Undisclosed LLC v. State
302 Ga. 418
Ga.2017Background
- Undisclosed LLC sought copies of court reporter audio recordings from Joseph Watkins’s felony-murder trial by filing a Uniform Superior Court Rule 21 motion, arguing Rule 21 preserves a common-law right to inspect and copy court records.
- The State did not oppose access but the trial court denied the motion to the extent it sought copies, holding Rule 21 did not include a right to copy recordings.
- Undisclosed obtained discretionary review; the Georgia Supreme Court granted review to interpret Rule 21’s scope and the effect of Green v. Drinnon.
- The Court analyzed Rule 21 against the common-law right of access and statutory appellate-record law (Appellate Practice Act / OCGA § 5-6-41) to determine what constitutes a “court record.”
- The majority held Rule 21’s public-inspection right includes a right to copy, but concluded a “court record” for Rule 21 purposes is limited to materials filed with the court; the court reporter’s raw audio tapes here were not filed and thus not covered.
- The Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of copies on the alternative ground that Green’s isolated language did not broadly convert all reporter tapes into court records and applies only to limited circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper vehicle to seek non-party access | Undisclosed: Rule 21 motion is the proper procedure for non-party access | State: mandamus was the proper vehicle | Held: Rule 21 is a proper vehicle (Merchant precedent supports) |
| Does Rule 21’s right of public inspection include right to copy? | Undisclosed: Rule 21 preserves common-law right to inspect and copy; “inspect” includes copying | State: “inspect” means examine only; does not include copying | Held: Right to inspect under Rule 21 includes right to copy (common law context) |
| What qualifies as a “court record” under Rule 21? | Undisclosed: Relied on Green’s statement that reporter tapes are court records | State: Court records are limited; many materials are not records absent filing | Held: A “court record” means materials filed with the court (records/enrolled matters) |
| Are the court reporter’s audio recordings at issue court records under Rule 21? | Undisclosed: Tapes are court records and therefore subject to Rule 21 access and copying | State: Tapes are not filed and thus not court records | Held: Recordings here are not court records because they were not filed; Green is limited to its facts and does not control here |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. Drinnon, Inc., 262 Ga. 264 (1992) (statement that a court reporter’s tape is a court record considered in light of case’s specific facts; Court limits Green to its narrow circumstance)
- Atlanta Journal & Constitution v. Long, 258 Ga. 410 (1988) (public presumptive right of access begins when a judicial document is filed)
- Merchant Law Firm v. Emerson, 301 Ga. 609 (2017) (Rule 21 access is coextensive with the common-law right of access)
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (recognition of common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records)
- Williams v. Norris, 25 U.S. 117 (1827) (materials not generally part of record unless included by recognized legal procedure; court may treat depositions/exhibits as record only if law provides)