The Merchant Law Firm, P.C. v. Emerson, 301 Ga. 609

The Merchant Law Firm (the Firm) asked a court reporter for copies of audio recordings of three open hearings before Judge David T. Emerson; the reporter transcribed the hearings but declined to provide copies after consulting the judge.
Judge Emerson issued orders allowing the Firm to listen to the recordings but expressly denying permission to copy them.
The Firm filed a complaint seeking mandamus, injunctive relief, and a declaratory judgment to compel copies; the complaint did not specify whether defendants were sued in official or individual capacities.
Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the Firm had an adequate remedy by pursuing Rule 21 procedures and appealing the judge's order; the trial court dismissed the complaint.
The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed: Rule 21 provides the public (including non‑parties) a process to request and appeal access to court records (including in criminal cases), so mandamus and injunction were unavailable; declaratory relief was barred as a collateral attack on Judge Emerson’s order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Availability of mandamus to obtain copies of recordings	Firm: has clear public right under Rule 21 to inspect and copy recordings and lacks adequate remedy	Defs: Rule 21 procedures and appeal from Judge Emerson’s order provide an adequate legal remedy	Mandamus unavailable because Rule 21 review/appeal is an adequate remedy
Whether Rule 21 applies to non‑parties seeking records	Firm: could not appeal because it was not a party to the criminal cases	Defs: Rule 21 grants public ("any person") access and appellate review regardless of party status	Rule 21 applies to non‑parties; non‑party may seek review of orders denying access
Applicability of Rule 21 to criminal case records	Firm: impliedly argued Rule 21 limited to civil cases or that criminal context barred appeal	Defs: Rule 21 preserves common‑law access in both civil and criminal cases	Rule 21 applies to criminal case records and preserves common‑law access rights
Injunctive & declaratory relief after appealable order	Firm: equitable relief and declaratory judgment appropriate to compel copies	Defs: adequate legal remedy exists; declaratory judgment cannot collaterally attack an adjudicated order; sovereign immunity bars official‑capacity claims	Injunctive relief barred by adequate remedy at law; declaratory relief barred as collateral attack (and official‑capacity claims subject to sovereign immunity)

R.A.F. v. Robinson, 286 Ga. 644 (mandamus is extraordinary and requires no other adequate legal remedy)
In re Gwinnett County Grand Jury, 284 Ga. 510 (Rule 21 embodies public right of access to court records)
Altman v. Altman, 301 Ga. 211 (Rule 21 preserves common‑law access to records)
Long, 258 Ga. 410 (non‑party may seek access under Rule 21 and obtain review)
Ford Motor Co. v. Lawrence, 279 Ga. 284 (mandamus unavailable to review appealable judicial orders)
Titelman v. Stedman, 277 Ga. 460 (mandamus appropriate only when no appealable order exists, e.g., court refuses to enter order)
Royal v. Royal, 246 Ga. 229 (declaratory judgment cannot be used to collaterally attack prior judicial decrees)