Title: Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justice v. Court Administrator of the Trial Court

State: massachusetts

Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Document:

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-12379 
 
LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE  vs.  
COURT ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TRIAL COURT & others.1 
 
 
November 6, 2017. 
 
 
Moot Question.  Practice, Civil, Moot case.  Trial Court.  
Public Records. 
 
 
 
The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Economic 
Justice (Lawyers' Committee) appeals from a judgment of the 
county court dismissing as moot its petition seeking declaratory 
and injunctive relief requiring the respondents, who are the 
court administrator, office of court management, and executive 
office of the Trial Court, to produce certain records pursuant 
to the public records law.  G. L. c. 66, § 10.  We directed the 
parties to file memoranda addressing whether the single justice 
erred or abused his discretion in dismissing the case as moot.  
After reviewing the parties' submissions, we affirm the 
judgment. 
 
 
The facts are not in dispute.  The Lawyers' Committee 
requested that the respondents produce documents concerning the 
demographics of the security department of the Trial Court, by 
race and gender, and the department's hiring and promotion 
practices.  The Lawyers' Committee cited the public records law, 
G. L. c. 66, § 10, as the basis of its request.  In response, 
the respondents stated that "[a]s part of the [j]udicial branch 
of government, the Massachusetts Trial Court . . . is not 
                     
 
1 Office of court management of the Trial Court and 
executive office of the Trial Court. 
 
2 
 
subject to the [p]ublic [r]ecords [l]aw.[2] . . . Despite that 
exemption, we are considering your request and will respond 
appropriately in due course."  The Lawyers' Committee petitioned 
the supervisor of records for a determination that the requested 
records were public records under G. L. c. 66.  The supervisor 
of records responded that "[r]ecords in the custody of the 
[c]ourt are records of the judiciary and are outside the 
jurisdiction of the public records law."  Some months later, 
having received no documents in response to its request, the 
Lawyers' Committee filed its petition.  Thereafter, the court 
administrator wrote to the Lawyers' Committee, stating that the 
Trial Court intended to collect responsive documents and produce 
them.3  The respondents did in fact voluntarily produce documents 
that were responsive to the Lawyers' Committee's request. 
 
 
The respondents represent, as they did before the single 
justice, that they have produced all responsive documents in 
their possession, custody, or control that are not confidential 
or privileged.  The Lawyers' Committee does not dispute this or 
claim that any documents are being wrongfully withheld.  There 
is nothing further that a court can order the respondents to 
produce.  In these circumstances, the single justice properly 
dismissed the petition as moot, as no further effective relief 
can be granted.  See, e.g., Padmanabhan v. Centers for Medicare 
& Medicaid Servs., 476 Mass. 1018, 1019 (2017), citing Rasten v. 
Northeastern Univ., 432 Mass. 1003, 1003 (2000), cert. denied, 
531 U.S. 1168 (2001) (request that single justice stay Superior 
Court proceedings moot where Superior Court granted 
continuance); McCants v. Clerk of Suffolk Superior Court for 
Criminal Business, 465 Mass. 1007, 1007-1008 (2013) (petition 
properly dismissed as moot where petitioner received relief he 
was seeking).  The fact that the Lawyers' Committee has also 
sought a declaratory judgment concerning the applicability of 
the public records law to the respondents does not alter the 
                     
 
2 We have held, and the regulations promulgated by the 
supervisor of public records likewise recognize, that the public 
records law applies only to the executive branch, and not to the 
Legislature or the judiciary.  Kettenbach v. Board of Bar 
Overseers, 448 Mass. 1019, 1020-1021 (2007).  See also 950 Code 
Mass. Regs. § 32.02 (2016).  In this respect, the public records 
law is consistent with the Federal Freedom of Information Act, 
which applies only to the executive branch of the Federal 
government.  See 5 U.S.C. §§ 551(1), 552(f). 
 
 
3 The court administrator attributed the delay to 
"miscommunication."   
3 
 
outcome, as there is no longer any actual controversy.  See 
Boston Herald, Inc. v. Superior Court Dep't of the Trial Court, 
421 Mass. 502, 504 (1995), quoting Quincy City Hosp. v. Rate 
Setting Comm'n, 406 Mass. 431, 439 (1990) ("Declaratory judgment 
. . . 'is a vehicle for resolving actual, not hypothetical, 
controversies'").  
 
 
Any remaining questions concerning the applicability of the 
public records law to the respondents will be ripe for 
adjudication if, at some point in the future, a party requests 
documents pursuant to the public records law and the respondents 
withhold responsive documents.  In such a case, there would be a 
real controversy over what, if anything, the respondents are 
obligated to produce.  There is no reason to suppose, if and 
when that happens, that "appellate review could not be obtained 
before the recurring question would again be moot."  Libertarian 
Ass'n of Mass. v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 462 Mass. 538, 
548 (2012), quoting Commissioner of Correction v. McCabe, 410 
Mass. 847, 851 (1991).  In short, while the issue is capable of 
repetition, it will not necessarily evade review in the ordinary 
course of events. 
 
 
Here, where the respondents have produced everything the 
Lawyers' Committee has requested, the single justice did not err 
or abuse his discretion by dismissing the petition as moot. 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
memoranda of law. 
 
 
 
Julia Huston, David Kluft, Zachary Gerson, & Oren Sellstrom 
for the petitioner. 
 
Timothy J. Casey, Assistant Attorney General, for the 
respondents.