Regular readers of this column know that journalism is not only about reporting the news. Much of our work also involves pressing for access to public records, government meetings, and, at times, courthouses and case files. These battles can stretch on for months, even years.
But today, there’s reason to celebrate: a win for transparency and Oregon’s justice system.
A High-Profile Case Closed to the Public
In June, my predecessor Therese Bottomly wrote about the unusual secrecy surrounding the divorce case of Portland Trail Blazers star Damian Lillard and his ex-wife, Kay’La Hanson. Despite divorce filings being public by law, a Clackamas County judge sealed the entire case, making it inaccessible. Even the sealing order itself was hidden from public view.
Also Read
After Bottomly began asking questions, more than 100 records already filed in the case vanished from the online court database used by reporters and the public.
The move was extraordinary. In the past five years, only a handful of Oregon divorce cases have been sealed. The decision appeared to be a privilege reserved for those who could afford a skilled attorney to sidestep the state constitution’s mandate: “No court shall be secret, but justice shall be administered, openly and without purchase.”
A Retired Judge Speaks Up
Bottomly’s reporting caught the attention of Jim Hargreaves, a retired Lane County judge. Disturbed by the precedent of secret court proceedings for the wealthy, he filed a challenge.
Hargreaves told Clackamas County Presiding Judge Michael Wetzel—who had not issued the original sealing order—that he wasn’t after salacious details. “I want my right under statute to look at the case file,” he said. “We don’t do secret litigation in this country.”
That principle matters as much to the public as it does to journalists. Most citizens don’t have the resources or expertise to challenge court secrecy. When journalists or legal professionals step forward, they do so on behalf of every Oregonian.
The Pushback
Lillard’s attorney, Joseph M. Levy of Markowitz Herbold, argued against Hargreaves’ filing. “Mr. Hargreaves has no stake in this divorce proceeding,” Levy wrote, stressing that he was neither related to nor acquainted with the parties. “His reasons for prying into the parties’ sensitive divorce are a complete mystery.”
But the motivation was hardly mysterious. Hargreaves’ effort was about defending the public’s right to open courts, not indulging curiosity about celebrity lives.
The Ruling
Judge Wetzel agreed. He overturned the sweeping order that had sealed the case. Recognizing the need to protect sensitive details, particularly those involving the couple’s three children, he gave lawyers 60 days to propose specific redactions.
This was the right balance: protect privacy where appropriate, but prevent blanket secrecy that undermines the state constitution and erodes public trust.
Why It Matters
This case wasn’t about tabloids or prying eyes. It was about fairness. If wealthy litigants can buy secrecy, then justice becomes uneven—open for some, hidden for others. Such a system risks shielding cases with broad public implications and weakening confidence in the judiciary.
Transparency ensures accountability. Courts, like legislatures and city councils, operate in the public’s name. Oregonians deserve to see how justice is administered, whether the case involves a professional athlete or an ordinary neighbor.
A Win for the Public
The ruling is a victory not just for one retired judge, or for journalists, but for every Oregonian who values a fair, open judicial system. It affirms that the principle etched into our state constitution still holds: justice must be seen to be trusted.
And for once, the fight for openness didn’t drag on—it delivered a quick and decisive reminder that secrecy has no place in Oregon’s courts.
