recognizing that “courts retain supervisory powers over their records and documents”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that “courts retain supervisory powers over their records and documents”
- recognizing that right to examine public judicial documents is not absolute
- “[T]he right to examine public judicial documents is not absolute, and courts retain supervisory power over their records and documents.”
- "As the court did not develop its reasoning with regard to [its exercise of discretion] in its Rule 1925(a
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Chief Justice CAPPY
concurring.
I join the Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court in all respects. I write separately only to emphasize that WPXI is only entitled to access a copy of the audiotape. There is simply no reason that WPXI should be given custody of the tape itself, as such custody could raise serious security concerns regarding potential evidence. The risk of inadvertent destruction or loss of evidence, is too great. Rather, it is within the trial court’s supervisory powers to determine the best way to provide access to the audiotape in question.
Additionally, I point out that the party seeking access to the document in question should be charged with the costs related to replication.