549 F.Supp.3d 169
D. Me.2021Background
- Maine SJC adopted Rules of Electronic Court System (RECS) for an e-filing pilot (Penobscot Cty. Superior Court, Bangor District Court, Business & Consumer Docket).
- December 2020 RECS delayed public access to newly filed civil complaints until three business days after clerk accepted both initiating papers and proof of service; Courthouse News sued claiming a First Amendment right to access upon receipt.
- SJC amended RECS effective March 15, 2021: civil court records are public "upon entry into the electronic case file" (after a ministerial clerk review); clerks expected to complete review within ~4 business hours; temporary standing order required free paper copies on request.
- Plaintiffs brought facial and as-applied First Amendment challenges and sought preliminary injunctions; defendants moved to dismiss for mootness/ ripeness and for failure to state a claim.
- The record developed limited post-March evidence of delays (mostly filings made near/after business hours); defendants explained most alleged delays were explainable and within the clerks’ ministerial review window.
- Court dismissed the amended complaints for failure to state a claim and denied the preliminary injunctions as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness of facial challenge to March RECS | Facial challenge fit because rule in effect and injures press rights now | Not ripe; implementation unknown so delays speculative | Facial challenge ripe; rule final and fit for review |
| Ripeness of as-applied challenge | As-applied ripe because plaintiffs observed post-March delays | Not ripe; insufficient factual record of post-March delays | As-applied challenge also ripe based on post-March submissions |
| Existence/scope of First Amendment right to access civil complaints | Right attaches upon court receipt; on-receipt access required | No right to immediate access before clerk processing; only a qualified timely-access right exists | Court finds a qualified First Amendment right to timely access civil complaints, but not an absolute right to instantaneous access on receipt |
| Validity of March RECS / whether pleadings state a claim | March RECS unlawfully delay access and are not narrowly tailored; Plaintiffs seek immediate access on receipt | March RECS are content-neutral, resemble time/place/manner restrictions, are narrowly tailored to administrative interests, and leave alternatives | Plaintiffs failed to state a claim: March RECS survive intermediate scrutiny; no constitutional violation pleaded (and no post-March specific harms alleged) |
Key Cases Cited
- Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) (public and press have a presumptive First Amendment right of access to criminal trials)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982) (closure of criminal proceedings must be necessitated by a compelling interest and narrowly tailored)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (Press-Enterprise I), 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (experience-and-logic test applies to determine right of access)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (Press-Enterprise II), 478 U.S. 1 (1986) (applies experience-and-logic test to transcripts/preliminary hearings)
- In re Providence Journal Co., 293 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (First Circuit applied access analysis to legal memoranda and invalidated a blanket nonfiling policy)
- In re Boston Herald, 321 F.3d 174 (1st Cir. 2003) (discussing scope of First Amendment right of access and applying Press-Enterprise standards)
- Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 805 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1986) (no presumptive First Amendment right of access to civil discovery materials)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Pokaski, 868 F.2d 497 (1st Cir. 1989) (analyzing sealing statutes and applying heightened scrutiny where appropriate)
- Courthouse News Service v. Planet, 947 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2020) (recognized a qualified right to timely access to newly filed civil complaints but upheld reasonable, narrowly tailored processing delays)
- Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016) (treats complaints as judicial records presumptively subject to public access)