Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02292/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02292-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

125 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE • PASADENA • CALIFORNIA 91105

ALEX KOZINSKI

Chief Judge

(626) 229-7140

Fax: 229-7444

January 10, 2010

The Honorable Anthony J. Scirica

Chairman, Executive Committee

Judicial Conference of the United States

Washington, D.C. 20544

James C. Duff, Esq.

Secretary

Judicial Conference of the United States

Washington, D.C. 20544

Dear Tony and Jim:

Thank you for your letter and your interest. As you probably know, Chief

Judge Walker has denied motions by the media to record and broadcast the trial. 

And, at present, his request to place a video recording of a non-jury civil trial on

the Northern District’s website is not ripe for decision; necessary technical issues

have not yet been resolved. To date, I have therefore only approved real-time

streaming of the case to other federal courtrooms, consistent with procedures used

in other high-profile cases. Viewers in the other courtrooms will, of course, be

prohibited from taking audio or video recordings of the stream. 

I believe I can nevertheless allay the general concerns expressed in your

letter about the Ninth Circuit’s pilot project. The pilot project was developed after

considerable deliberation and careful research. As you are aware, there is no

Judicial Conference policy prohibiting trial courts from placing video recordings of

non-jury civil proceedings on their websites. That policy decision rests exclusively

with the Judicial Council of each circuit, consistent with the statutory governance

structure of the courts. 28 U.S.C. § 332; see also Armster v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 806

F.2d 1347, 1349 n.1 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Except for judicial disciplinary proceedings,

the Judicial Conference does not have binding or adjudicatory authority over the

courts.”). 

Case 3:09-cv-02292-JW Document 406 Filed 01/11/10 Page 1 of 10
The Honorable Anthony J. Scirica

James C. Duff, Esq.

Page Two

January 10, 2010

Our Council is well aware that some 22 years ago the Judicial Conference

first considered allowing cameras in courtrooms, 20 years ago authorized a pilot

program of the same, and 14 years ago adopted a resolution urging the circuits’

Judicial Councils not to permit radio and television coverage of proceedings in our

district courts. See Judicial Conference of the United States, Report of the

Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States 17 (Mar. 12, 1996);

Judicial Conference of the United States, Report of the Proceedings of the Judicial

Conference of the United States 15 (Mar. 15, 1994); Judicial Conference of the

United States, Report of the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United

States 103–04 (Sept. 12, 1990); Judicial Conference of the United States, Report of

the Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States 34 (Mar. 14,

1989). The issue came before the Judicial Conference in 1994 and 1996 as the

result of a study of electronic media coverage of federal civil proceedings

conducted by the Federal Judicial Center, which conducted pilot projects allowing

the media to record and broadcast trials. The results of the study were positive. 

The FJC reported that there were “small or no effects of camera presence on

participants in the proceedings, courtroom decorum, or the administration of

justice.” Federal Judicial Center, Electronic Media Coverage of Federal Civil

Proceedings: An Evaluation of the Pilot Program in Six District Courts and Two

Courts of Appeals 7 (1994). As a result of the study, the FJC research project staff

recommended authorizing cameras in civil proceedings in federal courtrooms

nationwide, subject to guidelines. Id. at 43. 

The decision on this question was ultimately left in the hands of the circuits. 

See 1996 Judicial Conference Report, supra, at 17. In response to the Judicial

Conference resolution, the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council adopted a policy in 1996

that prohibits the broadcast of trial court proceedings. However, not all circuits

elected to follow the Judicial Conference’s suggestion; some courts even adopted

rules permitting courts to use video broadcasting equipment. E.D.N.Y. Local Civ.

R. 1.8; S.D.N.Y. Local Civ. R. 1.8. 

The Judicial Conference resolution also left the question of broadcasting

federal appellate proceedings to each Court of Appeals. In response, the Ninth 

Case 3:09-cv-02292-JW Document 406 Filed 01/11/10 Page 2 of 10
The Honorable Anthony J. Scirica

James C. Duff, Esq.

Page Three

January 10, 2010

Circuit Court of Appeals adopted a resolution in 1996 that allows the recording and

broadcast of appellate arguments, subject to conditions. Since that time, hundreds

of appellate arguments have been recorded and broadcast without incident. 

The FJC study, and the Judicial Conference resolution, were focused

exclusively on electronic coverage of the courts by the media. The Judicial

Conference did not—and has not—considered video recording and dissemination

by court units. Thus, the request by the Northern District of California to record

and distribute video under the careful control of the court—not the broadcast

media—involves circumstances far different from those considered by the Judicial

Conference so long ago: New, cheaper video technology has made it possible for

courts to control that which only the media could have controlled in 1996. 

While the Judicial Conference has not formally considered this matter in the

intervening decade and a half, a great deal has happened in the world since then,

notably the advent of affordable video systems and the proliferation of the internet. 

Technology has changed the way trials are conducted and reported. The public,

too, demands far more transparency from its public institutions today than it did in

1996. E.g., Op. Ed., Federal Courts Should Join 21st Century, DES MOINES

REGISTER (Jan. 8, 2010) (attached). 

Our court, and most others, has responded to these public demands. We

make digital audio recordings of each appellate argument available to the public on

our website. A substantial number of arguments are video recorded and broadcast. 

We post all of our decisions, precedential and non-precedential, on our website. I

post all of my decisions on judicial misconduct complaints, with appropriate

redactions to preserve privacy, on our website. Our Circuit Council has recently

adopted provisional guidelines for the use of electronic devices in courtrooms by

jurors, media and the bar. Simulcasting of district court proceedings has become

fairly common, especially in high profile cases in which courtroom space is

limited. Even the Supreme Court is now releasing audio recordings—sometimes in

near-realtime. 

Case 3:09-cv-02292-JW Document 406 Filed 01/11/10 Page 3 of 10
The Honorable Anthony J. Scirica

James C. Duff, Esq.

Page Four

January 10, 2010

In short, the public has demanded greater access to our courtrooms, we have

provided it and it has not caused problems. 

All states allow media broadcast of court proceedings in some form. Some

states have even imposed great restrictions on state trial judges’ discretion to limit

broadcasting. For example, Montana has incorporated a requirement for media

access into its code of judicial conduct, making it an act of judicial misconduct to

refuse without good cause any request by the media to broadcast court

proceedings. Canon 35, Montana Canons of Judicial Ethics. As you are aware,

legislation is now pending before Congress that would authorize or require federal

courts to allow media recording and broadcast of court proceedings. See Sunshine

in the Courtroom Act of 2009 (S. 657); Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2009

(H.R. 3054); see also http://jnet.ao.dcn/Legislation/Cameras_in_the_Courtroom.

html. If we do not respond to the legitimate public expectations, we create a

serious risk that Congress will impose camera requirements on the courts based on

guidelines developed outside the court system. 

In light of developments such as these, the Judicial Conference of the Ninth

Circuit began debating how to respond at its 2007 meeting. It voted to have the

current Ninth Circuit rule, which prohibits all cameras in district courts,

reconsidered. Lawyers and judges, voting separately, approved the resolution by

resounding margins. This sentiment reflects the strong view of our bar, as

evidenced by the many resolutions we have received from various bar associations

throughout our Circuit. E.g., Letter of the Federal Bar Association of the Northern

District of California to Judge Hamilton and Chief Judge Walker (Jan. 7, 2010)

(attached). 

Following the vote of the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, the Ninth

Circuit Judicial Council passed a resolution urging the Judicial Conference to reexamine its historical opposition to video technology and endorse video recording

and broadcasting of non-jury civil cases. The Judicial Conference Committee on

Court Administration and Case Management (CACM) examined the request at its

June 2009 meeting. It deferred formal action, but noted that “the limitations 

Case 3:09-cv-02292-JW Document 406 Filed 01/11/10 Page 4 of 10
The Honorable Anthony J. Scirica

James C. Duff, Esq.

Page Five

January 10, 2010

inherent to the proposal (i.e., non-jury civil cases) would avoid many of the

concerns of the Conference . . . and [the proposal] was therefore much more akin to

what is already permitted in circuit courts.” CACM Report to the Judicial

Conference of the United States, reprinted in Agenda of the Judicial Council of the

Ninth Circuit 7 (Oct. 22, 2009). Although the Committee was not unanimous in its

view, it reported to the Judicial Conference that “the Committee also appears to be

supportive of camera proposals in general that grant full discretion to the district

judge, that allow for protection of the images of jurors and witnesses, and that

proceed only with great care in criminal cases.” Id. at 7–8. The matter was

referred to the Judicial Conference’s Executive Committee before its August 2009

meeting, but it declined, without explanation, to place it on the agenda for the

September 2009 meeting of the Judicial Conference. See Judicial Conference

Executive Committee, Memorandum of Action 2 (Aug. 20, 2009). 

After extensive deliberation, and mindful of these considerations, our

Judicial Council voted to approve a carefully-controlled pilot program to

experiment with the use of video in non-jury civil cases. This approach, as the

CACM report noted, is very limited and designed to avoid the concerns expressed

by the Judicial Conference a decade and a half ago. The Council will use the

experience gained during the pilot program to consider whether to adopt a

permanent rule. 

We hope and trust that other federal circuits and the Judicial Conference will

take advantage of our experience when they reconsider the matter, as we believe

they soon must. Like it or not, we are now well into the Twenty-First Century, and

it is up to those of us who lead the federal judiciary to adopt policies that are

consistent with the spirit of the times and the advantages afforded us by new

technology. If we do not, Congress will do it for us. 

Let me assure you that we will be proceeding with great caution. Every

project is subject to my personal approval, and I am examining the details of each

proposal meticulously. If and when the request from the Northern District of 

Case 3:09-cv-02292-JW Document 406 Filed 01/11/10 Page 5 of 10
The Honorable Anthony J. Scirica

James C. Duff, Esq.

Page Six

January 10, 2010

California becomes ripe for my consideration, you may rest assured that I will

examine all aspects of it with great care. 

Sincerely,

A

Alex Kozinski

AK/dms

Attachments

cc: Ninth Circuit Judicial Council

 The Honorable Vaughn R. Walker

 Chief Judges, United States Courts of Appeals

 Circuit Executives

Case 3:09-cv-02292-JW Document 406 Filed 01/11/10 Page 6 of 10
www.desmoinesregister.com | Printer-friendly article page

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/print/article/20100108/OPINION03/1080341/Federal-courts-should-join-21st-century[01/08/2010 2:32:31 PM]

January 8, 2010

Federal courts should join 21st century

The great divide seems to grow ever wider between federal courts and the rest of the world on

cameras in courtrooms. On one side are federal court policymakers who fear cameras would transform

every trial into a media frenzy on the order of the 1994 O. J. Simpson trial. On the other side are

growing numbers of Americans who naturally assume images of almost everything that happens

nowadays will be captured on television or online.

Somewhere in between those extremes are federal trial judges, many if not most of whom either

believe cameras during trials would be harmless or would improve public understanding of the courts.

The most recent evidence: the nine northwestern states of the 9th U.S. Circuit have agreed to a

limited test of cameras in some civil trials. If judges are comfortable with the experiment, it could be

permanent. In fact, this could cause other federal courts across the country to follow suit. And they

should.

Federal courtrooms should be more accessible to the public through modern communications

technology. Indeed, all courts - federal and state - must review existing rules regarding the use of the

growing array of communications devices, from texts to Twitter to cell-phone video.

The courts cannot wall themselves off from public scrutiny with antiquated rules. People have a right

to know what goes on in courts, and they will better appreciate the role of the courts if they can see

them in action. Modern technology makes that possible far beyond the limited numbers who can

actually get to a courthouse to observe trials in person.

State courts reached this conclusion long ago. All 50 states allow cameras in at least some

courtrooms, and most states allow electronic media coverage of civil and criminal trials. Since 1980,

Iowa has allowed television cameras, newspaper photographers and other recording devices in state

criminal, civil and appellate courts. This practice has had broad, consistent support among trial judges,

lawyers and court administrators.

It's time the federal courts joined this movement.

The experiment with cameras in the 9th Circuit - which encompasses federal courts from Alaska to

Arizona - is noteworthy because it's at odds with the position of the U.S. Judicial Conference, the

chief policy-making body for all federal courts. The Judicial Conference, which is composed of chief

judges from the 12 regional circuits and chaired by the chief justice of the United States, has with one

exception opposed cameras in trial courts. That exception was a three-year experiment beginning in

1991, which most participating judges recommended continuing. Nonetheless, the conference voted to

maintain the ban on cameras in trial courts in place since 1946.

Federal courts have some authority to set their own rules at the local level, and the 9th Circuit may

be testing the limits of that authority. As with many cultural trends, this move by judges in the West

and Northwest might spread across the rest of the federal court system.

It's about time.

Additional Facts

•Federal courts in Iowa

Cameras are prohibited in all federal courts in Iowa under rules of the Judicial Council for the 8th

U.S. Circuit, which covers seven Midwest states. The council is composed of 10 judges of the 8th

Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and 10 U.S. District Court judges in the circuit. The council is chaired by

Case 3:09-cv-02292-JW Document 406 Filed 01/11/10 Page 7 of 10
www.desmoinesregister.com | Printer-friendly article page

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/print/article/20100108/OPINION03/1080341/Federal-courts-should-join-21st-century[01/08/2010 2:32:31 PM]

Chief Appeals Court Judge James B. Loken.

•Tell judges what you think about cameras

If you agree that federal courts in Iowa should be open to electronic media coverage, let court officials

know. Contact the Office of the Circuit Executive, Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse, 111 South 10th

St., St. Louis, Mo. 63102. Phone: (314) 244-2600. Fax: (314) 244-2605.

Case 3:09-cv-02292-JW Document 406 Filed 01/11/10 Page 8 of 10
 FEDERAL BAR ASSOCIATION 

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHAPTER

OFFICERS

President

Judith Anderson 

Securities and Exchange

Commission 

44 Montgomery Street, 

Suite 2600 

San Francisco, CA 

94104 

415/705-2500 

AndersonJu@sec.gov 

Vice President, 

San Francisco

Gregory N. Owen 

Owen, Wickersham & 

Erickson, P.C. 

455 Market Street, Suite 

1910 

San Francisco, CA 

94105 

415/882-3200 

gowen@owe.com

Vice President,

Oakland

Valerie Stewart 

Federal Bureau of 

Prisons 

7338 Shoreline Dr. 

Stockton, CA 95219 

209/956-9733 

vlstewart@bop.gov 

Vice President, 

San Jose

Jason de Bretteville 

Sullivan & Cromwell LLP 

1870 Embarcadero Road 

Palo Alto, California 

94303 

1-650/461-5600 

debrettevillej@sullcrom.

com 

Secretary/Treasurer

Timothy K. Roake 

Gibson, Dunn & 

Crutcher LLP 

1881 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304 

650/849-5382

troake@gibsondunn.com 

President Elect

David H. Fry 

Munger, Tolles & Olson 

LLP 

560 Mission Street, 27th 

Floor 

San Francisco CA 94105 

415/512-4000 

David.Fry@mto.com

Immediate Past President

Christopher D. Sullivan 

McGrane Greenfield LLP 

One Ferry Building, Suite 

220 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

415/283-1776 

csullivan@ 

mcgranegreenfield.com 

HONORARY OFFICERS

The Hon. Vaughn R. Walker

Chief Judge 

United States District Court

Northern District of 

California 

450 Golden Gate Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

415/522-2000 

Joseph P. Russoniello, Esq.

United States Attorney 

U.S. Attorney's Office 

450 Golden Gate Avenue, 

11th Fl. 

P.O. Box 36055 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

415/436-7200 

Barry J. Portman, Esq. 

Federal Public Defender 

450 Golden Gate Avenue, 

Rm. 17424 

P.O. Box 36105 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

415/436-7700 

STEERING COMMITTEE

The Hon. Laurel Beeler 

Stephen Paul Berzon 

Asim Bhansali 

Martha Boersch 

Peter Boutin 

Elizabeth Brancart 

Elizabeth J. Cabraser 

Richard C. Darwin 

Bruce S. Flushman 

David Fry 

David Girard 

Matthew Jacobs 

Randall T. Kim 

Erik Khoobyarian 

Rory K. Little 

Otis McGee 

Kathleen Morris 

Sharon L. O’Grady 

Scott Raber 

Patrick Robbins 

Joseph P. Russoniello 

Stephen L. Schirle 

Christopher Steskal 

Sanford Svetcov 

January 7, 2010 

The Honorable Phyllis Hamilton 

Chair of the Rules Committee for the Northern District of 

California 

United States Courthouse 

1301 Clay Street 

Oakland, CA 94612 

The Honorable Vaughn Walker 

Chief Judge, Northern District of California 

United States Courthouse 

450 Golden Gate Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Dear Judge Hamilton and Chief Judge Walker: 

 

On behalf of the Executive Committee of the Northern 

District of California Chapter to the Federal Bar Association, I 

write to express our support for the revision of Local Rule 77-3, 

effective December 22, 2009. The revisions to Local Rule 77-3 

are necessary and appropriate to implement the pilot program 

allowing, on an experimental basis, the limited use of cameras in 

federal district courts within the circuit that was approved 

unanimously by the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit on 

December 17, 2009. 

 The Judicial Council’s action follows a resolution 

supporting the use of cameras passed by judges and lawyers 

attending the 2007 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference. We share 

the view that allowing the pilot program to move forward, subject 

to the sound discretion of the District Judges, will be useful and is 

important. It will offer a basis to evaluate whether the use of 

cameras significantly improves public access to court proceedings. 

Exploring the experimental use of cameras in the courtroom will 

contribute to better understanding of how federal courts can best 

ensure that the right to public access is fostered in practical and 

meaningful ways. Public access to federal court proceedings, with 

only extremely limited exceptions, is a bedrock principle and 

firmly established constitutional right. As our society changes and 

public access to federal courts can be more difficult in light of 

increased security concerns and numerous other factors, the 

Case 3:09-cv-02292-JW Document 406 Filed 01/11/10 Page 9 of 10
Case 3:09-cv-02292-JW Document 406 Filed 01/11/10 Page 10 of 10