Susan Hutchison has an odd argument against revealing improperly sealed documents in her discrimination case against former employer KIRO-TV. Or rather, she’s got the same argument every party in a suit has: Hey, the other side is making false allegations against me. Onetime anchor Hutchsion says she didn’t have a chance to rebut KIRO’s sealed allegations about her in court because she settled the case. (The allegations were presumably related to her performance to justify her effective demotion, which she charged in the 2003 case was due to age and sex discrimination.) Therefore, she asserts, the allegations shouldn’t be made public. But the choice to settle was hers, netting her a tidy sum no doubt. And that’s exactly what happens all the time in settled cases. Judges are charged with sealing documents only in exceptional circumstances, and while they may do it more than they should (as a Seattle Times

series has pointed out), most run-of-the-mill litigants aren’t afforded any privacy rights. It’s also similar to a complaint that criminal defense advocates have long made. In criminal cases, of course, defendants get to mount a defense in court if they choose. But by that time, the media that initially reported the allegations may have lost interest, or the defendants may cut their losses and take a plea bargain, even if they’re innocent. It’s hard to see why Hutchison’s case deserves special treatment. Indeed, if anybody has a platform to get her side of the story aired, it’s a colorful candidate in a closely watched political race.You have to hand it to the Times for being willing to spend the legal fees for an attempt to unseal the documents even when the paper is hurting financially.