Perry v. Brown, 667 F.3d 1078

This appeal concerns whether the district court abused its discretion by unsealing a video recording of the trial in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (Prop 8 case).
The recording was created for in-chambers use by the trial judge and later placed in the court record under seal.
Supreme Court stayed broadcasts of the trial, leading to restrictions on public dissemination and specific assurances from the trial judge that the recording would not be publicly broadcast.
Proponents obtained copies under a protective order; the district court later denied their return and ultimately unsealed the recording.
Former Chief Judge Walker had explicitly stated the recording would be used in chambers and not for public broadcasting, a promise relied upon by the proponents.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court, holding the seal must be maintained to preserve judicial integrity and reliance interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the recording is subject to the common-law public-access presumption	Proponents contend the right does not apply or is abrogated by local rule	District court assumed applicability and found no abrogation by rule	Assume applicability for argument; not decided here
Whether there is a sufficiently compelling reason to override the common-law right	Proponents relied on explicit assurances the recording would not be publicly broadcast	Ware concluded no binding assurances and questioned reliance	There is a compelling reason due to reliance on judges' assurances; district court abused discretion
Whether First Amendment access considerations would alter the outcome	First Amendment transparency supports access to judicial records	Not central to the disposition; focus on integrity and assurances	First Amendment would not change result; recording must remain sealed to preserve integrity

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (common-law right of access to judicial records; abuse-of-discretion standard)
Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (compelling reasons to override public access; protective-order context)
Hinkson v. United States, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc; standard for abuse of discretion and reliance on record)
Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1978) (historical basis for public records and judicial openness)
Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 827 (1991) (stare decisis and integrity of judicial process)
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 130 S. Ct. 705 (U.S. 2010) (Supreme Court Stay decisions affecting broadcasting in this case)
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (district court decision on sealing and copying of recording)