730 F.3d 157
2d Cir.2013Background
- Civil contempt proceedings arose from public interest in a settled civil rights action stemming from a Nassau County case involving the Nassau County Police Department and an internal affairs investigation into officers.
- The IAU Report, a 712-page internal affairs investigation, was produced in redacted form and later deemed discoverable in part; a protective order limited its disclosure.
- Schmitt, a Nassau County legislator, objected to the protective order and sought access to the IAU Report to review settlement-related evidence for legislative approval.
- A district court issued a confidentiality order; Schmitt’s televised comments about the Report prompted contempt proceedings against him and his colleagues.
- The contempt hearing was held partly in open court and partly in chambers, with sealing of portions of transcripts and testimony, raising First Amendment access questions.
- The district court ultimately held Schmitt in contempt and imposed a coercive sanction, while the intervenors sought unsealing of the Report and hearing transcripts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the First Amendment right of access attaches to civil contempt proceedings. | Dorsett contends First Amendment access applies to contempt. | Schmitt/defendants argue confidentiality overrides access in contempt. | First Amendment right applies to civil contempt proceedings. |
| Whether the IAU Report is a judicial document subject to public access under the First Amendment. | Report is closely related to the contempt and should be accessible. | Report is a non-judicial discovery document and should remain sealed. | Report not a judicial document for public access; no presumption for unsealing. |
| Whether the contempt hearing transcript should be released unredacted. | Transcript reveals only nonconfidential facts; should be unsealed. | Secrecy may be necessary to protect confidentiality and the protective order. | Hearing transcript must be released in full/unredacted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir.2006) (two-step test for judicial documents; public access presumption and relevance to proceedings)
- Amodeo II, 71 F.3d 1049 (2d Cir.1995) (balance of access vs. confidentiality for judicial documents)
- In re New York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110 (2d Cir.1987) (grounds for recognizing First Amendment access to docket material)
- NYC Transit Auth. v. NYCLU, 684 F.3d 286 (2d Cir.2012) (First Amendment protects civil proceedings and related documents; broad application)
- Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegri-no, 380 F.3d 83 (2d Cir.2004) (docket sheets and access considerations in public records)
- United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir.1995) (Amodeo I – foundational test for judicial documents and public access)