Court: State's public-records law doesn't override judges' decisions

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today the state public-records law does not extend to judicial rulings sealing records held by state agencies.

However, it also said a man seeking a look at some 5.5 million pages of records in a foreclosure-scandal case can try to convince a judge that an order sealing all the documents was overly broad.

In 2009, the state Attorney General's office reached a settlement with Fremont Investment and Loan over the way the company was foreclosing on Massachusetts mortgages. The company agreed to stop what it was doing and pay the state $10 million in fines and costs. As part of the deal, the state agreed to ask a judge to seal the millions of pages of documents Fremont filed related to its business practices. A judge then issued a protective order locking the documents up.

Samuel J. Lieberman then sued, demanding the right to look at the documents under the public-records law. A lower court said he had no such right and dismissed his case. The state's highest court said that when the law collides with judicial authority, judges win:

The question before us is whether the public records law constitutes a legislative determination that the public interest in access to government records overrides the traditional authority of courts to enter protective orders, and thus obligates the Attorney General to provide the documents to Lieberman. As an interpretation of the public records law that would compel such a conclusion would raise serious constitutional doubts as to the validity of the statute, we conclude that it does not.

But at the same time, it ruled that Lieberman did have standing to sue over the order and explain why he should be allowed to see at least some of the documents.

• Complete ruling