Ballard v. Herzke

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the Public Records Act does not mandate disclosure of documents sealed by a protective order entered pursuant to the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure
• holding that the trial court must give due consideration to the applicable law and facts
• holding that media entities “should be allowed to intervene to seek modification of protective orders to obtain access to judicial proceedings or records” and that discovery responses filed with the clerk of the court are “public records”
• declaring that “the question of intervention -6- is collateral to, and does not have any bearing on, the primary issue—modification of the protective order”
• declaring that “it is beyond dispute that there exists in this country a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents”
• noting that the protective order addressed in that case was strictly meant to “facilitate discovery”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).