Courthouse News Service v. Michael Planet

Filing 30

NOTICE OF LODGING filed re MOTION for Preliminary Injunction #3 (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Matteo-Boehm, Rachel)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Rachel Matteo-Boehm (SBN 195492)
[e-mail]
David Greene (SBN 160107)
[e-mail]
Leila C. Knox (SBN 245999)
[e-mail]
HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP
560 Mission Street, Suite 250
San Francisco, CA 94105-2994
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION

12
13
14

Courthouse News Service,

15

18
19

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE’S
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

Plaintiff,

16
17

CASE NO. CV11-8083 R (MANx)

v.
Michael D. Planet, in his official capacity
as Court Executive Officer/Clerk of the
Ventura County Superior Court.

Date:
Nov. 21, 2011
Time:
10:00 am
Courtroom 8, 2nd Floor
Judge Manuel Real

20

Defendant.

21
22
23
24

Plaintiff Courthouse News Service’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction was

25

heard by this Court on November 21, 2011. This Court, having considered the

26

memoranda of points and authorities of both parties, the evidence submitted therewith,

27

and the arguments presented at hearing, now GRANTS the motion. Defendant

28

Michael D. Planet, in his official capacity as Court Executive Officer/Clerk of the
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
#74427 v2 saf

Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)

1

Superior Court of California, County of Ventura, and his agents, employees and all

2

persons acting at his direction, are hereby preliminarily enjoined from enforcing his

3

policy of denying Courthouse News access to new unlimited jurisdiction civil

4

complaints submitted to the Ventura County Superior Court until after the complaints

5

have been fully processed, and from failing to provide Courthouse News with access

6

to new complaints no later than the end of the day on which they are submitted to the

7

court, except in those instances where the filing party is seeking a temporary

8

restraining order or the complaint otherwise requires immediate judicial attention or

9

where the filing party has properly filed the pleading under seal.

10

This Court further orders that because of the serious constitutional issues raised

11

in this case, and because Defendant will suffer no economic or other harm, bond is

12

hereby waived.

13

This Order is based on the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
Findings of Fact

14
15
16

The Parties
1.

Courthouse News Service is a 21-year-old nationwide legal news service

17

specializing in news reporting about civil lawsuits, from the date of filing through the

18

appellate level. Its core news publications are its new litigation reports, which are e-

19

mailed to its subscribers and contain staff-written summaries of all significant new

20

civil complaints filed in a particular court. For larger courts, reports are e-mailed to

21

subscribers each evening and provide coverage of new complaints filed earlier that

22

same day. In addition, Courthouse News offers news alerts, which are delivered via

23

email to subscribers. Courthouse News also publishes four print publications, as well

24

as a web site, www.courthousenews.com, that is updated daily with news reports and

25

commentary about civil cases and appeals. The website receives close to 1 million

26

unique visitors each month. Courthouse News has approximately 3,000 subscribers

27

nationwide, including 740 in California alone. Courthouse News’s subscribers

28

include lawyers and law firms, well-known media outlets such as the Los Angeles
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
#74427 v2 saf

Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)

1

Times, the Los Angeles Business Journal, the Pacific Coast Business Times, the San

2

Jose Mercury-News, Forbes, and the Boston Globe, and several university and law

3

libraries. In addition, like other wire services, Courthouse News’ reports are often

4

republished by both print and online news publications and in this way are circulated

5

to an even larger audience.

6

2.

To produce this level of coverage, Courthouse News employs a

7

nationwide network of reporters who are assigned to cover one or more individual

8

courts. At most of the larger courts, Courthouse News’ reporters visit their assigned

9

court near the end of each court day. The reporter reviews civil complaints submitted

10

earlier that day and prepares an original summary of each complaint or other case-

11

initiating document that is of likely interest to Courthouse News’ subscribers for

12

inclusion in the report. In California state courts, Courthouse News only reviews

13

“unlimited jurisdiction” civil complaints – that is, complaints in which the amount in

14

controversy usually exceeds $25,000.

15

3.

Given the nature of Courthouse News’ publications, any delay in the

16

reporter’s ability to review a newly submitted complaint necessarily creates a delay in

17

Courthouse News’ ability to inform interested persons of the factual and legal

18

allegations in that complaint. This is especially problematic when there is an

19

intervening weekend and/or holiday, in which case a delay of even one court day

20

results in actual delays of three or even four calendar days.

21

4.

Michael D. Planet is the Court Executive Officer/Clerk of the Superior

22

Court of California, County of Ventura. In that capacity, Planet is responsible for

23

formulating and implementing the policies regarding public access to records

24

submitted to the court.

25

Traditional Access To Court Records

26

5.

In recognition of the crucial role played by the media to inform interested

27

persons about new court cases, it has been a longstanding tradition for courts to

28

provide reporters who visit the court every day with access to new complaints at the
3
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
#74427 v2 saf

Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)

1

end of the day on which they are first submitted to the court. This same-day access

2

ensures that interested members of the public learn about new cases while they are

3

still newsworthy. Courts have traditionally and still do provide this same-day access,

4

in many instances before the complaints have been fully processed.

5

6.

Courts around the country currently employ, and have traditionally

6

employed, a variety of methods to provide access to case initiating pleadings, such as

7

complaints, on the same day that such records are submitted to the court. For

8

example, at this Court, a room is set up directly off the docketing department with a

9

set of pass-through boxes. At the end of each day, a staffer places all of the civil

10

complaints submitted that day in the pass-through boxes so the media can review

11

them. These complaints are made available for review before they have been

12

processed. Reporters that cover the courthouse on a daily basis have a key to the

13

room where they review the complaints and then put them back in the pass-through

14

boxes. Other courts allow reporters to go behind the counter to review new

15

complaints, and/or allow reporters to remove complaints directly from the desks of

16

intake and processing clerks. And there are many ways to provide same-day access

17

that do not involve behind the counter access or having reporters directly access

18

complaints on the desks of processing or intake clerks. Some courts require the

19

reporter to show or leave collateral (such as a driver’s license or press pass); direct

20

that review be performed in a designated area; comply with a check-out procedure; or

21

even require the reviewing reporter to obtain a security clearance (e.g., a Live-Scan

22

clearance) before accessing the new complaints. Still others allow credentialed media

23

access to the public areas of the clerk’s office after the office has closed to the public

24

so that the media may review the new complaints while the court staff is performing

25

its end of the day tasks. See Declaration of William Girdner, Exhibit 3.

26

7.

The fact that so many courts are able to provide same day access to civil

27

complaints demonstrates that providing such access is a matter of will, not of ability.

28

As shown by the variety and effectiveness of the procedures for providing same-day
4
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
#74427 v2 saf

Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)

1

access that have been implemented in so many courts, any individual clerk’s office

2

can provide prompt access to newly submitted complaints if it has the will to do so.

3

8.

Importantly, these examples demonstrate that same-day access can be

4

provided without any significant re-allocation of court staff resources, or anything

5

more than a minimal expenditure of funds.

6

Ventura Superior’s Policy Of Not Allowing Access Until After “Requisite
Processing,” And The Resulting Delays In Access

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

9.

Ventura Superior Court is among the courts covered in Courthouse

News’ Central Coast Report. Courthouse News began covering Ventura Superior on
a daily basis in November 2010, having been prior to that sending a reporter to the
court once or twice a week. The same reporter, Julianna Krolak, has been covering
Ventura Superior since 2001. The express purpose of her daily visits is to review new
unlimited civil complaints. As is its typical practice, shortly after it began daily
coverage, Courthouse News attempted to work cooperatively with the clerk’s office to
come up with mutually-workable procedures so that Ms. Krolak could have same-day
access to new unlimited jurisdiction civil complaints just as news reporters do in other
courts Courthouse News visits on a daily basis. Such efforts including sending to
Planet a report Courthouse News had prepared entitled “Media Access to Courts
Around the Nation,” the most current version of which is included in the record as
Exhibit 3 to the Girdner Declaration, wherein Courthouse News detailed the various
methods courts around the country used to achieve same day access to civil
complaints.
10.

Ultimately, these efforts were unsuccessful. In a July 11, 2011 letter,

Defendant cited budget difficulties and stated, “While I appreciate the Courthouse
News Service’s interest in same-day access, the Court cannot prioritize that access
above other priorities and mandates. Further, the Court must ensure the integrity of all
filings, including new filings, and cannot make any filings available until the requisite
processing is completed.” (Emphasis added.) In opposing Courthouse News’ motion
5
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
#74427 v2 saf

Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)

1

for preliminary injunction, Defendant further acknowledges that not only does his

2

court not “grant access to ‘partially processed’ complaints,” but indeed, that he does

3

not provide access until after a complaint has been both “processed” and “approved

4

for public viewing.” Defendant further contended that its has never been the court’s

5

practice to grant access to “partially processed “ complaints.

6

11.

Defendant explains that when new complaints are received at Ventura

7

Superior they are date-stamped “Received” and routed to “back-counter” Court

8

Processing Assistants (CPAs), who are responsible for opening the new file, issuing

9

case numbers and providing conformed copies to counsel. New complaints are

10

deemed “filed” by the court on the date they are stamped “Received.” Because

11

Ventura Superior is using the California Court Case Management System (CCMS),

12

Defendant alleges that the CPAs must enter a considerable amount of information

13

regarding a new complaint before a file number is generated. It is not clear at what

14

point Defendant considers a new complaint to be “fully processed.” Defendant

15

acknowledges, however, that when new complaints are processed by newly appointed

16

CPAs, they are subject to a further quality control review, a process that takes from

17

one to several days. The public does not have access to these records until after this

18

quality control review has been completed.

19

12.

This Court finds that but for the requirement that the newly submitted

20

records undergo “the requisite processing” before being made accessible to the public,

21

the Ventura Superior Court would provide same day access to such records. Although

22

Defendant presented copious evidence regarding its budget and staff shortfalls, this

23

evidence only demonstrates why Ventura Superior cannot fully process newly filed

24

complaints on the same day. Obviously, this information is only relevant if

25

Defendant’s policy of denying access until processing is completed is valid.

26

13.

Defendant’s enforcement of this policy has resulted in substantial delays.

27

For example, during the four-week period from August 8 through September 2, 2011,

28

Courthouse News reviewed 152 new unlimited jurisdiction complaints at Ventura
6
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
#74427 v2 saf

Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)

1

Superior, on average fewer than eight complaints per court day. Of the 152

2

complaints reviewed during that four-week period, only nine complaints (about 6%)

3

were made available for review on the same calendar day they were submitted to

4

Ventura Superior. Courthouse News was not permitted to review the remaining 143

5

complaints (94%) on the day they were submitted, and the delays in access stretched

6

up to thirty-four calendar days. Only 14% of the complaints were available the day

7

after they were filed, and 15 % of the complaints were not available until after 7

8

calendar days. Defendant contests these findings because it computer records reflect

9

that most complaints are placed in the “media bin” no later than one day after the

10

complaints are submitted to the court. However, these computerized records

11

demonstrate only where the records should have been. They do not prove that the

12

complaints were actually available for Ms. Krolak and others to view. Courthouse

13

News’ first-hand observations are the best evidence of the actual delays in access.

14

Moreover, Defendant acknowledges that the quality control review it performs can

15

take several days, thus corroborating Courthouse News’ experience.

16

14.

Given the importance of news being reported in a timely manner, such

17

delays diminish the value of Courthouse News’ reports to its subscribers, leading to a

18

loss of goodwill. Courthouse News’ subscribers are quick to notice when newsworthy

19

complaints are not reported in one of Courthouse News’ litigation reports, and they do

20

not hesitate to contact Courthouse News directly by phone regarding the lack of

21

reporting on a particular complaint. Courthouse News loses the confidence and

22

goodwill of its subscribers when they hear through various other channels about a

23

civil unlimited jurisdiction complaint that Courthouse News cannot report because it

24

does not have access to it. Likewise, subscribers also complain about reports that, like

25

the Ventura Superior portion of the Central Coast Report, rely on docket coverage

26

because the complaints themselves are not made available until several days after the

27

complaint is filed. Because of the meager content of reports that rely on docket

28
7
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
#74427 v2 saf

Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)

1

information, law firms then question the value of their subscriptions with Courthouse

2

News.

3
4

15.

incorporated into these findings of fact.
Conclusions of Law

5
6
7

Any conclusion of law deemed to be a conclusion of fact is hereby

Preliminary Injunction Standard
1.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must demonstrate

8

that (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in

9

the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in its favor; and (4)

10

an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555

11

U.S. 7, 24-25, 129 S. Ct. 365, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008). If the moving party can only

12

demonstrate “serious questions going to the merits,” rather than a “likelihood of

13

success,” the preliminary injunction may issue nonetheless if the balance of hardships

14

tips sharply toward the movant, so long as there is a likelihood of irreparable injury

15

and the injunction is in the public interest. Alliance For The Wild Rockies v. Cottrell,

16

632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). The same standard applies regardless of whether

17

the movant seeks to maintain the status quo or to halt an ongoing deprivation of rights.

18

See Klein v. City of Laguna Beach, 381 Fed. App’x 723, 725 (9th Cir. 2010).

19

2.

The parties dispute whether the requested preliminary injunction is

20

“prohibitory” or “mandatory.” The same four-part test applies regardless of whether

21

the requested preliminary injunction is deemed “prohibitory” or “mandatory.” The

22

only difference in the analysis is that a truly mandatory preliminary injunction should

23

not be granted “unless the facts and the law clearly favor the moving party.” Dahl v.

24

HEM Pharmaceuticals Corp., 7 F.3d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1993) (affirming the grant

25

of a mandatory preliminary injunction). But mandatory injunctions remain

26

appropriate where “extreme or very serious damage will result.” See Marlyn

27

Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 879 (9th Cir.

28

2009). Because this Court finds that Courthouse News is entitled to the preliminary
8
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
#74427 v2 saf

Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)

1

injunction even under a heightened standard, it need not categorize the preliminary

2

injunction as either “prohibitory” or “mandatory.” But it bears noting that a

3

prohibitory injunction is seen as preserving the last uncontested status quo. The key

4

words are “last uncontested.” Defendant’s processing-before-access policy, and the

5

denial by the court of same-day access, has always been contested by Courthouse

6

News. If it is true that Ventura Superior has “never” granted access “to partially

7

processed complaints,” there is no uncontested position – no status quo – to which to

8

return. However, the preliminary injunction would “return” the parties to the

9

historical position in which the press was routinely granted the access that Courthouse

10

News seeks by this action, and by which the public enjoys its undisputed First

11

Amendment right of access.1

12

Courthouse News Is Likely To Succeed On The Merits

13

The Public Has A First Amendment Right Of Access To Newly

14

Submitted Civil Complaints

15

3.

Courts have recognized that the press plays a special role in vindicating

16

the public’s right of access. As the Ninth Circuit has observed, the press aids the

17

public’s vigilance over the workings of the court system by publishing information

18

about court proceedings. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,

19

1178 (9th Cir. 2006). See also Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 681, 683 (6th

20

Cir. 2002) (characterizing the press as “deputized” by the public “as guardians of their

21

liberty”); Salzano v. N. Jersey Media Group, Inc., 201 N.J. 500, 520, 993 A.2d 778

22

(N.J. 2010) (“Because it is impossible for the citizenry to monitor all of the operations

23

of our system of justice, we rely upon the press for vital information about such

24

matters.”). Similarly, the U.S. Supreme Court described the media as “surrogates for

25
26
27
28

1

Moreover, when First Amendment rights are involved, the presumed “status quo” is
the condition in which a person is free to exercise his or her First Amendment rights.
See Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 562, 95 S. Ct. 1239, 43
L. Ed. 2d 448 (1975).
9
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
#74427 v2 saf

Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)

1

the public,” and noted in the context of courtroom proceedings that although “media

2

representatives enjoy the same right of access as the public, they often are provided

3

special seating and priority of entry so that they may report what people in attendance

4

have seen and heard.” Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. 555, 573, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65

5

L. Ed. 2d 973 (1980); accord, e.g., California First Amendment Coalition v.

6

Woodford, 299 F.3d 868, 876 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that press must have access to

7

executions as a representative of the public).

8
9

4.

The public’s right of access to court proceedings and records is a

keystone of our democratic system. “As with other branches of government, the

10

bright light cast upon the judicial process by public observation diminishes

11

possibilities for injustice, incompetence, perjury, and fraud. Furthermore, the very

12

openness of the process should provide the public with a more complete

13

understanding of the judicial system and a better perception of its fairness.” Littlejohn

14

v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 677-78, 682 (3rd Cir. 1988). Public access thus enhances

15

both the basic fairness and the appearance of fairness of the judicial system. Press-

16

Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 508, 104 S. Ct. 819, 78 L. Ed. 2d 629

17

(1984) (“Press-Enterprise I”). Indeed, open and public judicial proceedings are

18

“[o]ne of the most enduring and exceptional aspects of Anglo-American justice.”

19

Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. United States District Court, 156 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir.

20

1998).

21

5.

In a series of cases decided in the 1980s, the U.S. Supreme Court

22

repeatedly affirmed the public and press’ First Amendment right of access to criminal

23

proceedings. See, e.g., Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 7-10, 106

24

S. Ct. 2735, 92 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1986) (“Press-Enterprise II”) (preliminary hearings);

25

Press Enterprise I, 464 U.S. at 509-13 (voir dire); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior

26

Court, 457 U.S. 596, 606, 102 S. Ct. 2613, 73 L. Ed. 2d 248 (1982) (testimony during

27

trial); Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 572-74, 589 (trial). In the intervening

28

years, the First Amendment right of access has been extended not only to civil cases,
10
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
#74427 v2 saf

Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)

1

but also to records filed in both criminal and civil proceedings. As the Supreme Court

2

has noted, “there is no principled basis upon which a public right of access to judicial

3

proceedings can be limited to criminal cases. ... [¶] Indeed, many of the advantages of

4

public criminal trials are equally applicable in the civil trial context. ... in some civil

5

cases the public interest in access, and the salutary effect of publicity, may be as

6

strong as, or stronger than, in most criminal cases.” Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443

7

U.S. 368, 386-87 n.15, 99 S. Ct. 2898, 61 L. Ed. 2d 608 (1979); accord Richmond

8

Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 580 n.17. This First Amendment right of court access is an

9

outgrowth and essential component of the freedom of speech, and as such is entitled to

10

the same respect as that hallowed liberty. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia,

11

448 U.S. 555, 576, 577, 580, 100 S. Ct. 2814, 65 L. Ed. 2d 973 (1980); Globe

12

Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 604-05, 102 S. Ct. 2613, 73 L. Ed.

13

2d 248 (1982); Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1067 (3d Cir. 1984)

14

(civil proceedings and records); New York Civil Liberties Union v. New York City

15

Transit Authority, 652 F.3d 247, 257 (2d Cir. 2011) (administrative adjudicatory

16

proceedings).

17

6.

Subsequently, the Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth,

18

Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Circuits have all recognized a First Amendment right of

19

access to civil proceedings and/or documents.2 Similarly, the California Supreme

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

See, e.g., New York Civil Liberties Union v. New York City Transit Auth., 2011 U.S.
App. LEXIS 14768, at *27-28 (2d Cir., July 20, 2011) (“the First Amendment
guarantees a qualified right of access not only to criminal but also to civil trials and to
their related proceedings and records”); Rushford v. New Yorker Mag., Inc. 846 F.2d
249, 253 (4th Cir. 1988) (“We believe that the more rigorous First Amendment
standard should also apply to documents filed in connection with a summary
judgment motion in a civil case.”); In re Continental Ill. Secs. Litig., 732 F.2d 1302,
1308 (7th Cir. 1984) (recognizing First Amendment right to documentary evidence in
civil cases); Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1179 (6th
Cir. 1983) (documents filed in civil litigation; “[i]n either the civil or the criminal
courtroom, secrecy insulates the participants, masking impropriety, obscuring
11
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
#74427 v2 saf

Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)

1

Court has recognized a First Amendment right of access to civil proceedings and

2

documents in California state courts. NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior

3

Court, 20 Cal. 4th 1178, 1212 & n.25, 86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 778 (1999) (“We conclude, in

4

light of the high court case law and its progeny, that, in general, the First Amendment

5

provides a right of access to ordinary civil trials and proceedings.”);3 accord, e.g., In

6

re Marriage of Burkle, 135 Cal. App. 4th 1045, 1062, 37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 805 (2006)

7

(“[N]o basis exists for concluding that court records should be differentiated from

8

courtroom proceedings for purposes of First Amendment access rights.”). And

9

although the Ninth Circuit has not yet recognized a First Amendment right to civil

10

records, as it has explained in the criminal context, “[t]here is no reason to distinguish

11

between pretrial proceedings and the documents filed in regard to them. ... We thus

12

find that the public and press have a first amendment right of access to pretrial

13

documents in general.” Associated Press v. District Court, 705 F.2d 1143, 1145 (9th

14

Cir. 1983).
7.

15

The First Amendment right of access to civil records in general, and

16

complaints in particular, is further confirmed by the two-prong inquiry used by the

17

Supreme Court in Richmond Newspapers and its progeny, which examines the

18

considerations of “tradition” and “logic” to determine whether a constitutional right of

19

access exists. First, the court looks to whether the process has traditionally been open

20

to the public. The “tradition” analysis does not require that the practice of openness

21

26

incompetence, and concealing corruption”); Publicker Indus. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d
1059, 1070 (3d Cir. 1984) (recognizing First Amendment right of access to civil
cases); In re Iowa Freedom of Info. Council, 724 F.2d 658, 661 (8th Cir. 1983)
(concluding that high court’s reasoning for finding a First Amendment right to
criminal proceedings also applies to civil proceedings); Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180,
185 (5th Cir. 1981) (“First Amendment guarantees are implicated” by parties’ request
to withhold their names from a case-initiating document in a civil case ).

27

3

22
23
24
25

28

The California Supreme Court did recognize a single exception to this otherwise
broadly inclusive constitutional right: it does not include the right to access discovery
materials “that are neither used at trial nor submitted as a basis for adjudication.” Id.
12
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
#74427 v2 saf

Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)

1

have ancient origins. For example, the Ninth Circuit has relied on a near uniformity

2

among current statutory schemes to establish a history of access to voter lists. Cal-

3

Almond, Inc. v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 960 F.2d 105, 109 (9th Cir. 1992);

4

accord Whiteland Woods, L.P. v. Township of W. Whiteland, 193 F.3d 177, 181 (3d

5

Cir. 1999) (relying on a 30-year old statute to establish “experience” of access to

6

municipal planning meetings). Rather, the tradition need only be long enough so that

7

the “tradition of accessibility implies the favorable judgment of experience.” Press-

8

Enterprise II, 478 U.S. at 8. Indeed, “a brief historical tradition might be sufficient to

9

establish a First Amendment right of access where the beneficial effects of access to

10

that process are overwhelming and uncontradicted.” Detroit Free Press, 303 F.3d at

11

701.
8.

12

Courts have historically recognized that the public has a general right to

13

inspect and copy judicial records, including complaints in particular. Nixon v. Warner

14

Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, 98 S. Ct. 1306, 55 L. Ed. 2d 570 (1978);

15

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178; In re NVIDIA Corp., 2008 WL 1859067, at *3-4;

16

Vassiliades v. Israely, 714 F. Supp. 604, 606 (D. Conn. 1989). Indeed, the Ninth

17

Circuit has held that only a narrow range of documents have “traditionally been kept

18

secret.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178; Times Mirror Co. v. United States, 873 F.2d

19

1210, 1219 (9th Cir. 1989).4 As observed in Estate of Hearst, 67 Cal. App. 3d 777,

20

784, 136 Cal. Rptr. 821 (1977), “traditional Anglo-American jurisprudence distrusts

21

secrecy in judicial proceedings and favors a policy of maximum public access to

22

proceedings and records of judicial tribunals.”5

23
24
25
26
27
28

4

The Ninth Circuit has identified two categories of documents that fall in this
“narrow range”: grand jury transcripts and warrant materials in the midst of a preindictment investigation. Id.

5

Most of these cases considered only whether the public had a common law right of
access to the requested records. However, whether a common law right of access
exists informs the “tradition” prong of the constitutional analysis. See Associated
Press, 705 F.2d at 1145. The public’s common law right of access is discussed below.
13
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
#74427 v2 saf

Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)

1

9.

Second, the court must ask “‘whether public access plays a significant

2

positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question.’” As to this part

3

of the analysis, the question is whether public access would play an important role in

4

furthering the public’s interest in understanding the judicial process and in

5

maintaining the public’s trust in the judiciary. Phoenix Newspapers, 156 F.3d at 946-

6

48. Without a doubt, the answer as to civil complaints is “yes.” Without access to the

7

complaint, the press and the public often would not know that a lawsuit has been

8

initiated; even if they were alerted to a new suit, they would not have any substantive

9

information about the factual background or the particular allegations made by the

10

filing party. As the Northern District of California recently explained:

11

[A] complaint ... is the root, the foundation, the basis by which a suit

12

arises and must be disposed of. Further, along with a summons, it is the

13

means by which a plaintiff invokes the authority of the court, a public

14

body, to dispose of his or her dispute with a defendant. ... It provides the

15

causes of action. ... It establishes the merits of a case, or the lack thereof.

16

... when a plaintiff invokes the Court’s authority by filing a complaint,

17

the public has a right to know who is invoking it, and toward what

18

purpose, and in what manner.

19

In re NVIDIA, 2008 WL 1859067, at *3; accord, e.g., Vassiliades, 714 F. Supp. at 606

20

(denying request to seal complaint; “[t]he filing of the complaint is likely to be the

21

first occasion that the public could become aware of the dispute”); Standard

22

Chartered Bank v. Calvo, 2010 WL 2490995, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (denying

23

plaintiff’s application to file complaint under seal and noting that such applications, if

24

granted, “conceal the very existence of lawsuits from the public.”).

25

10.

This Court thus hereby finds that the public has a First Amendment right

26

of access to the records of civil cases submitted to a state trial court. This First

27

Amendment right of access applies to complaints and other case-initiating records

28

submitted to the court.
14
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
#74427 v2 saf

Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)

1

11.

Defendant concedes that a First Amendment right of access to complaints

2

exists, but contends that this Court must find a “First Amendment right of same-day

3

access.” However, Defendant conflates the two parts of the analysis this Court must

4

perform. As a threshold determination, this Court need only determine whether there

5

is a First Amendment right of access to complaints and other case-initiating records.

6

To the extent Defendant wishes to deny the public same-day access to such records, it

7

must demonstrate that the restriction is justified, as will be discussed below. See

8

Associated, 705 F.2d at 1146.
The Public Has A Common Law Right of Access to Newly Submitted

9

Civil Complaints

10
11

12.

In addition to the First Amendment right, courts have also recognized a

12

common law right of access to copy and inspect court files. See Nixon, 435 U.S. at

13

597 (1978). Although this common law right has evolved to serve many of the same

14

purposes as the First Amendment right of access, it is an independent right that may

15

exist even where a court has declined to identify a constitutional dimension in the

16

right to access judicial records or proceedings. San Jose Mercury News v. United

17

States District Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th Cir. 1999); Valley Broad. Co. v.

18

United States District Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1293-94 (9th Cir. 1986). The Ninth

19

Circuit has expressly recognized a common law right of access to documents filed in

20

civil proceedings in various contexts, which applies to all court files except for that

21

very range of records that, for policy reasons, have historically been kept secret. See,

22

e.g., Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (affirming access to exhibits to summary judgment

23

motion); San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1102 (pre-judgment access to materials

24

submitted in support of summary judgment motions); Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d

25

1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995) (post-settlement access to pleadings); EEOC v. The

26

Erection Co., 900 F.2d 168, 169 (9th Cir. 1990) (consent decree). See also Rocky Mt.

27

Bank v. Google, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7867 at *3, 39 Media L. Rep. 1783 (9th Cir.

28
15
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
#74427 v2 saf

Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)

1

2011) (common law right of access applied even though records had been lodged

2

rather than filed; such documents are judicial records).

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

13.

This Court thus finds that the public has a common law right of access to

civil complaints submitted to the court.
Delays In Access Are Denials Of Access
14.

Regardless of the origin of the right of access, access “should be

immediate and contemporaneous.” Grove Fresh Distribs., Inc. v. Everfresh Juice Co.,
24 F.3d 893, 897 (7th Cir. 1994). All but de minimis delays in access are the
functional equivalent of access denials, triggering the constitutional and common law
scrutiny. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Pokaski, 868 F.2d 497, 507 (1st Cir. 1989)
(observing that “even a one to two day delay impermissibly burdens the First
Amendment”); Estate of Hearst, 67 Cal. App. 3d at 785 (even temporary limitations
on public access to court records require a “sufficiently strong showing of necessity”);
NBC Subsidiary, 20 Cal. 4th at 1219 & n.42 (holding that even temporary denials of
access warrant “exacting First Amendment scrutiny”). Permitting even “minimal
delays ... unduly minimizes, if it does not entirely overlook, the value of ‘openness’
itself, a value which is threatened whenever immediate access to ongoing proceedings
is denied, whatever provision is made for later public disclosure.” In re Charlotte
Observer, 882 F.2d 850, 856 (4th Cir. 1989). See also United States v. Simone, 14
F.3d 833, 842 (3d Cir. 1994) (rejecting a 10-day delay in favor of immediate access).
As the Ninth Circuit has recognized, the rule that delays in access are the equivalent to
denials of access holds true even where there are competing interests of the highest
order. In a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case involving access to court records in the John
DeLorean criminal trial, the Ninth Circuit found that the district court’s withholding
of newly filed documents for 48 hours after filing as part of a procedure designed to
protect the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial was “a total restraint on
the public’s first amendment right of access even though the restraint is limited in
time.” Associated Press, 705 F.2d at 1147 (issuing writ vacating district court order).
16
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
#74427 v2 saf

Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)

15.

1

The reasons for this rule – that even temporary access delays implicate

2

constitutional concerns – are clear. The court’s and the public’s knowledge that the

3

public can “contemporaneously review” trial proceedings promotes transparency and

4

acts as effective check on abuse of judicial power. Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S.

5

at 592 (Brennan, J., concurring) (“‘contemporaneous review in the forum of public

6

opinion is an effective restraint on possible abuse of judicial power’”) (quoting In re

7

Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 270, 68 S. Ct. 499, 92 L. Ed. 682 (1948)); accord In re

8

Charlotte Observer, 882 F.2d at 856. Moreover, the “newsworthiness of a particular

9

story is often fleeting. To delay or postpone disclosure undermines the benefit of

10

public scrutiny and may have the same result as complete suppression.” Grove Fresh,

11

24 F.3d at 897. It is only while the cases are still “current news that the public’s

12

attention can be commanded.” Chicago Council of Lawyers v. Bauer, 522 F.2d 242,

13

250 (7th Cir. 1975); see also Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 96 S. Ct.

14

2791, 49 L. Ed. 2d 683 (1976) (“the element of time is not unimportant if press

15

coverage is to fulfill its traditional function of bringing news to the public promptly”).

16

In the case of newly submitted civil complaints, a delay in access is not only contrary

17

to the tradition of same-day access, but effectively hides from the public the fact that a

18

new controversy is pending before an important institution of government.
Defendant Has Not, And Cannot, Satisfy The Strict Requirements
For Denying The Press Timely Access To New Civil Complaints

19
20

16.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Where there is a First Amendment right of access, that right can only be

overcome on a case-by-case basis, by way of an adjudicative process performed by a
judge where the party seeking to restrict access satisfies a stringent three-part test
established by the Ninth Circuit. United States v. Brooklier, 685 F.2d 1162, 1168-69
(9th Cir. 1982). Under the three-part test, the party seeking to restrict access must
prove:
(1)

The existence of a right of comparable importance to the First
Amendment that is threatened by public access to the court records;

28

17
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
#74427 v2 saf

Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)

(2)

1

result if access is not withheld; and

2

(3)

3

A substantial probability that alternatives to withholding access will not
adequately protect the asserted right.

4
5

A substantial probability of irreparable damage to the asserted right will

Phoenix Newspapers, 156 F.3d at 949; Associated Press, 705 F.2d at 1145-46.6
17.

6

Importantly, the party seeking to withhold records has the burden to

7

satisfy all three prongs of this test. Brooklier, 685 F.2d at 1169; accord Associated

8

Press, 705 F.2d at 1145; Oregonian Publ’g Co. v. United States District Court, 920

9

F.2d 1462, 1466-67 (9th Cir. 1990). In addition, in those instances where a court

10

finds the party seeking to restrict access has satisfied his burden, the court must make

11

specific findings such that a reviewing court can determine that access was properly

12

denied. Phoenix Newspapers, 156 F.3d at 946-47. Conclusory assertions of an

13

interest, and harm to that interest, are not sufficient. Id. at 950; Oregonian Publ’g,

14

920 F.2d at 1465; Brooklier, 685 F.2d at 1169.
18.

15

This three-part judicial analysis cannot be circumvented by a court clerk

16

who assumes unbridled discretion to determine whether, and for how long, records

17

may be withheld from the public. In re Globe Newspaper Co., 920 F.2d 88, 97 (1st

18

Cir. 1990) (interpreting a local court rule granting judges the authority to seal records

19

“if the interests of justice so require” as requiring a detailed analysis of why sealing

20

was required in each particular case). However, that is exactly what Defendant is

21

attempting here. Rather than seeking a judicial determination that any particular

22

record may be withheld from the public and the press, Planet has adopted a blanket

23

rule whereby the public and the press is denied access to all records until he and only

24
25
26
27
28

6

The California Judicial Council has written the First Amendment right of access test,
in the form a five-part analysis, into the California Rules of Court. Cal. Rule of Court
2.550 & Advisory Comm. Comment.
18
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
#74427 v2 saf

Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)

1

he, unbound by any objective or reviewable standards, determines that access should

2

be permitted.
Overriding Governmental Interests

3
4

19.

Defendant proffers four interests that purportedly justify its policy of

5

denying the public access to complaints until after they have been fully processed: (1)

6

safety and security of court personnel, citing an act of violence against the local

7

Employment Development Division office; (2) ensuring that financial information in

8

fee application waivers is kept private; (3) concerns about filing fee checks; and (4)

9

the possibility that a complaint that is received for filing might later be rejected. Even

10

assuming arguendo that these interests would satisfy the first prong of the First

11

Amendment test, they do not pass the second or third prongs of the test because for

12

each interest raised, there is no substantial probability of irreparable injury and there

13

are clear alternatives to Defendant’s policy of simply denying access until after full

14

processing.
Substantial Probability Of Damage To Those Interest and
Lack Of Alternatives For Avoiding That Damage

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

20.

Defendant asserts that he cannot let reporters go “behind the counter” to

review new civil complaints, and that the court’s “current policies prohibit members
of the general public from accessing processing desks where new unlimited civil
complaints are maintained prior to processing.” But as is demonstrated by examples
of access procedures used by other courts, and as set forth in the findings of fact
above, there are many ways to provide same-day access that do not involve behind the
counter access or having reporters directly access complaints on the desks of
processing or intake clerks. And even if permitting Courthouse News’ reporter to go
behind the counter and/or access processing desks where new unlimited complaints
are maintained prior to processing were the only way that same-day access could be
provided, the justification offered by Defendant is not sufficient to show why this
would not be “workable.”

28
19
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
#74427 v2 saf

Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)

1

21.

In addition, as tragic as the 2003 Employment Development Department

2

shooting in Oxnard no doubt was, Defendant fails to offer any specific reason why

3

that isolated incident, no doubt involving an extremely deranged person, somehow

4

translates into the idea that a credentialed reporter who visits the court on a daily basis

5

and has done so for the last ten years is a security risk. Many courts allow reporters to

6

go behind the counter and directly access processing desks; if Defendant were really

7

concerned, he could require Ms. Krolak to obtain a security clearance. But the

8

reasons that Defendant has given for asserting that this means of providing same-day

9

access is not “workable” are wholly conclusory and thus clearly insufficient to pass

10

muster under the First Amendment or the common law. Phoenix Newspapers, 156

11

F.3d at 946-47; Oregonian Publ’g, 920 F.2d at 1465; Brooklier, 685 F.2d at 1169.

12

22.

Second, Defendant asserts that its practice of delaying access until after

13

full processing is necessary to ensure the “privacy of litigants.” But the law is clear

14

that complaints are public documents, and “[w]hen a plaintiff invokes the Court’s

15

authority by filing a complaint, the public has a right to know who is invoking it, and

16

toward what purpose, and in what manner.” In re NVIDIA, 2008 WL 1859067, at *3

17

(N.D. Cal. 2008). Defendant cites the peculiar privacy interests involved in fee

18

waiver applications which may contain personal financial information, and which

19

Ventura Superior keeps attached to the complaints. But given that the fee waiver

20

applications are not part of the complaint itself and as evidenced by the fact that other

21

courts handle fee waivers and yet still provide same-day access prior to full

22

processing, there are clearly alternatives for maintaining the confidentiality of these

23

applications that do not require media access to the complaints to be delayed.

24

23.

Third, Defendant claims that allowing access to new complaints until

25

after they have been fully processed would violate Ventura Superior’s “accounting

26

protocols” because filing fee checks are attached to the new complaints until after they

27

are processed. Again, Ventura Superior is hardly the only court that handles filing fee

28

checks, and yet this has not stopped other courts from providing same-day access.
20
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
#74427 v2 saf

Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)

1

There are alternatives for addressing this concern short of delays access that implicate

2

First Amendment rights, most commonly removing checks from the complaints right

3

away.

4

24.

Fourth, Defendant asserts that Ventura Superior cannot allow access to

5

complaints until after they have been fully processed because it is possible a

6

complaint might be “rejected” for filing, and allowing access to such complaints

7

would not “ensure and promote public trust and confidence in the Court and its

8

filings.” As with the other justifications for delayed access, Ventura Superior is not

9

the only court that rejects complaints from time to time, and yet this concern has not

10

stopped other courts from providing the media with access to new complaints before

11

they have been fully processed. The reason for this is clear: given the importance of

12

the constitutional access rights at issue, timely access is appropriate even if it

13

occasionally results in a complaint being reviewed by the press that is later rejected.

14

Defendant offers no reason why this would erode the “public trust and confidence” in

15

the court, and in fact, no reason exists. Moreover, even complaints that are later

16

rejected are public records, the access to which enables the public to oversee the

17

court’s diligence and fairness in accepting complaints. See Richmond Newspapers,

18

448 U.S. at 572 (noting public interest in overseeing workings of the courts and

19

observing, that “[p]eople in an open society do not demand infallibility from their

20

institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from

21

observing.”).

22

25.

Finally, Defendant justifies Ventura Superior’s current practice of

23

delaying access until after a complaint has been processed “complies with California

24

law,” but neither California’s statutes or rules of court can justify providing a lesser

25

degree of access than is guaranteed by the First Amendment. See Press-Enterprise

26

Co. v. Superior Court (Press-Enterprise Ii), 478 U.S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 92 L. Ed. 2d

27

1 (1986).

28
21
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
#74427 v2 saf

Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)

1

26.

The same results is obtained even if the less rigorous common law right

2

of access test is applied. The presumption of access that accompanies the common law

3

right can be overcome only on the basis of “‘articulable facts, known to the court, not

4

on the basis of unsupported hypothesis or conjecture.’” Valley Broad., 798 F.2d at

5

1293 (quoting and adopting the rule of United States v. Edwards, 672 F.2d 1289, 1294

6

(7th Cir. 1982) and rejecting a less rigorous requirement). Moreover, the party

7

seeking to restrict access must have a compelling reason to do so; a ‘good cause’

8

showing alone will not suffice. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. In assessing the

9

strength of one’s common law right of access, among the interests that will support

10

the common law right is the public interest in understanding the judicial process,

11

Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434; EEOC, 900 F.2d at 170, and in “keeping a watchful eye”

12

on the workings of the government. United States v. Schlette, 842 F.2d 1574, 1582

13

(9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). In addition, a publisher’s intention

14

to inform the public concerning the workings of government will also support a right

15

of access, id., an interest that is especially strong where, as here, the documents at

16

issue are case-initiating complaints, without which members of the public have no

17

way of learning about a new lawsuit. Given these strong interests in prompt access,

18

Defendant’s bare assertion that the integrity of the court’s records will be endangered

19

is not even sufficient to defeat the common law right of access, let alone the stronger

20

First Amendment right.

21

27.

Thus, Defendant cannot show a “substantial probability” that allowing

22

Courthouse News to access new complaints before full processing would irreparably

23

damage the interests he cites to support his policy of access-after-processing, nor can

24

he show that there are not alternative ways of addressing his concerns that do not

25

involve delaying access until after processing. Accordingly, this Court finds that

26

Courthouse News is likely to succeed on the merits of its First Amendment claim.

27

Courthouse News has demonstrated that it has a First Amendment right of access to

28

unlimited civil complaints. Defendant has failed to demonstrate that his policy
22
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
#74427 v2 saf

Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)

1

denying the public and the press access to complaints until after court personnel have

2

finished processing them withstands First Amendment scrutiny. As a result,

3

Courthouse News has established that as a general matter it is entitled to same-day

4

access to newly filed complaints.

5

Absent Injunctive Relief, Courthouse News Will Be Irreparably Harmed

6

28.

It is well established that “[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for

7

even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v.

8

Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373, 96 S. Ct. 2673, 49 L. Ed. 2d 547 (1976). See also, e.g.,

9

New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 724-25, 91 S. Ct. 2140, 29 L. Ed.

10

2d 822 (1971) (Brennan, J., concurring); Carroll v. Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 182,

11

89 S. Ct. 347, 21, L. Ed. 2d 325 (1968); Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 391-92, 82 S.

12

Ct. 1364, 8 L. Ed. 2d 569 (1962). As the Ninth Circuit has recognized, the irreparable

13

nature of a First Amendment injury is further enhanced when the practice sought to be

14

enjoined delays the timely dissemination of news to the public. “Where the precious

15

First Amendment right of freedom of the press is at issue, the prevention of access to a

16

public forum is, each day, an irreparable injury: the ephemeral opportunity to present

17

one’s paper to an interested audience is lost and the next day’s opportunity is

18

different.” Jacobsen, 812 F.2d at 1154; accord, e.g., Courthouse News Service v.

19

Jackson, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62300, at *13, 38 Media L. Rep. 1890 (S.D. Tex.

20

2009) (finding that denial of same-day access to new petitions constituted a denial of

21

First Amendment freedoms that caused Courthouse News irreparable harm). This

22

irreparable injury is not only caused by the denial of traditional free speech rights, but

23

by the denial of court access, a right that is a component of, and integrally related to

24

the right of free speech. For this reason, a denial of the First Amendment right of

25

court access is an irreparable injury that will justify a preliminary injunction. See

26

Huminski v. Corsones, 386 F.3d 116, 156 (2d Cir. 2005); Detroit Free Press v.

27

Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 681, 694-95 (6th Cir. 2002); Jackson, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

28

62300, at *13.
23
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
#74427 v2 saf

Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)

1

29.

Courthouse News will also suffer non-constitutional, yet similarly

2

irreparable, injury should preliminary injunctive relief not be granted. The inability of

3

Courthouse News to report on new actions in a timely manner will result in a loss of

4

customer goodwill. Although commercial injuries may otherwise be compensable

5

with retrospective monetary relief, because such relief is barred by the 11th

6

Amendment, it is an irreparable injury that will support the issuance of a preliminary

7

injunction. See California Pharmacists Ass’n v. Maxwell-Jolly, 563 F.3d 847, 852 (9th

8

Cir. 2009). Defendant claims that Courthouse News’ loss of goodwill is not concrete,

9

and that Courthouse News must provide evidence that it has already experienced such

10

losses, to demonstrate irreparable harm. But although the Ninth Circuit requires that a

11

loss of goodwill not be entirely speculative, Colorado River Indian Tribes v. Town of

12

Parker, 776 F.2d 846, 849 (9th Cir. 1985), it does not require that such loss have

13

already occurred or even be certain to occur. It is sufficient that there be evidence of a

14

“threatened” loss of prospective customers and goodwill, and the resulting “possibility

15

of irreparable harm.” See Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d

16

832, 841 (9th Cir. 2001). The evidence that Courthouse News has presented, as set

17

forth in the findings of fact above, is thus sufficient to establish irreparable harm in the

18

form of an un-compensable loss of goodwill.

19

The Balance Of Equities Tips In Favor Of Courthouse News

20

30.

Defendants, in contrast, will suffer no injury. Were an injunction to

21

issue, Defendant would only need to adopt one of the numerous procedures used by

22

other courts in California and across the country, including this one, that successfully

23

provide same-day access to case-initiating submissions even if processing is still

24

underway. This Court agrees with the finding of the district judge in Texas who

25

found that Courthouse News was entitled to same-day access to newly filed civil

26

complaints in the Harris County, Texas courthouse, a case obviously very similar to

27

the one before this Court. Jackson, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62300, at *14. As in the

28

Jackson case, absent injunctive relief “Plaintiff will be denied its First Amendment
24
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
#74427 v2 saf

Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)

1

right of access to new case-initiating documents unless the Court issues this

2

preliminary injunction, while Defendant[] ha[s] alternative, constitutional ways to

3

achieve [his] goals and address [his] administrative concerns.” Id. at *14 (concluding

4

injury to Courthouse News outweighed any damage any injunction requiring same-

5

day access could cause Houston court clerk).

6

31.

Defendant again relies on its financial limitations to tip the balance of

7

equities back in its favor. However, as discussed above, Courthouse News is not

8

asking this Court to make Ventura Superior spend more money, or hire staff, or make

9

any similar resource addition. The problem is not the lack of resources. The problem

10

is Defendant’s insistence on denying access to newly filed complaints until after they

11

have been fully processed. As discussed above, each of the concerns Defendant has

12

about providing access prior to final processing can be addressed in ways that do not

13

infringe on Courthouse News’ and the public’s First Amendment rights, and do not

14

require Defendant to reallocate his existing resources in any significant way. I again

15

agree with the Jackson court in this respect. See id. Indeed, the balance of interests

16

here tips so sharply in favor of Courthouse News that it also satisfies the more

17

demanding balancing that accompanies the “serious questions” standard.

18

The Preliminary Injunction Will Serve The Public Interest

19

32.

The public interest inquiry primarily addresses the impact on non-parties

20

rather than parties. Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1139 (9th Cir. 2009).

21

The plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing that the injunction is in the public

22

interest. See Stormans, 586 F.3d at 1139. If he does, the court can then consider

23

whether the likely consequences of the preliminary injunction on the public outweigh

24

the benefit. In so doing, the court need not consider public consequences that are too

25

remote, insubstantial, or speculative and not supported by evidence. Id.

26

33.

The Ninth Circuit has consistently recognized the significant public

27

interest in upholding First Amendment rights. Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584

28

F.3d 1196, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009). But the public interest is even more pronounced in
25
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
#74427 v2 saf

Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)

1

court access cases, in which the press serves as the surrogate of the public. Richmond

2

Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 573. The public thus suffers the same irreparable

3

constitutional injury as the press when the press is denied same day access to case-

4

initiating records.

5

34.

Although the public has an interest in each of the justifications for its no-

6

access policy, as discussed above, this preliminary injunction will not require that any

7

of those interest be compromised.

8
9

35.

Any finding of fact deemed to be a conclusion of law is hereby

incorporated into the conclusions of law.

10

Bond is Waived

11

36.

This Court has “discretion to dispense with the security requirement, or

12

to request mere nominal security.” Cal. ex rel. Van De Kamp v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning

13

Agency, 766 F.2d 1319, 1325 (9th Cir. 1985) (finding proper the district court’s

14

exercise of its discretion to waive bond), amended on other grounds, 775 F.2d 998

15

(9th Cir.); Barahona-Gomez v. Reno, 167 F.3d 1228, 1237 (9th Cir. 1985)

16

(determining nominal $1,000 bond in class action not to be an abuse of discretion).

17

Indeed, the waiver of bond is proper in any case, such as this one, in which the court

18

concludes that there is no realistic likelihood of harm to the defendant. Barahona-

19

Gomez, 167 F.3d at 1237. As with its other arguments, Defendant once again relies

20

on its erroneous belief that the preliminary injunction will “result in substantial and

21

practical harm to Ventura Superior Court.” However, as discussed above, the

22

preliminary injunction will only bar Defendant from denying access before processing

23

is completed.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

24
25

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff Courthouse News Service’s

26

motion for preliminary injunction is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that

27

Defendant Michael D. Planet, in his official capacity as Court Executive Officer/Clerk

28

of the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura, and his agents, employees and
26
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
#74427 v2 saf

Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)

1

all persons acting at his direction, is hereby preliminarily enjoined from enforcing

2

Defendant’s policy of denying Courthouse News access to new unlimited jurisdiction

3

civil complaints submitted to the Ventura County Superior Court until after processing

4

has been completed, and from failing to provide Courthouse News with access to new

5

complaints no later than the end of the day on which they are submitted to the court,

6

except in those instances where the filing party is seeking a temporary restraining

7

order or the complaint otherwise requires immediate judicial attention or where the

8

filing party has properly filed the pleading under seal.

9

It is further ORDERED that bond is waived.

10
11

Date: _____________________

12

____________________________
The Hon. Manuel L. Real
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
27

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
#74427 v2 saf

Case No. CV11-08083R (MANx)