302 Ga. 418
Ga.2017Background
- Joseph Watkins was convicted in 2003; Undisclosed LLC (podcast producer) later sought the court reporter’s audio recordings of Watkins’s proceedings.
- Undisclosed moved under Uniform Superior Court Rule 21 to obtain copies of the audio recordings; the State did not oppose access but the trial court denied the requested right to copy.
- Undisclosed relied on Green v. Drinnon, Inc., which contained a statement that a court reporter’s tape of a judge’s remarks is a “court record.”
- The Supreme Court granted discretionary review to interpret whether Rule 21 (which codifies the common-law right of access) grants a right to copy and whether court reporter audio recordings qualify as “court records.”
- The Court held Rule 21’s right to “inspect” includes a right to copy (as derived from the common law), but concluded the specific recordings sought were not “court records” because they were not filed with the court; thus access to copies was not required under Rule 21.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper procedural vehicle to obtain court records | Undisclosed: Rule 21 motion is appropriate for non-party access | State: mandamus (or other remedy) was proper, not Rule 21 | Court: Rule 21 motion was a proper vehicle for non-party access (citing Merchant) |
| Whether Rule 21’s right to “inspect” includes right to copy | Undisclosed: Green and common law imply right to copy; inspection must include copying | State: “inspect” means examine only, not copy | Court: Rule 21’s inspection right includes copying (common-law tradition) |
| Whether court reporter audio recordings are “court records” under Rule 21 | Undisclosed: Green says reporter tapes are court records and thus accessible | State: tapes are not filed and thus not court records under Rule 21 | Court: A “court record” for Rule 21 purposes is limited to materials filed with the court; the tapes here were not filed, so they are not court records under Rule 21; Green was limited to its facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. Drinnon, Inc., 262 Ga. 264 (1992) (stating a court reporter’s tape of judge’s public bench remarks is a court record in that factual context)
- Merchant Law Firm v. Emerson, 301 Ga. 609 (2017) (Rule 21 access is coextensive with the common-law right of access)
- Atlanta Journal & Constitution v. Long, 258 Ga. 410 (1988) (right of access begins when a judicial document is filed)
- Watkins v. State, 276 Ga. 578 (2003) (underlying criminal convictions and procedural background)
- Williams v. Norris, 25 U.S. 117 (1827) (common-law discussion that depositions and exhibits are not part of the record unless made so)
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (recognizing general common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records)