In re the Marriage of: John Richard Strosahl, petitioner, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A20-0189

In re the Marriage of: John Richard Strosahl, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Doreen Strosahl,
Appellant.

Filed September 14, 2020
Reversed and remanded
Reyes, Judge

Carver County District Court
File No. 10-FA-16-404

John M. Jerabek, Thomas W. Tuft, Tuft, Lach & Jerabek, PLLC, Maplewood, Minnesota;
and

Donna M. Gray, Law Office of Donna M. Gray, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Micaela Wattenbarger, Valerie Arnold, Arnold, Rodman & Kretchmer, PA, Bloomington,
Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Reyes, Presidi ng Judge; Bryan, Judge; and Frisch,
Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
REYES, Judge
Appellant-wife appeals the district court’s denial of her motion to unseal the district
court record of her marriage dissolution with respondent-husband. We reverse and remand
for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
FACTS
Appellant-wife Doreen Strosahl (wife) and respondent -husband John R ichard
Strosahl (husband) married in 2010 after working for the same company in Germany and
dating for about four years. Strosahl v. Strosahl, No. A18-1229, 2019 WL 4409390 at *1
(Minn. App. Sept. 16, 2019). Husband is from the United States , and wife is from
Germany. Id. The couple moved to Minnesota shortly after getting married and had a
daughter in 2012. Id. The parties separated in June 2016 and later filed for dissolution of
their marriage. Id. The dissolution led to a “contentious trial” over the custody of their
daughter. Id. Wife wanted their daughter to live with her in Germany for 40 weeks out of
the year. Id. “At trial, [wife] alleged that [husband] had domestically abused her, citing
one specific instance of sexual assault in 2014.” Id. In its dissolution judgment and decree,
the district court did not find sufficient evidence to support the domestic-assault
allegations. The district court determined that it is in the daughter’s best int erests to
continue living in Minnesota, awarded sole physical custody to father , and awarded joint
legal custody to both parties. Id.
At the end of the court trial, husband’s attorney stated, “[W]e talked to [wife’s
attorney] when we were here last week; but just as part of the record, it’s my understanding

3
that [wife] is not objecting to sealing of the court record.” Wife’s attorney did not object,
and the district court stated, “Then we will seal the court record. I will produce an order
on that.” The district court released a written order in December 2017 sealing the record
“[b]ased upon the file and requests of counsel.”
In July 2018, wife appealed the district court’s dissolution judgment, amended
findings of facts, and order to seal the record . Before this court decided her appeal , wife
also filed a motion with the district court to unseal the district court file. The district court
issued an order reserving wife’s motion to unseal the court file “pending completion of the
appellate process.” We released our opinion affirming the district court’s dissolution
judgment in September 2019. Strosahl, 2019 WL 4409390 at *8. We declined to consider
the issue of unsealing the records be cause wife did not raise the issue to the district court
before filing the appeal, but rather made a motion to the district court after we accepted the
appeal. Id. “We express[ed] no opinion on the pending motion, beyond the observation
that it is the po licy of the judicial branch that case records be accessible to the public, in
the absence of a specific exception that limits access.” Id. (citing Minn. R. Pub. Access to
Recs. of Jud. Branch 2).
On December 17, 2019, the district court filed its order and memorandum denying
wife’s request to unseal the record . It explained that it had originally sealed the district
court records “in reliance that allowing public access to the file would potentially harm
[husband’s] employment, which could have adverse effects on the financial settlement.”
The district court concluded by stating, “To unseal the file now would put [husband’s]
employment at risk after [wife] agreed to the financial settlement.” This appeal follows.

4
D E C I S I O N
Wife argues that district court abused its discretion by (1) initially sealing the entire
record without making the requisite findings , including not articulating “strong
countervailing reasons,” and (2) denying her request to unseal the district court file. We
address the second issue because it necessarily addresses the first issue.
Appellate courts review a district court’s decision to seal records for an abuse of
discretion. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Schumacher, 392 N.W.2d 197, 206 (Minn.
1986). A n a ppellant bears the burden of showing how the district court abused its
discretion. Loth v. Loth, 35 N.W.2d 542, 546 (Minn. 1949). “ A district court abuses its
discretion if its decision is against the facts in the record or if its ruling is based on an
erroneous view of the law.” State ex rel. Swan Lake Area Wildlife Ass’n, 799 N.W.2d 619,
625 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted).
The Minnesota Rules of Public Access to Records gove rn access to court files and
impose a presumption of public access. Minn. R. Pub. Access to Recs. of Jud. Branch 1-
2. Rule 4 governs accessibility and directs courts to consider the common-law factors in
Schumacher, 392 N.W.2d 197, if restricting access in a civil case. Minn. R. Pub. Access
to Recs. of Jud. Branch 4, subds. 1 -2. The common law also provides a “right to inspect
and copy civil court records ” and “a presumption in favor of access .” Schumacher, 392
N.W.2d at 202. Courts must balance this presumption of access against any countervailing
interests. Id. at 203; Minn. R. Pub. Access to Recs Jud. Branch 4, subd. 2.

5
Schumacher provides the following framework for analyzing a request for access:
When a party seeks to restrict access to settlement documents
and transcripts of settlement hearings, the court must balance
the interests favoring access, along with the presumption in
favor of access, against those asserted for restricting access .
In order to overcome the presumption in favor of access, a
party must show strong countervailing reasons why access
should be restricted. Absent such a showing, a court may not
restrict access to settlement documents and transcripts that
have been filed with the court. It should also be noted that
simply because a party requests that access be restricted does
not mean that the court may a utomatically do so. The court
must make its own legal determination in each case.

392 N.W.2d at 205-06 (emphases added).
Here, the district court cited the correct standard but did not weigh the interests. The
district court simply stated that the original district court order sealing the record “at least
helped the parties reach their financial settlement, as [husband’s] job was protected and his
income remained stable. [Wife] reaped the financial settlement benefit by sealing the file.”
First, these findings are not supported by evidence in the record. Second, while we did not
provide specific details, our previous opinion states that wife made allegations of abuse
against husband that the district court found lacked sufficient evidence. See Strosahl, 2019
WL 4409390 at *1. This information is already publicly available. Third, the district court
failed to explain, both initially and upon wife’s later request to unseal the district court
record, how husband’s request to seal the record in its entirety meets the strong showing
required to overcome the presumption favoring public access to the record.
We therefore reverse the district court’s order denying wife’s motion to unseal the
record and remand for the district court to weigh the presumption in favor of access against

6
husband’s private interests in sealing the record to determine whether husband can provide
“strong countervailing reasons.” See Schumacher, 392 N.W.2d at 205-06.
Reversed and remanded.