Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ginia. There is no parent company and no publicly held corporation that owns ten
i
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 3 of 30
TABLES OF CONTENTS
ii
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 4 of 30
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Bank of Am. Natl Trust and Sav. Assn v. Hotel Rittenhouse Assocs.,
800 F.2d 339 (3d Cir. 1986) ........................................................................... 14-15
Bell v. Commonwealth Title & Trust Co.,
189 U.S. 131 (1903) .............................................................................................16
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.,
556 U.S. 868 (2009) ...............................................................................................2
Courthouse News Service v. Planet,
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105197 (C.D. Cal. 2016) ..................................................4
Courthouse News Service v. Planet,
750 F.3d 776 (9th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................... 5-6
Cowley v. Pulsifer,
137 Mass. 392 (1884) ...........................................................................................11
Direct-Mail Service v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles,
296 Mass. 353, 5 N.E.2d 545 (1937)....................................................................16
Ex parte Drawbaugh,
2 App. D.C. 404 (1894) ........................................................................................10
Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale,
443 U.S. 368 (1979) ...........................................................................................7, 8
Gregory v. Ashcroft,
501 U.S. 452 (1991) ...............................................................................................5
IDT Corp. v. eBay,
709 F.3d 1220 (8th Cir. 2013) ....................................................................... 13, 14
In re Caswell,
18 R.I. 835, 29 A. 259 (1893)...............................................................................22
In re Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press,
773 F.2d 1325 (D.C. Cir. 1985).................................................................... passim
Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.,
435 U.S. 589 (1978) ......................................................................................... 9-11
OShea v. Littleton,
414 U.S. 488 (1974) ...............................................................................................6
iii
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 5 of 30
iv
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 6 of 30
RULES
Alaska Rules of Court, Rules of Administration, R. 37.5 .......................................19
Alaska Rules of Court, Rules of Administration, R. 37.6(c) ...................................17
Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court, R. 123(c) ............................................... 19, 20
Cal. Rule 2.570(c) ....................................................................................................17
F.R.A.P. 29 .................................................................................................................1
Hawaii R. 9.1(a) .......................................................................................................20
Idaho Court Administrative R.32(g)(20) .................................................................20
Idaho Court Administrative Rule 32(a) ...................................................................19
Idaho Court Administrative Rule 32(i)(1) ...............................................................17
Indiana Court Rules, Admin. R. 9(A) ......................................................................19
Maine Supreme Judicial Court, Admin. Order JB-05-20, III.A.2 ........................20
Missouri Court Operating Rule 2.02........................................................................19
Nevada Electronic Filing and Conversion Rules, R.14 ...........................................20
Nevada Policy for Handling Filed, Lodged, and Presumptively Confidential
Documents, R. 5 ...................................................................................................19
Nevada Policy for Handling Filed, Lodged, and Presumptively Confidential
Documents, R.6(c) ................................................................................................20
Nevada Rules Governing Sealing and Redacting Court Records, R. 1(3)-(4) ........19
Washington State Court Rules General Rule R.6(1)(iii) ......................................20
Washington State Court Rules General Rule 31(a) ..............................................18
Washington State Court Rules General Rule 31(e)(1)-(2) ...................................20
v
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 7 of 30
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Dorothy Samuels, The Selling of the Judiciary: Campaign Cash in the
Courtroom, N.Y. TIMES Apr. 15, 2008, at A22 .................................................18
vi
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 8 of 30
Justices (the Conference) respectfully submits this brief amicus curiae in support
of Appellant. 1
The Conference was founded in 1949 to enable the highest judicial officers
ment of the administration of justice, rules and methods of procedure, rules of legal
and judicial ethics, and the organization and operation of state courts and judicial
systems. The Conference is comprised of the Chief Justices or Chief Judges of the
courts of last resort in all fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealths
of Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Territories of American
Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. The Conference has been a leading national
by the Conferences Board of Directors. The policy authorizes the filing of a brief
if critical interests of state courts are at stake, as they are in this case.
1
All parties to this appeal have consented to the filing of this brief. No counsel for
a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no person other than amicus or
its counsel has made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or
submission of this brief.
1
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 9 of 30
The Conference has filed amicus curiae briefs in prior cases, and other
courts have relied on these briefs. See, e.g., Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.,
556 U.S. 868, 889 (2009); id. at 901 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting); Republican Party
of Minn. v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 821 (2002) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting); Siefert v.
Alexander, 608 F.3d 974, 986 (7th Cir. 2010). The Conference recently partici-
pated as an amicus in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 135 S. Ct. 1656 (2015), and
Wolfson v. Concannon, 811 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), where it advo-
cated positions ultimately adopted by the Supreme Court and this Court, respec-
tively.
Pursuant to the Conferences policy, this brief has been reviewed and ap-
North Dakota and composed of the current or former Chief Justices of Arizona, In-
diana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Wiscon-
INTRODUCTION
The precise issue presented in this appeal is whether a county superior court
newly filed civil complaints immediately upon receipt, even before they are re-
viewed and processed by the clerks office and made available to the judges of the
2
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 10 of 30
court, and regardless of the time of day the complaints are filed, whether the court-
house is then open for business, and whether the filings are paper or electronic.
Court funding is continually a critical issue, and the state courts are still
emerging from a period of financial instability that began with the financial crisis
of 2007 and led to layoffs, extended closures of courthouses, and prolonged cessa-
tion of jury trials. While the economics have improved somewhat, solvency is still
hire more personnel or pay significant overtime in order to comply with orders
Appellee Courthouse News Service (CNS) is not a typical media outlet. Its
principal business focus consists of capturing civil complaint filings in chosen mar-
kets around the country and selling reports to its subscribers, a service for which it
charges each of them thousands of dollars per annum. Most of these subscribers
are law firms, which can search these reports for complaints against existing cli-
ents, many of whom have not yet been served, and otherwise use this information
This litigation, and others like it being brought by CNS in other federal dis-
tricts, principally seeks to facilitate its boutique business model. CNSs claim of a
3
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 11 of 30
Freedom of the Press, 773 F.2d 1325, 1332 (D.C. Cir. 1985); see also id. n.5 (dis-
(1984)). 2
The court below held that the First Amendment does not compel same-day
access to court pleadings, Courthouse News Service v. Planet, 2016 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 105197 at *39-*41 (C.D. Cal. 2016), but then went on to give CNS more
than it asked for by holding, first, that there is a First Amendment right to timely
access and then transmogrifying that right into something requiring not merely
same-day access but access as soon as the court receives the complaint. Id. at *43-
*45. In short, the district court said that the First Amendment does not require
Nothing in law or logic justifies that result. Even assuming, arguendo, that
there is a First Amendment right to timely access, the district courts decision treats
processing new civil case filingsa simple, traditional, and widespread adminis-
trative process that should easily have passed constitutional muster as a routine
2
Rhinehart held that a newspaper has no First Amendment right to publish mate-
rial obtained in pretrial discovery and subject to a protective order. [R]estraints
placed on discovered, but not yet admitted, information are not a restriction on a
traditionally public source of information. 467 U.S. at 33.
4
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 12 of 30
How the state courts review, process, and accept for filing (redacted, if nec-
by the States, Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 460 (1991), and central to the
exclusive, and free from external interference, except so far as plainly provided by
the Constitution of the United States. Id. at 463 (internal citations omitted). The
decision below creates a brand new First Amendment righta right to immediate
precedent, the district courts decision threatens to involve the federal courts in
day-to-day supervision of state court systems and to dictate how scarce state court
Nor is the district courts decision compelled by any decision of this Court,
including the two decisions earlier in this case. As the Court acknowledged, The
5
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 13 of 30
776, 789 (9th Cir. 2013) (emphasis added). 3 Indeed, this Court recognized in the
concluding section of its opinion that [t]here may be limitations on the publics
ARGUMENT
The court below assumed that the First Amendment requires access by the
media and the general public to all non-privileged court pleadings and pretrial ac-
tivities. This assumption is unfounded and misconceives the nature of any First
Existing case law draws several distinctions that the court below failed to
consider. These include distinctions between rights belonging to a party alone and
not to third parties such as the press; between criminal cases (and the concomitant
public interest in cases in which the power of the government is marshalled against
3
The decision did not address the First Amendment issue itself, only that absten-
tion under the Pullman and OShea doctrines was not warranted because of the im-
portance of the First Amendment claim at issue. 750 F.3d at 789. See OShea v.
Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974); Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312
U.S. 496 (1941).
4
The Court explicitly stated that it was taking no position on the ultimate merits of
CNSs [right to same-day access] claims. 750 F.2d at 793.
6
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 14 of 30
individual citizens) and civil cases involving only private parties; and between ac-
constitutional moment.
First, the Supreme Court has never held that there is a First Amendment
other pre-trial documents. 5 Even in criminal cases, the Court unequivocally re-
jected the claim that the First Amendment afforded to third parties (whether the
press in particular, as in Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (1979), or
the general public more broadly) any constitutional right of access to pretrial pro-
ceedings. Rather, the First Amendment only requires public access to criminal tri-
als, Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980), and to jury voir
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (Press-Enterprise I).
pretrial discovery and held that even a litigant has no First Amendment right of
access to information made available only for purposes of trying his suit. Seattle
5
California, like a number of other States, has enacted a statute making trial court
records reasonably accessible to all members of the public. CAL. GOVT. CODE
68150(l). The very existence of such statutes strongly indicates that access to pre-
judgment court documents in civil cases is a matter of statutory grace, not constitu-
tional right.
7
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 15 of 30
Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 32 (1984). The right to speak and publish
does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information, id. (citing Ze-
mel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 16-17 (1965)), and pretrial depositions and interrogato-
ries are not public components of a civil trial and were not open to the public at
common law . . . . Rhinehart, 467 U.S. at 33 (citing Gannett, 443 U.S. at 389).
trial is not the kind of classic prior restraint that requires exacting First Amendment
scrutiny. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. at 33. (citing Gannett , 443 U.S. at 399 (Powell, J.,
concurring)).
If that is true of civil discovery, how much more is it true of an original civil
complaint, which constitutes merely a set of unproved factual allegations that are
judgment) and amendment, respectively, and which, like pretrial discovery, is not a
component of a civil trial. Rhinehart. 467 U.S. at 33. Indeed, even were one to
apply the stricter standard for criminal cases applied in Press-Enterprise Co. v. Su-
perior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986) (Press-Enterprise II), CNSs argument would fail.
ceedings; and (2) that public access plays a particularly positive role in the actual
8
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 16 of 30
functioning of the process. Id. at 11. No such showing has been made here, and
preme Court decision deals with the precise issue of the publics First Amendment
the Press, 773 F.2d 1325, 1330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (emphasis in original). [N]ot
until 1980 [did] the Supreme Court [find] that the common core purpose of assur-
ment shared by the various clauses of the First Amendment created a right to ob-
serve criminal trial proceedings. Id. at 1331 (emphasis in original) (quoting Rich-
mond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 575). The principle has not yet been applied to ac-
cess to civil trials (though the Court has perhaps intimated that it obtains there, see
Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 580 n.17), much less to access to records in
civil trialsor, for that matter, even records in criminal trials. Reporters Commit-
In Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597-98 (1978), the
Supreme Court acknowledged that American courts had long recognized a general,
common law (as opposed to First Amendment) right to inspect and copy public
9
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 17 of 30
records and documents, including judicial records and documents but noted that
the right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute. Id. at 598.
Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and
access has been denied where court files might have become a vehicle
for improper purposes. For example, the common-law right of inspec-
tion has bowed before the power of a court to insure that its records are
not used to gratify private spite or promote public scandal through
the publication of the painful and sometimes disgusting details of a
divorce case. . . . Similarly, courts have refused to permit their files to
serve as reservoirs of libelous statements for press consumption, . . . or
as sources of business information that might harm a litigants compet-
itive standing . . . .
The case law also draws a distinction (not mentioned by the court below) be-
tween access to judicial records after judgment and access to records prior to judg-
ment. [T]]he record or transcript . . . after judgment . . ., do (sic) not stand upon
the footing of original papers placed in the files of a court of original jurisdiction,
and where there has been no trial had or judgment entered thereon. Reporters
Committee, 773 F.2d at 1333 (quoting Ex parte Drawbaugh, 2 App. D.C. 404, 406
(1894) (emphasis in original)). It has been held, in one instance at least [and inti-
mated in another], that the court might withhold from a publisher of a newspaper
the right to inspect or take copies of papers or documents on file, for publication
before the trial of the cause. Reporters Committee, 773 F.2d at 1333-34 (quoting
Drawbaugh, 2 App. D.C. at 407, which in turn cited Schmedding v. May, 85 Mich.
10
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 18 of 30
1, 48 N.W. 201 (1891), and Cowley v. Pulsifer, 137 Mass. 392 (1884) (Holmes,
J.)). 6
Support for a pre-judgment non-access rule for court records can also be
found in a related common law rule involving the privilege against liability for def-
amation in the accurate reporting of public records. The privilege simply did not
extend to accusations contained in papers filed by a party and not yet brought be-
fore a judge or magistrate for official action. Reporters Committee, 773 F.2d at
318 Mass. 156, 158, 61 N.E.2d 5, 6 (1945), and citing Park v. Detroit Free Press
The reasons that support the one rule support the other as well. Schmed-
dings perception that matters in a civil lawsuit involve private deal-
ings between private parties until made public in open court, or until
their truthfulness has been determined by the judgment or decree of
the court, . . . was the very basis for that courts earlier holding that
pre-judgment civil records do not come within the public records priv-
ilege:
One of the reasons why parties are privileged from suit for
accusations made in their pleadings is that the pleadings
are addressed to courts where the facts can be fairly tried,
and to no other readers. . . . The public have no rights to
any information on private suits till they come up for pub-
lic hearing or action in open court . . . .
6
Both Schmedding and Pulsifer were also cited by the Supreme Court in Warner
Communications, 435 U.S. at 597, and they assert as the common law rule that
there is no right of public access to prejudgment records in civil cases. Reporters
Committee, 773 F.2d at 1334.
11
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 19 of 30
Reporters Committee, 773 F.2d at 1335 (quoting Detroit Free Press, 72 Mich. at
In sum, the tradition of public access to court proceedings does not extend to
pre-judgment access to court records in civil cases. Indeed, if the concerns about
abuse such as those identified above are sufficient to permit a complete prohibition
that results from mere delay of a day, or even several days, in the processing of
pleadings and other materials that have not been made public in open court does
not run afoul of either the First Amendment or the common law.
Second, there are significant differences between civil and criminal proceed-
ings, and between pre-trial and post-judgment access, that counsel caution before
ceedings to the pre-trial civil records at issue here. Every aspect of a criminal case,
from the filing of the indictment to pre-trial suppression hearings to the trial itself,
involves the government acting in its sovereign capacity as a party. Public access
to such proceedings (and to the documents involved in them) furthers the com-
functioning of government that led the Supreme Court to find a First Amendment
12
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 20 of 30
575. In civil litigation between private parties, such as the present case, no First
ernment exists.
ing of the judicial branch, that interest is not triggered until a point in civil litiga-
tion that actually involves the judiciary. The public have no rights to any infor-
mation on private suits till they come up for public hearing or action in open court
Mich. at 568-69, 40 N.W. at 734) (emphasis added). Not only is the judiciary not
involved at the complaint filing stage but CNS wants access before a judge can
IDT Corp. v. eBay, 709 F.3d 1220, 1222-23 (8th Cir. 2013), involved a
sealed complaint in an antitrust suit, where the allegations were based in large part
litigation before the same trial judge. Shortly after filing, the parties settled the
7
To be sure, the First Amendment right of the media and the public to attend pub-
lic trials and speak or write about what they observe there serves two purposes in
criminal cases: enhancing fairness to the defendant when a trial is held in public,
and providing citizens the opportunity to observe the conduct of judicial proceed-
ings so that they can the more intelligently perform their duties as citizens (includ-
ing jury service and voting).
13
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 21 of 30
eral common law right of access, the Eighth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in
the trial judges denial of a motion by an intervenor public interest group to unseal
the complaint but did remand for the judge to assess whether, in lieu of sealing the
based on a right of public access grounded in the First Amendment. 8 The interve-
civil cases that are settled without adjudication on the merits. Id. at 1224 n.* (ap-
Other circuits have either rejected the First Amendment claim outrightRe-
porters Committee, 773 F.2d at 1330-31; IDT, 709 F.3d at 1224or have limited
their decisions to federal common law. See Siedle v. Putnam Invs., Inc., 147 F.3d
7 (1st Cir. 1998) (holding that the Federal common law right of pretrial access does
not extend to attorney-client privileged documents); Bank of Am. Natl Trust and
8
This Courts decision in San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court--N.
Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 1999), is not to the contrary. The deci-
sion there involved access to discovery documents based solely on federal common
law and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the court explicitly disclaimed
taking any position on whether the First Amendment bestows on the public a pre-
judgment right of access to civil court records. Id. at 1102 (emphasis in original).
14
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 22 of 30
Sav. Assn v. Hotel Rittenhouse Assocs., 800 F.2d 339, 343 (3d Cir. 1986) (distin-
guishing pre-trial documents from motions that had been presented for action by
the Court).
For the foregoing reasons, the district courts holding grounded in the First
and the absence of any showing of a nationwide problem with public access to
state court records, CNS is relying on the district courts opinion when litigating
(or threatening to litigate unless its demands are met) this same issue in other fed-
eral districts, not just in California but elsewhere in the United States as well.
Whatever problems CNS may have encountered in one particular county court is
not a prescription for a one size fits all nationwide remedy, however. Unless
overturned, the district courts decision will be used to invalidate the rules and stat-
of its own court systemthroughout the country. The district courts ruling also
effectively nullifies a substantial body of federal and state court rulings that recog-
nize the right of a custodian of public records, including a clerk of court, to make
such reasonable regulations as will secure to him and his assistants full use of the
15
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 23 of 30
books and records of this office. Bell v. Commonwealth Title & Trust Co., 189
viewed by the clerks office before they are accepted for filing. This processing
ensures that documents have been submitted for the correct case, that the docu-
ments are legible (or, in the case of electronic filings, properly formatted), and that
the appropriate fees have been paid. It is not uncommon for complaints to be mis-
filed in the wrong court. 10 Furthermore, many states have privacy laws that pro-
9
See also Whorton v. Gaspard, 239 Ark. 715, 717, 393 S.W.2d 773, 774-775
(1965) (observing that, though the statute provided only that voting lists were sub-
ject to inspection by interested persons, [w]ithout doubt, reasonable restrictions
and conditions may be imposed [by the country clerk] with respect to the right to
use public records.); Direct-Mail Service v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 296
Mass. 353, 357, 5 N.E.2d 545, 547 (1937) (clarifying that, while the statute pro-
vided that records of the registrar shall be open to the inspection of any person
during reasonable business hours, one seeking to inspect the records must submit
to such reasonable supervision on the part of the custodian as will guard the safety
of the records and secure equal opportunity for all.).
10
CNSs insistence on same-day access leads, in that instance, to a rather absurd
resultaccess to a document without any newsworthiness whatsoever, one that
will shortly be rejected by the court without any case ever being docketed.
16
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 24 of 30
records for a party or witness); information about victims of rape or sexual assault;
name changes in domestic violence and stalking cases; guardianship and conserva-
sorts of restrictions are especially common in the trusts and estates and domestic
relations (including child custody, child support, and paternity proceedings) dock-
ets. Such filingsincluding not only the complaint itself but any attachments and
exhibitsmust in many cases be reviewed for compliance with such state laws and
request that they be placed, in whole or in part, under seal. Placing complaints un-
der seal can also be required by statute in certain types of cases, such as qui tam
actions. 12 Premature release of such documents to news media would not only be
11
State courts make a deliberate effort to use the least restrictive means to accom-
modate public access and countervailing policies. See, e.g., Alaska Rules of Court,
Rules of Administration, R. 37.6(c); Idaho Court Administrative Rule 32(i)(1).
Redaction requirements are a part of that effort, since it would be easier, and cer-
tainly more efficient from the point of view of court administration, to make an af-
fected document simply inaccessible in its entirety. Such an effort does, however,
require a reasonable time for court clerks to complete the requisite work.
12
See, e.g., CAL. GOVERNMENT CODE 12652(c); Cal. Rule 2.570(c).
17
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 25 of 30
that ensues.
This case and other cases CNS has filed around the country foster the im-
pression that State courts are intransigent or somehow reluctant when it comes to
providing public access to court records. Nothing could be further from the truth.
State courts are responsible for resolving the vast majority of civil and criminal
cases in the United States, 13 but they are wholly committed to providing prompt
and reasonable public access to court filings other than those that, by court rule,
State courts generally favor open government and an informed citizenry and
13
Comparing statistics maintained for state courts by the National Center for State
Courts, and for federal courts by the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts reveals that more than 99 percent of all civil cases filed in the United States
in 2015 occurred in state courts. Nine years ago, Justice Breyer reportedly esti-
mated that figure at 95 percent. See Dorothy Samuels, The Selling of the Judici-
ary: Campaign Cash in the Courtroom, N.Y. TIMES Apr. 15, 2008, at A22.
14
See, e.g., WASHINGTON STATE COURT RULES General Rule 31(a) (It is the pol-
icy of the courts to facilitate access to court records as provided by Article I, Sec-
tion 10 of the Washington State Constitution. Access to court records is not abso-
lute and shall be consistent with reasonable expectations of personal privacy as
provided by article 1, Section 7 of the Washington State Constitution and shall not
unduly burden the business of the courts.).
18
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 26 of 30
cies that maximize accessibility to court records but do so in a manner that sup-
ports the role of the judiciary, preserves every litigants right to a fair trial, 15 does
not burden the ongoing business of the courts, and makes the most efficient and ef-
fective use of court personnel. At the same time, these policies are carefully con-
sidered and periodically reassessed by State high courts in order not only to
keep pace with technological changes but also to accommodate potentially coun-
tervailing policies such as promoting public safety, minimizing risk of injury to in-
dividuals, protecting the privacy rights and interests of State residents (including
trade secrets), and seeking to attenuate any reluctance of natural and juridical per-
court staff would expose the judicial branch to potential liability for disclosure of
15
In Maryland, for example, in connection with the recent, high-profile trial of po-
lice officers charged in connection with the arrest and death of Freddie Gray, the
clerks office made documents available once accepted by the court, but not at the
time of filing. Once the back-office process was completed, the documents were
uploaded online within 24-48 hours.
16
See, e.g., Rules of Arizona Supreme Court, R. 123(c); Alaska Rules of Court,
Rules of Administration, R. 37.5; Idaho Court Administrative Rule 32(a); Indiana
Court Rules, Admin. R. 9(A); Missouri Court Operating Rule 2.02; Nevada Rules
Governing Sealing and Redacting Court Records, R. 1(3)-(4); Nevada Policy for
Handling Filed, Lodged, and Presumptively Confidential Documents, R. 5.
19
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 27 of 30
that may not even be properly submitted court documents to begin with. Court
staff are required to declare certain documents as non-public and send the filer a
ment. 17 Administratively rejected complaints are complete nullities and are not of-
ficial court documents or records at all. The number of such filings is more fre-
quent than one might suppose and can number in the thousands each year in any
given State.
As is well-known, the state courts are only now beginning to emerge from a
crisis in funding that began with the financial crisis of 2007 and that led to multiple
days of court closings and lengthy suspensions of jury trials. A same-day access
requirement would demand from the state courts additional resources that they do
17
In some jurisdictionse.g., Hawaii R. 9.1(a); Nevada Electronic Filing and Con-
version Rules, R.14; Nevada Policy for Handling Filed, Lodged, and Presump-
tively Confidential Documents, R.6(c); Washington State Court Rules, General
Rule 31(e)(1)-(2)the primary responsibility for redaction belongs to the lawyers
or parties filing the document, but frequently the clerks of the court have to do it.
Id., R.6(1)(iii); Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona, R. 123(c); Idaho Court Ad-
ministrative R.32(g)(20); Maine Supreme Judicial Court, Admin. Order JB-05-20,
III.A.2. The public, including the media, will have access only to the redacted
version.
20
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 28 of 30
is simply not possible in such jurisdictions for the clerks to prepare file jackets for
Also, a one size fits all public access rule of the sort CNS seeks is inappro-
priate, as all States have a variety of jurisdictions: some urban, some rural and re-
mote. In many States each of these diverse judicial districts has its own civil case
ments and exhibits, particularly those that arrive late in the business day or at times
(such as weekends) when many courts and clerks offices are not open for busi-
ness. Documents must be filed, stamped, scanned, and docketed before they may
public access to civil complaint filings upon receipt, the decision below, if allowed
cash-strapped and poorly funded state court systems across the country. The dis-
trict courts order threatens to force modification of existing intake processes, often
to the detriment of quality control efforts, not just in California but nationwide. In
18
Even at the appellate level, documents must be examined to determine whether
they meet technical requirements of the States Rules of Appellate Procedure and
to verify whether documents and exhibits listed are complete.
21
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 29 of 30
some cases, it would even have the effect of preempting existing state law in a
manner not considered by the district court and certainly uncontemplated by our
federal system.
CONCLUSION
cases has ever been recognized by the Supreme Court. The existence of such a
right does not follow from the distinct Sixth Amendment right of criminal defend-
ants to a public trial, or from the distinct First Amendment right of the media and
the public to attend public trials and speak about what they observe there. It does
not further either of the purposes served by those recognized rightsthe fairness to
the defendant that is enhanced when a trial is held in public, or the ability of citi-
zens to observe the conduct of judicial proceedings so that they can intelligently
ment court records, before court clerks can process them and before they have been
reviewed by any judicial officer, would more likely be an open invitation for those
who would use such records to gratify private spite or promote public scandal.
Reporters Committee, 773 F.2d at 1331 (quoting In re Caswell, 18 R.I. 835, 836,
29 A. 259 (1893)).
22
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 30 of 30
State courts are still recovering from the recent financial crisis, which re-
sulted in mass layoffs of court staff, extended closures of courthouses, and pro-
longed cessation of jury trials. Operating under minimal funding from their state
legislatures, the state courts remain in a precarious financial condition that cannot
Respectfully submitted,
23
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-2, Page 1 of 1
This brief complies with the length limits permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 28-1.1.
The brief is words or pages, excluding the portions exempted by Fed. R. App. P.
32(f), if applicable. The brief's type size and type face comply with Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and (6).
This brief complies with the length limits permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 32-1.
The brief is 5,637 words or pages, excluding the portions exempted by Fed. R. App. P.
32(f), if applicable. The brief's type size and type face comply with Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and (6).
This brief complies with the length limits permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 32-2(b).
The brief is words or pages, excluding the portions exempted by Fed. R. App. P.
32(f), if applicable, and is filed by (1) separately represented parties; (2) a party or parties filing a
single brief in response to multiple briefs; or (3) a party or parties filing a single brief in response to a
longer joint brief filed under Rule 32-2(b). The brief's type size and type face comply with Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(5) and (6).
This brief complies with the longer length limit authorized by court order dated
The brief's type size and type face comply with Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and (6). The brief is
words or pages, excluding the portions exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f), if applicable.
This brief is accompanied by a motion for leave to file a longer brief pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 32-2
(a) and is words or pages, excluding the portions exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32
(f), if applicable. The briefs type size and type face comply with Fed. R .App. P. 32(a)(5) and (6).
This brief is accompanied by a motion for leave to file a longer brief pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 29-2
(c)(2) or (3) and is words or pages, excluding the portions exempted by Fed. R.
App. P. 32(f), if applicable. The brief's type size and type face comply with Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and
(6).
This brief complies with the length limits set forth at Ninth Circuit Rule 32-4.
The brief is words or pages, excluding the portions exempted by Fed. R. App. P.
32(f), if applicable. The briefs type size and type face comply with Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and (6).
(Rev.12/1/16)
Case: 16-55977, 05/01/2017, ID: 10417037, DktEntry: 28-3, Page 1 of 1
NOTE: To secure your input, you should print the filled-in form to PDF (File > Print > PDF Printer/Creator).
*********************************************************************************
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
When All Case Participants are Registered for the Appellate CM/ECF System
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system
on (date) .
May 1, 2017
I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be
accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system.
*********************************************************************************
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
When Not All Case Participants are Registered for the Appellate CM/ECF System
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system
on (date) .
Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the appellate
CM/ECF system.
I further certify that some of the participants in the case are not registered CM/ECF users. I
have mailed the foregoing document by First-Class Mail, postage prepaid, or have dispatched it
to a third party commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days to the following
non-CM/ECF participants: