Cited by

The plaintiff argues that the process for in camera review established in Petition of Keene Sentinel, 136 N.H. 121 (1992), is applicable here.

ng the information with the court.” As to the pleadings and hearings, the defendant argues that even if they “do not include privileged statements, they include content that is so closely associated as to be privileged.” “The courts of New Hampshire have always considered their records to be public, absent some overriding consideration or special circumstance.” Petition of Keene Sentinel, 136 N.H. 121, 126 (1992) (quotation and brackets omitted).

The framework set out in Petition of Keene Sentinel, 136 N.H. 121 (1992) can then be applied by the court before which the case is filed.

at 389-90; see Associated Press v. State of N.H., 153 N.H. 120, 128 (2005); Petition of Keene Sentinel, 136 N.H. 121, 127 (1992).

Indeed, this case closely parallels Petition of Keene Sentinel, 136 N.H. 121 (1992).

8, 22; the constitutional standards applicable to limitations on the right of access to court records, see Petition of Keene Sentinel, 136 N.H. 121, 129-30 (1992); and the applicability of those standards to RSA 458:15-b.

Petition of Keene Sentinel, 136 N.H. 121, 128 (1992).

The court declared that the case was “clearly governed by Petition of Keene Sentinel, [ 136 N.H. 121 (1992)]” and that “[t]he presumption is strongly in favor of unsealed court records, and therefore the State, as the party seeking nondisclosure, has the burden of proof.” The court did not distinguish between the assertions made by Keene Publishing or Bowman.

After hearing, the superior court found that disclosure of the financial affidavits was governed by Petition of Keene Sentinel, 136 N.H. 121, 130 (1992), and ruled that they be made accessible to the public.

In their petition seeking access to the proceedings in the Chapman case, the petitioners argued that RSA 506:7, VI is unconstitutional in light of this court’s ruling in Petition of Keene Sentinel, 136 N.H. 121 (1992).

The intervenors argue that our opinion in Petition of Keene Sentinel, 136 N.H. 121, 130, 612 A.2d 911, 917 (1992), makes in camera review of all documents mandatory, even in large document cases such as this.

Petition of Keene Sentinel, 136 N.H. 121, 127, 612 A.2d 911, 914 (1992).

Petition of Keene Sentinel, 136 N.H. 121, 129-30, 612 A.2d 911, 916 (1992); State v. Gagne, 136 N.H. 101, 104-05, 612 A.2d 899, 901 (1992).