10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 FILED a seis tea aie 3370 ‘Transaction # 10! IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE In the Matter of the: Case No. PR23-00813 DOE 1 TRUST Dept. PR / RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO INTERVENE, MOTION FOR ACCESS, AND MOTION TO UNSEAL ‘On September 4, 2024, The New York Times Company, CNN, The Associated Press, National Public Radio, Inc., The Washington Post, and Reuters filed a Motion to] Intervene, Motion for Access, and Motion to Unseal on Order Shortening Time| (‘Motion”), where movants argue “this matter should be immediately unsealed and| all court proceedings and records should be open to the public.” Following entry o an order shortening time to respond, the party identifying itself as DOE 9 filed Doe| 9's Opposition to: Proposed Intervenors’ Motion to Intervene, Motion for Access, and| Motion to Unseal on September 8, 2024 (the “Doe 9 Opposition”). On that same day,| the party identifying itself as DOE 3 also filed an opposition (the “Doe 3 Opposition”). jos PM Id rt 16323710 iL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Parties identifying themselves as DOE 1 and DOE 2 have joined the Doe 9| Opposition. A reply in support of the Motion was filed by movants on September 9, 2024. On September 11, 2024, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. filed a| separate motion to intervene in order to join the Motion. This recommendation| disposes of that motion as well. This court, having reviewed the Motion, its| oppositions, and reply, and being apprised of the premises, enters the followin; Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law As an initial matter, the Doe 9 Opposition “does not oppose the Proposed Intervenors’ intervention in this matter for the limited purpose of seeking access’, and the court finds the Motion is persuasive in arguing that parties seeking access| to court proceedings under the First Amendment may properly intervene to advocate for access. See Stephens Media, LLC v. Bighth Jud. Dist. Ct. ex rel. Cty. Of Clark, 125 Nev. 849, 860 (2009)(*[W]e hold that the public and the press have the right to seek limited intervention in a criminal case to advance or argue constitutional claims concerning access to court proceedings.”). To rule otherwise, even in a non-criminal case, would be to deprive the public of a forum to adjudicate their constitutional rights relating to court access. Accordingly, movants should be granted the right to intervene in this case for the purpose of advocating for their rights in this case. The substance of the instant Motion argues that the First Amendment implies a right to access the proceedings in this case based on the principles announced in Falconi v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 8, 543 P.3d 9210 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 (2024), and the several persuasive authorities cited in the Motion. In light of the filing of the Motion, and the Nevada Supreme Court's ruling in Falconi, the court considers these arguments below by first reviewing the statutory bases for sealing of records in this case to consider whether and to what extent the movants’ requested information can be released consistent with those statutes, and then considers whether and how the public and media’s constitutional rights are implicated by the court's conclusions. The court then considers the movants’ request to open the hearings in this case to the public. A. The Present Level of Public Access In accordance with a request in the initial petition in this case, which request] was assented to by all appearing parties in this case, the court entered an Order Sealing Proceedings and Closing Court Hearings on January 26, 2024. That order directed the sealing of the court file and the closing of hearings to the public because| “the pleadings and documents filed in these proceedings, and the proceedings| themselves will reveal confidential personal, financial, and business information of] the Trust and its beneficiaries or other family members who the Trustee serves.”| That order expressly cited NRS 669A.256, but was equally grounded in NRS| 164.041, which was cited in petitioner's initial petition. The court’s order directed] that “(alll court hearings on this matter are closed to the public” and that “the court] file on this matter is confidential and is therefore sealed” to all persons except] interested parties in this case. Consistent with the court’s order, after receiving a number of public inquiries the clerk of the court has made certain information about this case© mara 10 lL 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 available to the public via the Second Judicial District Court’s website at https:/ /www.washoecourts.com/AttendingCourt/NotableCases. This information includes the case name, case number, the notation “**sealed**”, the case type, initiation date, as well as an index of all the documents filed in the case, listed by date and document code. All other information in this case has been sealed by the clerk of the court. It is not correct then, as claimed by movants, that “nothing in the case is available to any member of the public.” Motion, p. 2, In. 12-13. Though the information made available by the clerk of the court has been limited, the existence of this case is not hidden. Weeks after the court’s January 26, 2024 Order Sealing Proceedings and] Closing Court Hearings, the Nevada Supreme Court decided Falconi v. Bighth Jud. Dist. Ct. in & for Cnty. of Clark, 543 P.3d 92 (2024). In that case, the Nevadal ‘Supreme Court found on traditional common law and constitutional grounds that| “there is a presumption that civil proceedings must be open, just like criminal] proceedings.” 543 P.3d at 97. The Falconi court found that NRS 125.080, which] permits parties in a divorce proceeding to demand that the “trial and issue or issues| of fact” be “private”, is unconstitutional because civil proceedings are presumptively| open and that statute “preclude{s] the district court from applying the balancing| test to overcome that presumption on a case-by-case basis”. 543 P.3d at 100. Like the Falconi Court, this probate court recognizes “the critical importance| of the public's access to the courts and the role that thoughtful, reasoned judicial| The use ofa separate web page to spay this case infomation, rather than the Cours publicly available “Detaled Case Search’ is a result ofthe present inability ofthe court's electronic case management system to tailor search results 10 limit the release of information that is protected under NRS 164.041, NRS 669A.256 and the Cours sealing order. 410 a 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 decision-making plays in identifying the compelling interests at stake and| determining . . . if and when to order closure in any proceeding, be it family, civil, or criminal in nature; and . . . to what extent such closure should apply.” Falconi, 543 P.3d at 99, While the principles announced in Falconi may have general| application to all court proceedings, the Falconi decision dealt with the closing o hearings under NRS 125.080 and associated court rules, rather than the sealing of court records pursuant to statute. To govern sealing, the Nevada Supreme Court| has promulgated rules that provide a “uniform procedure for the sealing and| redacting of court records in civil actions” in Part VII of Supreme Court Rules, the| Nevada Rules for Sealing and Redacting Court Records (‘SRCR’). Those rules| expressly exclude cases brought under Title 13 of Nevada Revised Statutes, under| which the present case was brought, and at least nine other broad categories of cases for which specific sealing statutes apply. For Title 13 cases, NRS 164.041 and| NRS 669A.256 provide for the sealing of specific court records in cases such as this| one. While this probate court under its inherent powers may have additional] discretion to seal records in Title 13 cases, the court’s sealing of records in this case| was based exclusively in those statutes. In light of the Motion, it is appropriate for| this court to revisit the sealing of records and proceedings to ensure that the court’s| sealing hews most closely to the statutory requirements upon which it is based, and| the principles announced in Falconi to the extent they are applicable here. While it] is true that the January 26, 2024 sealing order has not been made available to the| public, as perhaps it should have been, this recommendation is designed to rectify| that omission and supplant that order with the benefit of the briefing submitted in|aan cy 10 qt 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 connection with the Motion. As detailed below, this probate court recommends| granting the Motion in part, unsealing certain records in this case to the extent that| those records do not violate the sealing permitted or required under NRS 164.041 and NRS 669A. In addition, the court takes this opportunity to clarify its own order| closing all hearings in this case, and concludes that the hearings should remain| closed to the public and to the media to prevent disclosure of confidential| information that is protected under the applicable sealing statutes. To the extent] that this recommendation is inconsistent with the court’s January 26 order or any| prior recommendations or orders, this recommendation (as and when confirmed by| further order in accordance with WDCR 57.3) will control. B, Sealing of Records Section 669A.256 of Nevada Revised Statutes provides: In any court proceeding relating to a trust or estate, the family trust company, licensed family trust company, other fiduciary of the trust, settlor or any| beneficiary, may petition the court to order the following trust documents to be| anid (a) Any trust instruments; (0) Any inventories; (c) Any accounts; (d) Any statements filed by a fiduciary; (e) Any annual reports of a fiduciary; () Any final reports of a fiduciary; (g) All petitions, exhibits, objections, pleadings and motions relevant to the| trust or its administration; and (h) All court orders.? It is not contested by the parties, and this probate court again finds, that this 2 Chapter 669A identifies certain additonal information as “confidential information” relating to regulation of family trust companies and protected from public disclosure, including: “The names of stockholders, members or other owners"; “Ownership information”; “Capital conibutions”; “Addresses”; “Business affiliations"; and “Information obtained from the family trust company." NRS 669.040.v aa se wo 10 L 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 case involves a trust governed by a trustee who is a “family trust company” under| RS 669A.080 who has the right to petition the court to seal the documents| included in NRS 669A.256. Section 164.041 of Nevada Revised Statues provides for an even broader sealing of records “relating to trusts”, entitling any party, without first petitioning] the court, to file ‘confidential information’ under seal and providing that| “confidential information, once redacted or filed under seal must be redacted and| filed under seal without a prior court order in all subsequent filings and orders in| the matter relating to the petition.” NRS 164.041(2). This “confidential information”| includes: (a) Trust instruments, inventories, accountings and reports; (b) The names and addresses of trust settlors and beneficiaries; (©) Trust dispositive terms, including, without limitation: (1) The identity and amount of distributions or gifts; and (2) Powers of appointments; (d) Corporate and company records relating to trusts; (€) Personally identifying information, including, without limitation, socia security numbers and dates of birth; and () Any other information the court deems confidential, if the interest in| protecting the confidentiality of the information outweighs the public interest in] accessing such information. NRS 164.041(4). It is again undisputed, and the court again finds, that this case involves| parties and witnesses that include settlor(s), beneficiaries, and a family trust] company in a dispute over a trust's terms, including its dipositive terms. By its terms, the right to seal information under NRS 164.0413 belongs to the| parties without petitioning the court, and once invoked all further “confidential| 2 By this court's reckoning, the case at bar isthe fist casein the Second Judicial District Court, and perhaps inthe State cof Nevada, to invoke a party's right to seal under NRS 164.041, 7v om Yaa bk w 10 a 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 information once redacted or filed under seal must be redacted and filed under seal” | NRS 164.041(2)(emphasis added). While the court is authorized to order the| production of “copies of petitions, filings and orders that have been redacted or filed| under seal to an interested person”, NRS 164.041(3), this provision is not availing| for the movants. Under NRS 132.185, an “interested person” is defined as “a person| whose right or interest under an estate or trust may be materially affected by | decision of a fiduciary or a decision of the court.” (emphasis added). Movants cannot] show that they have a right or interest under the trust in this case, as they are| neither settlors, beneficiaries, remaindermen, or other parties with cognizable| interests under the trust declaration at issue. Section 164.041(3) also permits the court to order the production of “unredacted and complete copies of sealed records to “other persons for cause| shown’, but the court cannot interpret that phrase to require dissemination o sealed or redacted records to the public when their “cause shown” is simply the| public’s (or the media’s) general right to access court proceedings. To require| unsealing of records any time that a member of the public or the media asserted a| ight to access would be to strip the parties’ right to seal “confidential information”, rendering the statute meaningless and subverting the intent of the legislature. In| other words, while the court can envision that certain persons, in certain cases, might show good cause to require production of this confidential information, the| right of the general public to do so under the statute is narrow, at best. Cf: Matter] of Trust Created by Johnson, 299 N.J.Super. 415, 423 (N.J.Super.A.D.)(1997) (‘Absent presence of such important issues, the general public’s right to inspect}oo Yaa 10 a 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a1 22 23 sealed private documents relating to a person’s personal finances is highly| suspect.”)(Discussing issues of “health, safety, or consumer fraud”). Taken together, NRS 164.041 and NRS 669A.256 provide (though not| expressly) for the sealing of all papers filed in this case. This court cannot discern| any document in the record that is exclusive of “{alll petitions, exhibits, objections, pleadings and motions relevant to the trust or its administration”, “all court orders”, any document that does not include the “names or addresses of trust settlors and| beneficiaries”, not to mention the other categories of information sealed or otherwise| made confidential under NRS 164.041, NRS 669A.256 or NRS 669A.040.4 Furthermore, the court in its January 26, 2024 order deemed “personal, financial, and business information of the Trust and its beneficiaries or other family members| who the Trustee serves” as confidential because (to the extent this information is| not expressly “confidential” under the applicable statutes), this information is| traditionally and properly within the domain of a settlor or beneficiary's private, personal life rather than the domain of public life, and the public’s interest in this| specific information, beyond sheer curiosity, is de minimis, at best. A family trust| like the one at issue in this case, even when it is a stockholder in publicly traded! companies, is essentially a private legal arrangement, as the applicable sealing| statutes recognize. Movants argue that “elven if legitimate privacy and safety interests were at| + Even revealing the trust's name would reveal the name of the settlor ofthe trust, which is why this case, from its inception, has borne the caption “The Doe I Trust”. The right of the partis to protect the names of settlors and beneficiaries under NRS 164.041(4)(b) is, as a practical matter the most broad and impactful asthe court considers which papers should be sealed under that statue,so aa x 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 issue . . . the appropriate remedy would be redaction.” Motion, p. 10, In. 14-15. While redaction is preferred under SRCR 4(3), those rules are not applicable to Title| 13 cases; NRS 669A.256 provides for “sealing”, and not redaction, while NRS| 164.041 permits the parties to use sealing or redaction at their election. These| statutes do not offer the court the same flexibility to determine whether sealing or| redaction is appropriate. ‘Turning to the constitutional issues raised in the Motion, this probate court! cannot conclude that either NRS 164.041 or NRS 669A.256 is patently] unconstitutional on its face. First, the Nevada Supreme Court does not appear to| have yet considered either statute; Further, these statutes appear to strike a| balance between the public’s right to court records in normal civil cases, and| protection of private parties from disclosure of their personal, family, and financial] information in trust cases. Applied to this case, these statutes protect the privacy| of information well within the domain of the parties’ private, family life, such as the| parties’ wealth management and transfer, the private deliberations of their| fiduciaries, and their succession planning which, as in many trust cases, was| undertaken, at least in part, to avoid public proceedings. Both NRS 669A.256 and! NRS 164.041 appear tailored to protect these important, even compelling, privacy| interests of the parties in this case by keeping from public view information that] could easily be used by members of the public to facilitate identity theft or other| types of fraud, disruption of the trustee’s business, and public embarrassment, among other malicious acts. The court cannot conclude that the public’s right to| this information, which by statute or tradition is “confidential” in nature, is| 10oon om Ya 10 lL 12 13 14 18 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 outweighed by the statutory rights of the parties to keep it confidential. “Statutes| are presumed to be valid, and the challenger bears the burden of showing that a| statute is unconstitutional.” Silvar v. Bighth Jud. Dist. Ct. ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 122| Nev. 289, 292 (2006). Movants have not sufficiently made that showing. Accordingly, this probate court concludes that all papers filed in this case should remain sealed, with the exception of this recommendation and its confirming| order, or any order that declines to adopt the findings and conclusions of this| recommendation, all of which should be made available to the movants and the| public. Further, the clerk of the court should make any papers filed in connection| with a petition for judicial review of this recommendation available to the movants| and the public. With respect to these moving papers, the clerk of the court should| be ordered to redact any information that is protected under NRS 164.041 (these| Papers are not anticipated to include matters sealed under NRS 669A.256). Counsel| for the parties, as officers of the court, should be ordered to assist with this| redaction. The release of these papers is appropriate because they are not “relevant| to the trust or its administration”, NRS 669A.256(1)(g), but to adjudication of the| public’s right to seek the unsealing of court records. The public release of any other| papers in this case would risk the release of confidential, statutorily-protected| private information of the parties and the risks associated with such dissemination. Even while the parties’ papers filed in this case to should remain sealed, certain court records that are not presently publicly available related to this case| do not appear to be protected under Chapters 164 or 669A of Nevada Revised| Statutes and should be unsealed. There appears to be no limitation on making the| uloy 10 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a1 22 23 name of the judges and judicial officers presiding over this case available to the| public; Furthermore, neither of those statutes requires the sealing of the names of the attorneys of record for the parties. And, to the extent that appearing parties in| this case are neither settlors nor beneficiaries of the trust at issue, the names o! those parties are not protected from public dissemination under applicable statutes. In sum, the undersigned’s recommendation is to direct the clerk of the court to make publicly available all case information normally available to the public in| unsealed cases (but not including any papers filed in this case) unless that| information includes the name of any settlor or beneficiary, or any other information| protected by NRS 669A.256 or NRS 164.041. All other records in this case should| remain sealed. The sealing of records in this case should not be any broader than| the sealing provided under either NRS 164.041 or NRS 669A.256. C. Closure of hearings to the Public and Media ‘The basis for the court’s closing of hearings in this case to the public, and to| the media, is based on the conclusion that allowing public or media access would| compromise the confidential information protected by the sealing statutes| discussed in Section “B” above. Based on the constitutional issues raised in the| instant motion however, and specifically Movant’s reliance on Falconi, which deals| with public access to court hearings rather than sealing of records, this probate court finds it appropriate to clarify the second part of its January 26, 2024 Order| Sealing Proceedings and Closing Court Hearings. The Falconi decision highlights certain key principles and tests in evaluating| whether the presumption of open civil proceedings is overcome in any particular| 1210 11 12 13 14 1s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 case, but there are key differences between the statute and rules at issue in that] case, and the court’s basis for closing all hearings in this case. Under Falconi, a court must first look to “history and logic” to determine if a First Amendment right to access attaches. The present case is not necessarily an “ordinary civil proceeding” at common law, ¢f: NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Ct., 980 P.2d 337, 359 (1999), but a statutory proceeding under NRS 164.010, NRS 164.015, and NRS 30.060. Trust proceedings such as this one have their roots in courts of equity, and while the distinction between law and equity is no longer a useful one in modern jurisprudence, the Doe 9 Opposition points to the historical development of procedure in trust matters that diverges significantly from common law matters. See Doe 9 Opposition, p. 14-17. Of course, like all court proceedings, trust and probate matters are generally open to the public, but this probate court cannot conclude that a First Amendment right to access attaches as it does in “ordinary civil proceedings”, because these proceedings are different historically and presently. To illustrate, while the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure apply to “all civil actions”, they are only applicable to Title 13 cases through NRS 164.005 (as incorporated through NRS 155.180), and only to the extent they do not conflict with the other procedural rules of Titles 12 and 13. Title 13 cases are exercises of the court’s in rem jurisdiction, see NRS 164.010(1), and are distinct from common civil cases in their procedures for seeking relief (through “petitions”, NRS 132.270, rather than complaints}, their due process requirements (compare NRS 155.010-155.090 with NRCP 4 and 5), and the availability of a jury trial. See NRS 155.150; Cf. Nev. Const. Art. 3, s 1. 1310 ql 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ‘These distinctions, and the authorities cited by the Doe 9 Opposition at p. 14 — 16, do not establish that trust cases have always been closed to the public, or| that they should or must be closed to the public. Indeed, as a general rule, these proceedings are open to the public, see NRS 155.130 (as incorporated into Title 13 by NRS 164.005), and the media. See SCR 230(2). There is good reason to permit the public to observe their government institutions and public servants at work, and to gain experience and confidence in the workings of those institutions. But there is also good reason to restrict the public's access to certain types of facts that are commonly contained in many trust filings and, in some cases, lie at the very heart of the parties’ dispute. This probate court is unable to conclude that the presumption of public access in trust cases is a constitutional one, because neither the Falconi case, nor any other authority cited by movants has demonstrated that Trust cases meet the “history and logic” test that would make a constitutional right to access apply. Even if such a right did attach to these proceedings, the question of whether to close hearings where parties have invoked their rights under NRS 164.041 or NRS 669.256 is different than the question before the Court in Falconi, The statute at issue in Falconi, NRS 125.080, allows a party to request that| the court direct “any divorce action” be “private”. The statute offers no detail as to| what information the statute protects from disclosure or what interests are| protected. In contrast, both NRS 164.041 and NRS 669A.256 designate specific] factual matters as “confidential” and permit a party to invoke a statutory right to| make that information sealed. The private information protected under each statute| 14eon 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 requires little guesswork to determine why it is protected, being information that is| often kept private, even from family members, or involving personally identifying| information that can be exploited by anonymous nonparties. As discussed at| Section B above, the categories of private information protected by these statutes| are omnipresent in this case, and protecting that information from public| dissemination requires closure of the hearings in this case - particularly evidentiary| hearings, which are the only hearings presently scheduled to occur. Any hearing in| this case is certain to reveal the names and personally identifying information of the| settlor(s) and beneficiaries, and any evidentiary hearing will also reveal certain o the trustee's business records, ownership information, personally identifying| information, information relating to the relationship with a contracting trustee, and| other types of “confidential information” protected under NRS 164.041 NRS| 669A.256, and NRS 669A.040, all of which the Nevada Legislature has determined] should be protected from public dissemination. Stated otherwise, NRS 164.041 and NRS 669A.256 create statutory rights of privacy of certain personal information in a trust case that, in this case, where the| parties have invoked those rights and litigated under their protection, gives rise to| a compelling interest of the parties to maintain that confidentiality that is not] outweighed by the public's right to information that concerns private, family trust] matters, no matter how well-known this family might be. In addition to the protection of privacy interests that outweigh the public’s| right to access these proceedings, the court also recognizes that several of the| parties and witnesses in this case—as even movants concede—are well known to} 1510 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 the public and the subjects of intense media and public scrutiny. These parties| warrant additional security measures to ensure that their own physical access to| the courts is not infringed, and that malicious actors who might wish them harm| cannot use their appearances in this probate court to facilitate that harm. Certainly, additional court security measures can partially mollify these risks, but closure o hearings is another tool this court can employ to ensure these parties’ safe access| to the courthouse. In this particular case, while these considerations do not, by| themselves, warrant complete closure of hearings to the public, these| considerations weigh in favor of closure when combined with the other privacy| factors discussed above. Cf, SCR 230(2)(b) and (c)(identifying “[tJhe impact o coverage upon the right of privacy of any party or witness” and “the impact o coverage upon the safety and well-being of any party, witness or juror” as factors to consider in permitting electronic coverage of hearings that are not otherwise closed). The first rule of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, incumbent on this probate court under NRS 155.180 and 164.005, is “to secure the just, speedy, and| inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” This court endeavors to| fulfill the promise of this rule to all litigants who appear before it—no matter how| ‘wealthy or poor, powerful or powerless, famous or anonymous. While the public, in| the run of cases, has a right and an important interest in observing the workings of] its courts, and to the confidence in its institutions that this transparency provides, that right should not be accorded more weight simply because the parties may be| wealthy, famous, or powerful. Where important privacy interests must be protected in any given case, these considerations can, and in this case do, outweigh the| 1610 coy 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 public’s and the media’s interests in access to the proceedings. This court concludes| that closure is the only way to prevent public dissemination of this protected| information. This evaluation is what caused the court to close the hearings in this| case to the public in its January 26 order, and provides good grounds to deny the instant Motion to open these proceedings to the public. Accordingly, the| undersigned recommends that IT IS ORDERED: 1. Movants’ motion to intervene is granted; Movants may intervene for the| limited purpose of asserting the public’s and the media’s rights to access the records| and proceedings in this case; 2. The motion to unseal records in this case is granted in part, consistent with the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in Section “B” above; the| clerk of the court shall make available to the public all records in this case not| protected under NRS 669A.256 or NRS 164.041, exclusive of all papers filed in this| case, with the exception of those papers related to this recommendation identified| for unsealing in Section “B”. Attorneys for the parties are directed to assist with this| redaction as requested by the clerk of the court. 3. The Motion for Access to the hearings in this case is denied. All hearings in this case shall remain closed to the public and to the media, including] the movants. DATED this 12th day of September, 2024. EELS PROBATE COMMISSIONER IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. 1710 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER FOR ENFORCEMENT OF PROBATE COMMISSIONER’S RECOMMENDATION PENDING REVIEW In accordance with WDCR 57.3(13), and in light of the beginning of evidentiary proceedings in this case that will occur before the period of review expires under WDCR 57.3(7), the undersigned Probate Judge finds good cause exists to enforce the above Recommendation for Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Intervene, Motion for Access, and Motion to Unseal immediately and through the pendency of any petition for review which might be filed, until further order of this court. In accordance with the court’s Order Directing Random Assignment of July 12, 2024, and the Order Accepting Reassignment entered July 22, 2024, Judge Lynne K. Jones of Department 6 will continue to preside over any petition for judicial review of the above recommendations, and any future objections which may arise. ght DATED this_!2 day of September, 2024. IT IS SO ORDERED. ph, [STRICT JUDG} 18