CR 26(c). In Dreiling, we noted that article I, section 10 “does not speak” to the disclosure of information surfacing during pretrial discovery that does not otherwise come before the court because it “does not become part of the court’s decision-making process.” 151 Wn.2d at 909-10. Thus, because there is not yet a public right of access with respect to these materials, “[m]ere discovery may be sealed Tor good cause shown.’ ” Id. at 909 (quoting CR 26(c)). ¶17 Trial proceedings and records attached to dispositive motions, on the other hand, are presumptively open absent an “ ‘overriding interest.’ ” Dreiling, 151 Wn.2d at 910 (quoting Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 252 (4th Cir. 1988)); Cohen v. Everett City Council, 85 Wn.2d 385, 388-89, 535 P.2d 801 (1975) (<HOLDING>). The open administration of justice is more
recognizing inherent power of courts of appeals holding that our constitution mandates an open public trial in a civil case absent any of the statutory exceptions or compelling rea sons calling for exercise of the courts inherent power to control its proceedings holding that district courts have inherent power to control their dockets as long as its exercise is not inconsistent with a rule or statute recognizing the inherent power of the courts to issue warrants recognizing use of ancillary jurisdiction in subsequent proceedings for the exercise of the courts inherent power to enforce its judgments