1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TAMMY KITZMILLER, et al., : Case No. 04cv2688

:

Plaintiffs : Judge Jones

:

v. :

:

DOVER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,:

:

Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

September 7, 2005

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

Pending before the Court is a Motion to Intervene (“the Motion”) (doc. 141)

filed by the Courtroom Television Network LLC (“Court TV” or “Applicant”) on

September 2, 2005. We will deny the Motion for the reasons that follow.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:

The procedural chronology of this case has been set forth in prior orders and

is well known to the parties. The following brief recitation of that history is

sufficient for purposes of this Court’s review of the pending Motion. 

On December 14, 2004, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants,

Dover Area School District and Dover Area School District Board of Directors

Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 168 Filed 09/07/05 Page 1 of 8
1

 Counsel for Court TV contacted both parties regarding their position on the instant

Motion. Plaintiffs’ counsel takes no position on the Motion and defers to the Court’s judgment

on this issue. Counsel for the Defendants do not oppose the Motion at issue. (Mot. Intervene at

3). 

2

(collectively “Defendants” or “DASD”), in the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Pennsylvania. (See Rec. Doc. 1). On January 6, 2005,

Defendants filed an answer in the above-captioned case. 

In their complaint, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants’ October 18, 2004

resolution and November 19, 2004 press release (collectively, “the Policy”)

facially and as applied violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to

the United States Constitution. (See Cmplt. at Count One). In addition, Plaintiffs

state that Defendants’ Policy violates Art. 1, § 3 and Art. III, §§ 15 & 29 of the

Pennsylvania Constitution facially and as applied. See id. at Count Two.

In its submissions to the Court, the Applicant describes itself as a national

cable news network dedicated to comprehensive reporting on the legal and judicial

systems of the United States, the fifty states, and the District of Columbia. In

addition, the Applicant asserts that since its creation in 1991, its cornerstone has

been televising civil and criminal trials as they occur in countries around the world. 

 

On September 2, 2005, Court TV filed the instant Motion pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed.R.Civ.P.”) 24(b).1

 The Motion is ripe for

Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 168 Filed 09/07/05 Page 2 of 8
3

disposition.

DISCUSSION:

As we previously indicated, Court TV filed the Motion pursuant to

Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b) for the limited purpose of seeking leave to record and telecast

the trial proceedings in this action. In support of its Motion, the Applicant raises

issues including the public interest, public policy, such as the education of

children, the role of religion in public education, and the origins of life, all in

support of limited intervention to telecast the trial proceedings in the case sub

judice. Court TV asserts that no prurient interests would be advanced by televised

coverage and that there are no privacy concerns, nor a jury to protect. To the

contrary, Court TV maintains in its submissions that this case is a defining example

of the kind of judicial proceeding in which the gravity of its actual implications for

the public matches the public’s fervent interest in the proceeding itself. 

We will initially discuss the concept of permissive intervention under

Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b), pursuant to which Court TV seeks to intervene in this matter. 

Federal Rule 24(b) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 168 Filed 09/07/05 Page 3 of 8
4

(b) Permissive Intervention. Upon timely application anyone may

be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute of the United

States confers a conditional right to intervene; or (2) when an

applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a question of

law or fact in common . . . In exercising its discretion the court shall

consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the

adjudication of the rights of the original parties. 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b). Whether to grant permissive intervention is within the Court’s

discretion, but in making this determination, courts consider whether the proposed

intervenors will add anything to the litigation. Kitzmiller, No. 04-CV-2688, 2005

WL 578974, at *6; see also Hoots v. Pennsylvania, 672 F.2d 1133, 1136 (3d Cir.

1982). 

Court TV thus maintains that Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b)(2) provides the appropriate

means for it to bring this matter before the Court and to thereby request permission

to televise the trial proceedings. However, it is unnecessary for us to resolve the

issue of whether Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b)(2) is the appropriate procedural vehicle, since

after a careful review of the Guide to Judiciary Polices and Procedures (“the

Guide”), the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

Local Rules of Court (“Local Rules”), applicable case law, and upon consideration

by the Court, we have determined that we cannot grant the relief sought by Court

TV. Assuming, arguendo, that we allowed the requested intervention, we would

nonetheless arrive at the conclusion that televising the proceedings in the fashion

Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 168 Filed 09/07/05 Page 4 of 8
5

sought by Court TV is prohibited. Accordingly, our brief analysis will focus upon

the substantive question of whether cameras are allowed in a federal courtroom

under the circumstances presented in this case, and as noted it will therefore not be

necessary for us to resolve the procedural question involving permissive

intervention pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b)(2).

First, the Guide is the official medium by which direction as to courtroom

procedures and other information are provided to the Federal Judiciary in support

of its day-to-day operations. The Guide also codifies policies which are

promulgated by Director of the Administrative Office (“AO”) and approved by the

Judicial Conference of the United States. Within the Guide is a policy issued at the

direction of the Judicial Conference of the United States and applicable to all

United States district and appellate courts on the subjects of broadcasting,

televising, recording, or taking photographs in a courtroom. Pursuant to the said

policy, a judge may authorize broadcasting, televising, recording, or taking

photographs in the courtroom and in adjacent areas during investitive,

naturalization, or other ceremonial proceedings. A judge may authorize such

activities in the courtroom or adjacent areas during other proceedings, or recesses

between such other proceedings, only:

(a) for the presentation of evidence;

Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 168 Filed 09/07/05 Page 5 of 8
6

(b) for the perpetuation of the record of the proceedings;

(c) for security purposes;

(d) for other purposes of judicial administration; or

(e) for the photographing, recording, or broadcasting of appellate

arguments. 

Guide to Judiciary Polices and Procedures: General Management and

Administration, Cameras in the Courtroom, ¶ 3(2002). Moreover, except with

respect to ceremonial proceedings and appellate proceedings, the above-referenced

policy does not authorize the contemporaneous photographing, recording, or

broadcasting or proceedings from the courtroom to the public beyond the

courthouse walls. Id. at ¶ 4. Therefore, the policy delineated by the Federal

Judicial Conference concerning cameras in the courtroom mandates that except in

connection with the above enumerated exceptions, which are not at issue in this

case, no audio or video taping in the courtroom is permitted for the purpose of

subsequent public dissemination. 

In addition, Local Rule 83.1.1 addresses broadcasting in judicial proceedings

and states, in relevant part, as follows:

The taking of photographs in the courtroom or its environs, or radio or

television broadcasting from the courtroom or its environs, or taping

or recording or its environs during the progress of and in connection

with judicial proceedings, including proceedings before a United

States Magistrate Judge, whether or not court is actually in session, is

Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 168 Filed 09/07/05 Page 6 of 8
2

 We note that Local Rule 83.1.2 permits ceremonial proceedings, which are not at issue

in this case, to be broadcast, photographed, televised, or recorded “under such conditions as the

judge may prescribe.” L.R. 83.1.2. 

7

prohibited. Environs of the courtroom shall include the entire floor on

which is located any courtroom, grand jury room, marshal’s office,

clerk’s office, or office of the United States Attorney, or any lock-up,

and the corridor or lobby on the main floor or street floor constituting

an entrance area to the building in which is located any elevator door

for elevators leading from such entrance areas of the building to any

such floor. The court may make such orders as may be necessary in

connection with any specific case to protect the rights of all parties

and the public. 

L.R. 83.1.1.2

 The aforementioned local rule therefore does not permit the taking of

photographs, radio or television broadcasting, or taping or recording in the

courtroom or its environs. 

Finally, we will not gainsay Court TV’s assertions regarding the

considerable public interest at issue in this case. To that end, we resolved that we

should engage in a substantive, merits analysis regarding the presence of cameras

in a federal courtroom as that issue relates to this case. Simply stated however, the

cited portion of the Guide, together with our Local Rules, direct us that the wellsettled policy of the Federal Judicial Conference, and the clear practice within the

Middle District of Pennsylvania, is not to allow telecasts in the fashion sought by

Court TV, even if we were philosophically inclined to allow cameras within our

Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 168 Filed 09/07/05 Page 7 of 8
3

 The issue of whether courtroom proceedings should be televised has been the subject of

extensive debate. While many state and local courts allow the practice, the Federal Judiciary

does not. We will leave the discussion as to whether that is a prudent course to others, Court

TV’s public policy arguments notwithstanding. 

8

courtroom.3 It is our considered view that we should neither derogate from the

clear policy mandate of the Federal Judicial Conference, nor should we abrogate

Local Rule 83.1.1. 

Accordingly, for the reasons cited herein, we hold that televising the

proceedings in the fashion sought by Court TV shall not be permitted in this case. 

Court TV’s Motion to Intervene is therefore denied, and accordingly its request for

oral argument on the instant Motion (doc. 144) is denied as moot.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The Motion to Intervene (doc. 141) filed by the Courtroom

Television Network LLC is DENIED.

2. The Request of Courtroom Television Network LLC for Oral

Argument (doc. 144) is DENIED as moot. 

s/ John E. Jones III

John E. Jones III

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 168 Filed 09/07/05 Page 8 of 8