Newsday v. County of Nassau
730 F.3d 156
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Intervenors Newsday and News 12 seek access to sealed transcripts and the Nassau County IAU Report in a civil contempt proceeding arising from the underlying civil rights case against Nassau County and related officials.
- The IAU Report is a 712-page internal affairs investigation; the district court had held some redactions and maintained confidentiality under a protective order.
- Schmitt, a legislator, publicly disclosed information from the Report, prompting contempt proceedings for violating a confidentiality order.
- The contempt hearing occurred partly in open court and partly in chambers with the courtroom sealed; witnesses and the press sought access to transcripts and exhibits.
- The district court sealed parts of the contempt transcript and kept the IAU Report under seal, balancing First Amendment/public access against confidentiality interests.
- The appellate court determines whether the First Amendment presumptive right of access attaches to civil contempt proceedings and the documents at issue, and what must be disclosed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the First Amendment apply to civil contempt proceedings? | Newsday argues First Amendment access applies to contempt hearings. | Dorsett/Nassau contend confidentiality warrants sealing and limited access. | Yes; First Amendment applies to civil contempt proceedings. |
| Does the First Amendment right attach to the contempt hearing transcript? | Transcript should be fully accessible to serve public oversight. | Sealing may be necessary to protect confidential information and preserve orders. | Transcript must be released unredacted. |
| Is the Nassau IAU Report a judicial document subject to First Amendment access? | Report is central to the contempt proceedings and should be public. | Report is not a judicial document and should remain sealed to protect confidentiality. | No; the Report is not a judicial document requiring First Amendment access. |
| If the Report is not a judicial document, should any portion be unsealed? | Any information indispensable to understanding the contempt should be disclosed. | Limited disclosure is appropriate; broader access risks undermining confidentiality and privacy. | Remand for further proceedings; transcript to be released; Report remains sealed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (two-part test for public access to judicial documents; experience-and-logic approach)
- Amodeo II, 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995) (balancing First Amendment and common-law access; factors for judicial documents)
- Amodeo I, 44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 1995) (concept of access to documents used in judicial function)
- NYC Civil Liberties Union v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 684 F.3d 286 (2d Cir. 2012) (First Amendment right extends to civil proceedings and related records)
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1980) (First Amendment presumptive right of access to criminal trials)
- In re New York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1987) (rigorous findings required to seal proceedings; ex post access considerations)
- United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2008) (independent review of sealed documents in First Amendment context)
- Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2004) (docket-sheets and public access considerations in sealing)