117 F.4th 1200
9th Cir.2024Background
- Hawai‘i Court Records Rules require all "medical and health records" filed in any state court be sealed without case-by-case judicial review.
- The rule applies to both civil and criminal cases, regardless of context or individual privacy interest.
- Civil Beat, a news organization, sought to unseal court-ordered competency evaluations in a criminal prosecution, but the Hawai‘i Supreme Court denied the motion, citing the mandatory sealing rule.
- Civil Beat sued the Chief Court Administrators of Hawai‘i, challenging the facial validity of the rule as overbroad under the First Amendment.
- The district court upheld the rule, holding no general First Amendment right attaches to such records, and that case-by-case unsealing is sufficient where the right applies.
- Civil Beat appealed, arguing the rule unconstitutionally infringes on the public's presumptive right to court access.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the First Amendment grant a presumptive right to access sealed medical and health records in court? | Civil Beat: The right attaches to many such records, given the broad presumption of openness in judicial proceedings. | Maile: No historical tradition or logic supports categorical access to medical/health records; privacy outweighs access. | Yes, to a substantial subset of records; public right attaches to many proceedings in which such records are filed. |
| Is the mandatory and categorical sealing of all such records constitutionally permissible? | Civil Beat: Blanket sealing is overbroad and not narrowly tailored; privacy interests can be protected case-by-case. | Maile: Broad sealing is needed to protect privacy interests and avoid burdensome litigation. | No; mandatory sealing is not the least restrictive means and is unconstitutional where the right of access attaches. |
| Can privacy interests justify preemptive closure of court records categorically? | Civil Beat: Privacy should be addressed individually, with courts balancing interests as needed. | Maile: Individual privacy is a compelling government interest justifying categorical sealing. | No; privacy interests can justify closure individually, but not through blanket, mandatory rules. |
| Is case-by-case sealing inefficient or overly burdensome on courts? | Civil Beat: Courts routinely adjudicate sealing motions; presumption must favor openness. | Maile: Case-by-case review would flood courts with motions and inefficiency. | Argument rejected; constitutional presumption of openness outweighs administrative convenience. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oregonian Publ’g Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 920 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1990) (recognizing the presumed right of public access to court records and proceedings)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct., 457 U.S. 596 (1982) (mandatory courtroom closures are rarely constitutional; closures must be narrowly tailored to serve compelling interests)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct. (Press-Enterprise I), 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (openness of judicial proceedings enhances fairness and accountability)
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) (First Amendment right of access to criminal trials)
- United States v. Doe, 870 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2017) (closure must be necessitated by compelling government interest and narrowly tailored)
- Times Mirror Co. v. United States, 873 F.2d 1210 (9th Cir. 1989) (public presumptively has access to most judicial records, with exceptions for certain proceedings)
- United States v. Brooklier, 685 F.2d 1162 (9th Cir. 1982) (right of access to pretrial proceedings and associated documents in criminal cases)
- Associated Press v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 705 F.2d 1143 (9th Cir. 1983) (presumption of openness for criminal pretrial documents)
- In re McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., 288 F.3d 369 (9th Cir. 2002) (individual privacy can justify sealing, but requires case-specific findings)