EFTA00614316.pdf

Wilson v. American Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568 (1985) 11 Media L. Rep. 2008 131 Records 759 F.2d 1568 4 Access to records or files in general United States Court of Appeals, It is the rights of the public, an absent third Eleventh Circuit. party, which are preserved by prohibiting closure Barbara D. WILSON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, of public records, unless unusual circumstances V. exist. AMERICAN MOTORS CORP., 21 Cases that cite this headnote et al., Defendants-Appellees, Jean Decker, Appellant. [4] Records No. 84-8665. I May L3, 1985. 4- Court records Simple showing that information would harm Plaintiff in a wrongful death action against jeep manufacturer company's reputation is not sufficient to in California Superior Court requested that the judicial overcome strong common•law presumption in records in a settled federal district court action be unsealed favor of public access to court proceedings and in order to permit plaintiff to invoke offensive collateral records. estoppel against jeep manufacturer in the California action. The United States District Court for the Northern District of 30 Cases that cite this headnote Georgia, Robert H. Hall, J., denied the request, and plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) desire of 151 Federal Civil Procedure federal court litigants to prevent use of pleadings, docket ink Access to proceedings: public trial entries, orders, affidavits, depositions, and transcripts or court reporter's notes of hearings or trial proceedings in other Where court attempts to deny public access civil proceedings involving jeep manufacturer did not justify to a civil hearing, deposition, conference, or closure of the trial record, but (2) federal court litigants could trial in order to inhibit disclosure of sensitive present request to district court for return of trial exhibits. information, it must be shown that the denial is necessitated by a compelling governmental Reversed and remanded. interest, and is narrowly tailored to that interest. 30 Cases that cite this headnote West Headnotes (8) [6] Records til• Court records [1] Federal Courts Desire of litigants to negotiated settlement to Trial prevent use of pleadings, docket entries, orders, Standard of review applicable to the denial of affidavits, depositions, and transcripts or court the common•law right of access to civil court reporter's notes of hearings or trial proceedings, proceedings is abuse of discretion. developed in wrongful death claim arising from jeep accident, in other civil proceedings 9 Cases that cite this headnote involving jeep manufacturer did not justify the total closure of the trial record, where claim had actually gone to trial, transcript of that trial, prior 121 Federal Civil Procedure to settlement agreement was part of the public Access to proceedings: public trial record, trial was an open public proceeding, and Absent some exceptional circumstances, trials in trial got as far as at least partial consideration by civil cases are public proceedings. the jury. 4 Cases that cite this headnote 14 Cases that cite this headnote WestlawNexr © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 EFTA00614316 Wilson v. American Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568 (1985) 11 Media L. Rep. 2008 The Wilson case was tried to the district court and a jury [71 Federal Courts from January 31, 1983, through February II, 1983. The trial 40. Trial involved a wrongful death claim arising from an accident Although Court of Appeals must examine the which occurred in 1979 in Forsyth County, Georgia. The reason why closure or nonclosure of a trial record accident involved a 1976 jeep model O-5 manufactured by is sought, real focus of court's inquiry is on the appellee American Motors, the defendant. rights of the public in maintaining open records and the check on the integrity of the system, The Wilson case was settled, following the jury's response to insured by that public aerrcs. special interrogatories.It is undisputed that the settlement was reached with the "encouragement and assistance" of the trial 10 Cases that cite this headnote judge. I (ROA at 80).In negotiating the settlement, American Motors requested that the record be sealed. This motion was [81 Records unopposed by the plaintiffs, and the record was sealed. We Court records are willing to assume, for purposes of this appeal. that had the If litigants in wrongful death action which was district court been unwilling to order the records sealed. the settled by negotiation after partial consideration settlement might not have been reached. by jury sought to have trial exhibits returned to them, such a request had to be presented to the Appellant Decker is the plaintiff in the case of Decker district court; there was no requirement that the v. American Motors Corp., No. 474278, Superior Court trial exhibits remain in the custody of the court. of San Diego County, State of California (hereinafter the "California suit"). The California suit is also a wrongful death Cases that cite this headnote claim, involving a 1977 jeep manufactured by American Motors. Decker has candidly acknowledged that she seeks the records in order to attempt to invoke offensive collateral estoppel against American Motors in the California action. Attorneys and Law Firms (Appellant's Opening Brief at 19). *1568 Ron Bain, Los Angeles, Cal., for Jean Decker. From all we can determine from the material presented to us, the Wilson trial was handled in routine fashion. The *1569 John G. Parker, Atlanta, Ga., for American Motors. courtroom was open to the public and all proceedings were Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern reported by an official court reporter. Decker. or her counsel, District of Georgia. could have been present in the courtroom and listened to all the evidence presented. We assume the court reporter's notes Before FAY and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and have been duly filed with the clerk pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § GIBSON • , Senior Circuit Judge. 753(b). Opinion Two aspects of the Wilson trial are before us. The first deals with the record of the proceedings: included would be the PER CURIAM: pleadings, docket entries, orders, affidavits or depositions This appeal raises important issues regarding the public's duly filed, and transcripts or court reporter's notes of hearings right of access to civil trials. Appellant Decker appeals the or trial proceedings. The second category of material would include trial exhibits offered by the parties. In weighing the district court's order, denying a request to unseal the judicial records in the case of Wilson v. American Motors Corp. competing interests of preserving the district court's authority (Civil Action File No. C81-1606A) (hereinafter the "Wilson in encouraging settlement agreements and the public's right to access to public trials, we recognize a difference between case") Because we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in ordering total closure of the public records, we these two categories of trial materials. REVERSE and REMAND. In arguing for reversal, appellant suggests two grounds: a constitutional right of access grounded in the first amendment WestlawNext © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. EFTA00614317 Wilson v. American Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568 (1985) 11 Media L. Rep. 2008 and a common law right of access to public records. The records of such proceedings has been treated in different Supreme Court has not yet held that there is a constitutional ways. In Belo, the former Fifth Circuit rejected "the right to attend civil trials. In Richmond Newspapers, Inc. overpowering presumption in favor of access" adopted by v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 several other circuits. 654 F.2d at 434. These other courts (1980), the Court held that implicit in the First Amendment had held that "only the most compelling circumstances", id.. is the constitutional right to attend criminal trials. The could overcome the presumption. See In re Application of Third and Sixth Circuits *1570 have gone one step further National Broadcasting Co. (United States v. Jenrette). 653 and have held that this constitutional right of access is F.2d 609, 613 (D.C.Cir.I981); In re Application ofNational equally applicable to civil trials. Publicker Industries v. Broadcasting Co. (UnitedStates v. Myers), 635 F.2d 945.952 Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1071 (3d Cir.1984); Brown & (2d Cir.1980). The Belo court "read the [Supreme] Court's Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1178- pronouncements as recognizing that a number of factors may 79 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1100, 104 S.Ct. militate against public access." 654 F.2d at 434. 1595, 80 L.Ed.2d 127 (1984). In Belo Broadcasting Corp. v. Clark, 654 F.2d 423, 428 (5th Cir.1981), which is binding [3] Recent decisions from other circuits which have precedent on this court 2 , the court held that 'The Constitution discussed this presumption in favor of openness, see. e.g., grants neither press nor public the right to physical access Publicker Industries, 733 F.2d at 1066-67; Matter of to courtroom exhibits." (emphasis added). In Newman v. Continental Illinois Securities Litigation, 732 F.2d 1302, Graddick 696 F.2d 796 (11th Cir. 1983), ow court discussed 1308-10 (7th Cir.1984); Brown, 710 F.2d at 1177-80, have at some length various aspects of these rights pertaining to based that presumption on the importance of preserving the openness of civil trials. While the specific holding of "the public's right to monitor the functioning of our Newman is extremely narrow, this discussion is most helpful. courts." Continental, 732 F.2d at 1308. See also Richmond It would appear that the question of whether or not there is Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 594-97. 100 S.Ct. at 2836-38 a constitutional right of access to civil trials has not been (Brennan, I., concurring). Thus, it is the rights of the public, answered by our court. an absent third party, which are preserved by prohibiting closure of public records, unless unusual circumstances exist. As an alternative ground for ordering the unsealing of the records in the Wilson case, appellant asserts that the district [4] The Sixth Circuit has suggested that the defendant's court abused its discretion, see Newman v. Graddick. 696 F.2d right to a fair trial, certain privacy rights of participants or at 803. in denying appellant's common law right of access to third parties, trade secrets and national security, are virtually the records. There is no question that a common law right of the only reasons which would justify total closure of public access exists as to civil proceedings. "What transpires in the records. Brown, 710 F.2d at 1179. Without deciding whether courtroom is public property."Craig t'. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, or not to accept the position of the Sixth Circuit as written, we 374. 67 S.Ct. 1249, 1254, 91 L.Ed. 1546 (1947). This leads do agree that "Islimply showing that the *1571 information us to a review of the order at hand. would harm the company's reputation is not sufficient to overcome the strong common law presumption in favor of The district court sealed the entire proceedings. From a public access." Id. review of the records, we are unable to determine the status or whereabouts of the exhibits introduced. We are unable [5] [6] We shall apply the standard set out in Newman: to determine if transcripts of any part or all of the trial We do not hold that every hearing, deposition, conference proceedings exist. We do note from the docket entries that or even trial in a case of this kind must be open to the public. pretrial conferences were held, that the trial itself took place, We do hold that "where, as in the present case, the [court] that many dcpositions were read to the jury and various attempts to deny access in order to inhibit the disclosure of exhibits introduced. sensitive information, it must be shown that the denial is necessitated by a compelling governmental interest, and is [1] [2] The standard of review applicable is abuse of narrowly tailored to that interest." Globe Newspaper Co. v. discretion. Recognizing a common law right of access does Superior Court. 457 U.S. 596 at 606-607, 102 5.0. 2613 not alone resolve the issue. The starting point in such a at 2620, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 at 257. discussion is the proposition that, absent some exceptional circumstances, trials are public proceedings. Access to the 6% F.2d at 802. WestlawNext © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 EFTA00614318 Wilson v. American Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568 (1985) 11 Media L. Rep. 2008 records. The district court must keep in mind the rights of a third party—the public, "if the public is to appreciate fully Applying this yardstick, we find nothing in the record to the often significant events at issue in public litigation and the support the sealing of this record. The defendant's desire to workings of the legal system." Newman, 696 F.2d at 803. prevent the use of this trial record in other proceedings is simply not an adequate justification for its sealing.3 It is important to note the somewhat unusual circumstances We do not think that the conclusion in favor of a presumption involved in the instant case. This case actually went to trial, of openness to civil proceedings is contrary to the holding and, at least prior to the settlement agreement, the transcript of Belo. First, Belo did not deal with the disclosure of trial of that trial was part of the public record. The trial was an open proceedings. The reporters in Belo were seeking copies ofFBI public proceeding. Moreover, and most significantly, the trial tapes introduced at trial; they had the trial record. Second, got as far as at least partial consideration by the jury. Under Belo rejected only a conclusive or overriding presumption in these circumstances, the interest in preserving the authority favor of access to trial exhibits. Our holding today embraces a of the court in assisting in settlement agreements does not somewhat lesser standard and deals with the trial record itself. override the presumption of openness in civil proceedings. And third, the Belo court focused on the need to protect the The parties presented no legally sufficient reason for the rights of a codefendant in an impending criminal trial. The closure of the record.'[ Consequently, the sealing of this right to a fair trial has, of course, always been recognized as record was an abuse of discretion. an important, if not paramount, concern in balancing the right of access. There was no such concern implicated in the instant •1572 [8] The question of trial exhibits is a different one case. This was a civil case, in which all access to the trial and has been treated as such. Belo, 654 F.2d 423. The issues records was denied to the public. in the Wilson case have been resolved. Should the parties seek to have these exhibits returned to them, such a request should [7J Much of American Motors' argument is devoted to the be presented to the trial court. There is no requirement that contention that even if Decker were to obtain arrns to the they remain in the custody of the court. Wilson records, she would be unsuccessful in using them to assert collateral estoppel in the California suit. Such an This matter is remanded to the district court for handling argument is misdirected. Although we must examine the consistent with this opinion. reason why closure or nonclosure is sought, the real focus of our inquiry is on the rights of the public in maintaining Accordingly, the district court's order is REVERSED and the open records and the "check' Jon the integrity of the system", case REMANDED. Brown, 710 F.2d at 1179, insured by that public access. See Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 592. 100 S.Ct. at 2835 Parallel Citations (Brennan, J., concurring). Therefore, we conclude that these litigants do not have the right to agree to seal what were public 11 Media L. Rep. 2008 Footnotes Honorable Floyd R. Gibson. U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. In his order denying appellant's request to unseal the records, the trial judge stated that "the order sealing the Wilson record was entered as an integral part of the negotiated settlement between the parties and was a part of the coon's participation in that settlement." (ROA at 81). 2 In Bonner v. City ofPrichard. 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir.1981) (en bane). the Eleventh Circuit adopted as precedent the decisions of the Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981. 3 Quite the contrary would appear to be true. If formal proceedings occur in one court and are relevant to issues being presented in another court, judicial economy would mandate their availability. 4 There is no question that courts should encourage settlements. However, the payment of money to an injured party is simply not "a compelling governmental interest" legally recognizable or even entitled to consideration in deciding whether or not to seal a record. We feel certain that many parties to lawsuits would be willing to bargain (with the adverse party and the court) for the sealing of records after listening to or observing damaging testimony and evidence. Such suppression of public records cannot be authorized. WestlawNext © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. EFTA00614319 Wilson v. American Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568 (1985) 11 Media L. Rep. 2008 The situation here is further aggravated by the attempted suppression of a jury verdict because it might adversely affect American Motors in other judicial proceedings. Such action is contrary to the most basic principles of American jurisprudence. End of Document © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. WesttawNext © 2015 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 EFTA00614320