules of Superintendence for Courts of Ohio, a] Courts should restrict public access to case documents
The presumption of public access is granted if a superior interest is found to outweigh by clear and convincing evidence, taking into account:
(a) Whether public policy is achieved by restricting public participation;
(b) whether there is any state, federal or common law exempting the document or information from public inspection; [and]
(c) Whether there are factors that justify limiting public access, including risk of personal injury, personal privacy interests, proprietary business information, public safety, and the integrity of the judicial process.
Furthermore, when restricting public access, courts must use the least restrictive means….
[Stoehr’s motion to seal] Not supported by an affidavit or any other evidence. Additionally, the amended order states that Stoll, his family and attorneys were subject to threats and intimidation “brought to the court’s attention” during in-room meetings with attorneys. However, the information provided by the lawyer at this meeting was not supported by evidence. as”[w]We have long held that…’Attorney’s statements are not evidence.
Finally, as evidence in the lawsuit, Judge Burrow submitted an affidavit from Stoll’s parents detailing the threats Stoll had received both online and in person, noting that they reported to police that a suspicious vehicle was being followed Storr’s mother. But these affidavits were issued after the revised order, so Justice Broux could not rely on them when issuing the revised order. In summary, the Amended Order’s assertion that restricted access to court documents is necessary to protect Stoll and his attorneys is unsupported by any evidence….
Schubert also argued that Judge Broux did not adequately consider whether the revised order was the least restrictive means of limiting public access. we agree. When restricting public access to case documents, courts must use the “least restrictive means available.” Less restrictive means than restricting access to the entire document include editing certain information within the document, restricting remote access but maintaining direct access, and using abbreviations or other identifiers in place of the parties’ proper names.
Here, the modified command does differentiate between files that are restricted overall and files that are directly but not remotely accessible. But the revised order does not address how Judge Breaux decides which documents should fall into which category. It also did not say whether she was considering less restrictive measures, such as redacting only certain information in each file.
Judge Blue emphasized that the revised order also provides that restricted access is necessary to protect the identities of minor victims and other information protected by Marsy’s Law or other state, federal or common law. But even without the revised order, this information would not have been revealed….
Because we conclude that Schubert is entitled to relief on other grounds, we need not address his [First Amendment] debate….
We…order[] Judge Breaux vacated her seizure order and conducted appropriate review of the documents sought to be restricted under Sup.R. 44 and 45.
Curt C. Hartman represents Schubert.
