courts have generally applied a balancing process. See Pansy, 23 F.3d at 787 (citing Arthur R. Miller, Confidentiality, Protective Orders, and Public Access to the Courts, 105 Harv.L.Rev. 427, 432-33 (1991) (court should balance the party’s need for information against the injury that might result if uncontrolled disclosure is compelled)). {16} Some of the documents or evidence which were subject to the trial court’s order of confidentiality were relied upon by the trial court in its decision to grant the Association’s motion for summary judgment. Absent compelling circumstances, a party should not be barred from disclosing evidence which was actually utilized by the trial court in reaching its decision. See State ex rel. Bingaman v. Brennan, 98 N.M. 109, 111, 645 P.2d 982, 984 (1982) (<HOLDING>); see also NMSA 1978, § 34-1-1 (1972) (except
holding that a childabuse report is not a public record and therefore is not subject to public inspection recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public recognizing a public employees first amendment right to address matters of legitimate public concern recognizing presumption in favor of public inspection and copying of matters received into evidence at public session of trial recognizing that some police records must remain secret and free from public inspection as a matter of public policy