624 A.2d at 1141, and they do not become part of the public record of a case. In light of these unique characteristics, any right of access to PSIs must be evaluated separately from the public’s right to attend sentencing proceedings and inspect documents filed by the parties in those proceedings. See Corbitt, 879 F.2d at 228-29 (public’s right to disclosure of presentence reports must be considered independently of public’s right of access to sentencing hearings). Considering the Caledonian-Record’s request in light of the Press-Enterprise II test, the first prong of that test is not met. Both federal and state courts have repeatedly recognized the confidential nature of PSIs, and have refused to disclose them to third parties. See, e.g., United States v. Julian, 486 U.S. 1, 12 (1988) (<HOLDING>); Corbitt, 879 F.2d at 229-30 (discussing
holding courts have held that hospitals have a duty to protect its patients from the tortious or criminal actions of third parties due to the special relationship between the hospital and the patient recognizing a corporations legal rights to confidentiality and privilege recognizing academic privilege but holding plaintiffs need for information outweighed colleges interest in confidentiality recognizing need to protect confidentiality of information contained in psis and noting that courts have been very reluctant to disclose them to third parties holding there is no duty to third parties on the part of a premises owner who could not have foreseen the criminal acts of third parties