A district court judge will decide whether to unseal records in a civil lawsuit that was filed nine months ago against the former Ouray police chief and has proceeded in secret.

The lawsuit was filed by the woman who told police investigators she was sexually assaulted in Jeff Wood’s home when he slept upstairs. It’s unclear exactly what sort of allegations or damages are included in the civil lawsuit, which is separate from the criminal case involving three men accused in the alleged sex assault, dating back to 2023.

The details of the civil lawsuit are unknown because its contents have been suppressed. That means everything related to the case, including a chronological list of all documents, court hearings and appearances, and orders and motions made in the case are hidden from the public. Even the motion to suppress the case is suppressed.

The Plaindealer initially filed a request with the court Aug. 4 to ask the judge to unsuppress the case file, and the court set a hearing for attorneys to present arguments this week.

Seventh Judicial Chief District Judge Cory Jackson listened to arguments for about 20 minutes during a hearing in Montrose on Monday about whether some or all of the records in the lawsuit should become public. He said he will issue a written order and suggested he intends to do so soon.

Rachael Johnson, an attorney with the nonprofit Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press who is representing the Plaindealer, said the case has proceeded in secret for nine months — contrary to the presumption that court records and proceedings are open to the public.

“Everything about this case is happening outside the public eye,” she said.

She said the public interest in the case is high, both in the civil complaint and the parallel criminal cases, in which three men — Nate Dieffenderfer, Gabriel Trujillo and Ashton Whittington — are accused of sexually assaulting the woman, who was 17 at the time. Wood was fired as Ouray’s police chief in 2024 for reasons unrelated to the alleged assault. Dieffenderffer is Wood’s stepson.

Johnson argued the public is entitled to timely access to records in the civil case so it can scrutinize the judicial process as it takes place. Such access ensures oversight and accountability, she said.

“The public can’t rely on or be confident in the judiciary system if it’s not transparent,” she said.

Case law supports Johnson’s argument, including a 2021 opinion from U.S. Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit Judge Don R. Willett, which said judges must protect public access to the judicial process and preserve the public’s right to know over litigants’ desire to have justice “done in a corner” for several reasons, including preserving the public’s trust in the judicial system.

“American courts are not private tribunals summoned to resolve disputes confidentially at taxpayer expense. When it comes to protecting the right of access, the judge is the public interest’s principal champion. And when the parties are mutually interested in secrecy, the judge is its only champion,” he wrote in his opinion.

Johnson’s motion to the court included arguments that the details of the assault allegations and Wood’s involvement are already public knowledge.

“It is well established that any potential privacy interests in sealing information from the public is defeated where the information becomes widely known or publicly accessible,” Johnson wrote.

The woman’s attorney, Roger Sagal, previously asked the court to continue to keep the entire docket and all case information sealed away from public view, and opposed the Plaindealer’s request.

During the hearing, he did not offer a legal argument for keeping the case suppressed.

“I don’t think I have much of a dispute in terms of applicable law here,” he told the judge.

Instead, he argued the woman’s privacy concerns outweigh the public’s interest. He noted the parents of one of the three men accused in the assault have been charged with harassing and intimidating the woman.

“We have in this case … at least allegations at this point that there is a risk to the victim if more about these cases is exposed than already has been,” he said.

Sagal said his concerns about protecting the woman’s privacy may subside after the trials start in the criminal cases. Those trials have been delayed several times. Dieffenderffer’s trial is currently scheduled to happen in April and Trujillo’s trial is currently scheduled for July, more than three years since the alleged assault.

He called the Plaindealer’s coverage of the criminal case “aggressive.”

“The redacted arrest warrant was published in the Plaindealer,” Sagal said. “I deeply regret that happened. I don’t think that should have happened.”

However, the Plaindealer did not publish the arrest warrant itself, which is a public record. It published selected details from the document in a story about the arrests to illustrate the severity of the allegations. The newspaper does not publish names of sex assault victims and has not identified the woman.

Sagal argued the public interest in the civil case doesn’t exceed the need to protect the woman’s privacy.

“I don’t think it has to change now,” he said.

Jackson asked Sagal whether there were some parts of the case file that would not compromise the woman’s privacy, if they were released.

“Is there any harm associated with some of those things being unsealed?” he asked.

Sagal said he would leave that to the discretion of the court.

Johnson said she saw no harm in releasing the register of actions in the case, and argued the judge could release all the documents in the case while redacting highly sensitive information.

Sagal countered that the judge shouldn’t have to go through “a lengthy redacting process” to determine what’s sensitive and what’s not.

Trujillo’s attorney, Edward Becoat, said he agreed with Sagal that the case file should remain suppressed. Wood’s attorney said he wouldn’t take a position on the issue, and would instead defer to the court’s decision.

“I don’t think defendant Jeff Wood would mind either way,” the attorney said.