Delaware Coalition for Open Government v. Strine
894 F. Supp. 2d 493
D. Del.2012Background
- Arbitration proceeding in Delaware Chancery Court governed by 10 Del. C. § 349 and Chancery Rules 96–98 is confidential; one party seeks public access under First Amendment.
- Proceeding is presided over by a sitting Chancery Court judge, who hears evidence, finds facts, issues orders, and the final award is enforceable as a judgment.
- Delaware law prescribes confidentiality of filings, communications, discovery, and the final arbitration award; records are largely not public.
- Parties consent to participate, eligibility criteria require business entity and Delaware citizen, and monetary damages threshold or absence of threshold for equitable relief.
- Court frames the issue as whether there is a First Amendment right of access to this Delaware proceeding and whether confidentiality defeats that right; Court analyzes under logic and experience test for access.
- Court concludes the Delaware proceeding functions as a civil trial and is subject to a qualified right of public access; confidentiality violates that right.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Delaware 349 arbitration is a form of civil trial triggering access | Plaintiff: Delaware proceeding is essentially a bench trial governed by civil-trial norms | Defendant: Proceeding is arbitration and may be closed | Yes; it is a civil judicial proceeding and access applies |
| Whether confidentiality violates the First Amendment right of access | Plaintiff: Secrecy undermines public oversight and accountability | Defendant: Confidentiality serves legitimate arbitration privacy interests | Yes; confidentiality violates the right to public access |
| Threshold question: Publicker vs logic-and-experience test applicability | Plaintiff Leans on Publicker as controlling for civil arbitration | Defendant argues Publicker not controlling if not truly trial-like | Threshold satisfied; logic-and-experience test applies to Delaware proceeding |
| Whether openness benefits outweigh potential harm to arbitration efficacy | Openness promotes accountability, prevents perjury, educates public | Openness could drive disputes to confidential fora and hinder settlement | Open proceedings’ public-benefit outweighed secrecy concerns |
| Scope of remedy if confidentiality struck down | Public access should extend to filings and hearings | Maintain some confidentiality as to sensitive information | Court orders confidentiality struck to align with First Amendment rights; proceed openly |
Key Cases Cited
- Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059 (3d Cir. 1984) (right of access to civil trials applying Richmond Newspapers rationale)
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1980) (historic openness of criminal trials and public accountability)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 464 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1984) (right to attend voir dire and preliminary hearings in criminal trials)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal. (II), 478 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1986) (continues openness rationale for preliminary proceedings)
- N. Jersey Media Grp., Inc. v. Ashcroft, 308 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2002) (six benefits of open judicial proceedings in civil and criminal contexts)