STATE v. TRACY (2026)

[¶1] Jason Tracy appeals from orders denying his motion to partially restrict remote public access to criminal records relating to two dismissed charges and denying his motion for reconsideration.

[¶2] Under N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 41(4)(a)(2), a party requesting the court restrict access to case records must demonstrate “there are sufficient grounds to overcome the presumption of openness of case records and prohibit access according to applicable law.” “[T]he presumption of openness may only be overcome by an overriding interest.” Id. 41(4)(a)(3). When determining whether there is an overriding interest that overcomes the presumption of openness, the court should consider the risk of injury to individuals, individual privacy rights and interests, proprietary business information, and public safety. Id. This Court reviews a district court's decision whether to restrict access to court records for abuse of discretion. MidFirst Bank v. Young, 2025 ND 206, ¶ 16, 29 N.W.3d 253, 259, reh'g denied (Dec. 30, 2025). “A court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious manner, or if its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination, or if it misinterprets or misapplies the law.” State v. Olson, 2026 ND 8, ¶ 18, 30 N.W.3d 701 (quoting State v. Miller, 2025 ND 188, ¶ 7, 27 N.W.3d 428).

[¶3] The district court applied N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 41(4)(a), including considering the factors identified in Rule 41(4)(a)(3), and concluded Tracy did not provide the court any evidence that would allow it to find an overriding interest that overcomes the presumption of openness. The court did not misapply the law and its decision is the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination. We affirm the court's order denying Tracy's motion to partially restrict remote public access to criminal records under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶4] “A court's denial of a motion for reconsideration will not be reversed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion.” Curtiss v. State, 2020 ND 256, ¶ 8, 952 N.W.2d 43. “An abuse of discretion is never assumed and must be affirmatively established, and this Court will not reverse a district court's decision merely because it is not the one it would have made had it been deciding the motion.” Id. (quoting Anderson v. Baker, 2015 ND 269, ¶ 7, 871 N.W.2d 830).

[¶5] The district court denied Tracy's motion for reconsideration, noting it analyzed Tracy's motion under N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 41(4)(a) and “determined that the public interest in open records outweighed” Tracy's private interests. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tracy's motion for reconsideration. We affirm the court's order denying Tracy's motion for reconsideration under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Per Curiam.

[¶6] Lisa Fair McEvers, C.J. Jerod E. Tufte Jon J. Jensen Douglas A. Bahr Mark A. Friese