Courthouse News Service v. Michael Planet
947 F.3d 581
| 9th Cir. | 2020Background
- Courthouse News Service (CNS), a national news service, dispatches reporters to collect newly filed unlimited civil complaints at Ventura County Superior Court for timely publication.
- Ventura County maintained a pre-2014 "no-access-before-process" practice: clerks completed multi-step processing before placing complaints in a media bin, producing frequent multi-day delays before public access.
- CNS sued (2011) seeking same-day access; litigation proceeded through Ninth Circuit decisions rejecting abstention and recognizing a First Amendment access claim, and the case returned to the district court for merits.
- Ventura County later adopted a 2014 "scanning policy": staff scanned complaints and made PDFs available on public terminals, but public terminal hours (originally closing at 3:00 PM) meant complaints filed late in the day were not accessible until the next day.
- The district court held (1) a qualified First Amendment right of timely access attaches at filing, (2) the no-access-before-process and scanning policies violated that right, and entered injunctive relief; the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Does a qualified First Amendment right of access attach to newly filed nonconfidential civil complaints, and when? | CNS: Right attaches when complaint is filed; requires timely (effectively same-day) access to be meaningful. | Planet: Right does not attach until some judicial action on the filing. | Right of access is qualified and attaches at filing, but it does not automatically require immediate, pre-processing access. |
| 2) Was Ventura County’s pre-2014 no-access-before-process policy constitutional under Press-Enterprise II? | CNS: Policy caused substantial, unjustified delays that undermined newsworthiness and public scrutiny; failed Press-Enterprise II balancing. | Planet: Policy protected legitimate administrative interests (privacy, accounting, record integrity, quality control). | Policy failed both prongs of Press-Enterprise II (no substantial probability of harm shown and less-restrictive alternatives existed) and was unconstitutional. |
| 3) Was Ventura County’s 2014 scanning policy constitutional? | CNS: Scanning with early terminal closure still caused material delays for late filings and impaired timely reporting. | Planet: Scanning was narrowly tailored and necessary given severe budget/staffing constraints; it advanced administrative interests. | Scanning policy survives constitutional scrutiny as a permissible, content-neutral time/place/manner–style restriction given the county’s circumstances at adoption. |
| 4) Appropriate remedy and relief (injunction, fees, mootness)? | CNS: Sought injunction requiring access from moment received and attorneys’ fees. | Planet: Policy changes and post-injunction modifications affect scope/mootness; challenged fee award. | Ninth Circuit affirmed invalidation of the no-access-before-process policy, reversed the district court as to the scanning policy, vacated the injunction and fee award, and remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986) (establishes the experience-and-logic test for a qualified right of access and requires closure only when narrowly tailored to higher values)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982) (recognizes strong presumption of openness for judicial proceedings and explains scrutiny for access limits; notes time/place/manner analogy)
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) (right of public and press access to criminal trials; discusses reasonable time/place/manner limitations)
- Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994) (explains that some speech restrictions receive relaxed scrutiny when they do not pose inherent dangers to free expression)
- Grove Fresh Distribs., Inc. v. Everfresh Juice Co., 24 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 1994) (timeliness is central to newsworthiness; delayed disclosure can be tantamount to suppression)
- In re Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 773 F.2d 1325 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (addressed historical treatment of pre-judgment records; discussed in the opinion but treated as inapposite dicta here)
- Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016) (supports public access to complaints prior to judicial action as important to public scrutiny)