Media Companies Successfully Fight for Access to Information About Church Officials’ Role in Priest Sex Scandal
This case included the following:
"First, the Press Organizations argued that an order from the Court governing the release of the documents was tantamount to a protective order. Under California (and federal) law, the party seeking a protective order must establish good cause. See, e.g., Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal. App. 4th 60 (2007). Because the Archdiocese had not demonstrated good cause to keep the names of church hierarchy secret, the Press urged the Court to forbid the redaction of the documents.
Second, the Press Organizations argued that because the settlement agreement required the personnel files to be publicly disclosed, the public and press were in the position of third party beneficiaries to the settlement agreement. See Service Employees Int’l Union, Local 99 v. Options–A Child Care & Human Services Agency, 200 Cal. App. 4th 869 (2011) (“SEIU”)....
Third, the media organizations argued that the documents – which had been submitted to the Court for review – were court records, and therefore, there was a presumptive right of access under the First Amendment and the common law."
Finally the judge came to the rightful decision of releasing the names of those in the church hierarchy who knew about the abuse and did nothing. Those involved deserve more punishment than just a ruined reputation. They could have put an end to the abuse instead of letting it continue. The public has a right to know who is responsible for these crimes, privacy is a privilege and should only be given to those that deserve it, not those who take advantage of it.
