F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T
K RI STI N M . PERRY ; SA N D RA B. S T IE R ; P A U L T . K A T A M I; JE F F R E Y J. Z AR R I L L O, P l ai n t i ffs - A p p el l ees, C I T Y A ND C OU NT Y O F S AN F R AN C I S C O, Int er veno r- P l ai nt i ff - A pp el l ee , ME DI A C OA L I T I ON , Int er veno r,
v. E D M U N D G
. B R O W N , Jr . , i n h i s off i ci al capaci ty a s G ov er no r of C al i forni a; K A M A L A D . H A R R IS , i n h eroffi ci al capaci ty a s A t t orney G ener al of C al i forni a; M A R K B . H O R T O N , i n h i s off i ci al c a p a c ity a s D ir e c to ro f

th e C a lif

o r n ia D e p a r tm e n t o f

P u b lic H e a lth & S ta te Re g i s tr a ro f

Vi t a l St a t i s t i c s ; LI NETT E S C O T T , in h e ro f

f ic ia l c a p a c ity a s D e p u ty D ir e c to ro f

H e a lth I n f

o r m a tio n & S tr a te g ic P l a nni ng f

orthe C a l i f

or ni a D e pa r t m e ntof Pu b l i c He a l th ; PATR I CK O’ CONN EL L, i n h i s off i ci al capaci ty a s C l er k-R ec order f o rth e Co u n ty o f

A l a me d a ; D EA N C. N o. 11- 17255 D . C
. N o . 3 : 0 9 -cv -0 2 2 9 2 -JW
OP I NI ON 

# FI LED FEB 02 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS- 2-

L O G A N , i n h i s off

i ci al capaci ty a s R e gi s tr a r - R e c or de r / C ounty C l e r k f orthe C o u n ty o f L o s A n g el es, D efen d an t s,
a nd D E N N IS H O L L IN G S W O R T H ; G A IL J. KN I GH T; M ARTI N F. GU TI ER RE Z; H A K
- SH I N G W I LLI A M TA M ; M A RK A. J AN S S ON ; P R OT E C T MAR R I AG E . C OM - YE S ON 8, A P R O JE C T O F C A L IF O R N IA R E N E W A L , a s of

f i c i a l pr opone nt s of P r opos i t i on 8, In t erv en o r-D efen d an t s - A p p el l an t s.
A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f o rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f C a lif o r n ia J a m e s W a r e , C hi e f

D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i t t e d D e c e m be r8, 2011 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o r n ia

B efo re: R E IN H A R D T , H A W K IN S , an d N . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Op i n i o n b y J u d g e RE I NH ARDT: I n thi s l a t e s t r ound of l i t i ga t i on c onc e r ni ng C a l i f or ni a ’ s a dopt i on of a n i ni t i a t i ve
c ons t i tut i ona l a m e ndm e nt t o pr ohi bi t s a m e - s e x m a r r i a ge , w e m us tde c i de w he the rthe- 3-

di s tr i c t c our t a bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by or de r i ng the uns e a l i ng of the vi de o r e c or di ng of the t ri al , w hi ch had p urpo rt edl y bee n p re pare d b y the t ri al j ud ge for hi s i n-cham bers
us e onl y a nd w a s l a t e r p l aced i n t h e r e c or d a nd s e a l e d by hi m . T he or de r , i s s ue d by hi s s uc c e s s orf

ol l ow i ng hi s r e t i r e m e nt , w oul d p er m i tthe br oa dc a s tof the r e c or di ng f o ra l l t o v i e w. Iti s i m p o rt an tt o ex p l ai n a t th e o u t setw h ato u r reso l u t i o n o f t h i s case i s not
a bout
. F i r s t , w e do not r e s ol ve a ny of the pol i c y que s t i ons w i th w hi c h c our t s a r e now strugg l i ng abou tho w t o rec on ci l e the t ra di t i on al conceptof “o p en n ess” i n j ud i ci al proceedi ng s w i th the devel op m ent of t ec hn ol og y that has gi ven the term a n ew
m e a n in g . T h e J u d ic ia l C o n f e r e n c e o f th e U n ite d S ta te s a n d C ir c u it J u d ic ia l C o u n c ils ha ve be e n c ons i de r i ng thi s i s s ue f ors om e t i m e , a nd w e ha ve ne i the rthe ne e d northe desi re t o o ff

er an addi t i on al op i ni on here
. W hi l e w e agree w i th Just i ce H ol m es “ that the tr i a l of

c a us e s sh o u l d t ak e p l ace unde rthe publ i c e y e , . . . be c a us e i ti s of the h i g h estm o m en t th a t th o se w h o ad m i n i st er j u st i ce sh o u l d al w ays actu n d er t h e sen se
o f p u b l i c resp o n si b i l i ty, an d th at ev ery ci t i zen sh o u l d b e ab l e t o sat i sfy h i m s e lf w ith hi s ow n eye s a s t o t he m od e i n w hi ch a pub l i c dut y i s per form ed, ” C ow l ey v. P ul si f er , 137 M a s s . 392, 394 ( 1884) , the tr i a l i n thi s c a s e w a s he l d “ unde rthe publ i c e y e ” i n the tr a d itio n a l s e n s e o f

th e p h r a s e . W h e th e ro rh o w c o u r ts s h o u ld m e e t th e s p ir it a s w e ll
as th e l et t er o f Ju st i ce H o l m es’ s ad m o n i t i o n , fo r ex am p l e b y au th o ri zi n g th e b ro ad cast- 4-

of t ri al s i n p ar t i cul ar circ u m stan ce s or a s a general m att er , w i l l be det er m i ned ul t i m a t e l y by th e J udi c i a r y a s a n i ns t i tut i on orby m a nda t e f r om C ongr e s s . T he
na r r ow e rc ons i de r a t i on t h at cont r ol s ourde c i s i on he r e i s w he the r , gi ve n the uni que
c ir c u m s ta n c e s s u r r o u n d in g th e c r e a tio n a n d s e a lin g o f th e r e c o r d in g o f th e tr ia l in th is
c a s e , th e p u b lic is e n title d to v ie w th a t r e c o r d in g s o m e tw o y e a r s a f te rth e tr ia l. S e c ond, ourrul i ng ha s nothi ng t o do w i th the f r e e dom of

the pr e s s t o publ i s h, de s c r i be , orc om m en t o n an y i nf or m a t i on t o w hi c h i tobt a i ns a c c e s s . R a the r , the que s t i on he r e i s w h et h erc our t s a r e r e qui r e d ( ore ve n f r e e ) t o gi ve to th e m e d ia i nf o rm at i on tha ti s notor di na r i l y a va i l a bl e
— a nd s pe c i f i c a l l y w he the ra r e c or di ng purpor t e dl y m a de f

or t h e so l e purpos e of

a i di ng the tr i a l j udge i n the pr e pa r a t i on of hi s opi ni on, a nd the n pl a c e d i n the r e c or d a nd s e a l e d, m a y s hor t l y the r e a f t e rbe m a de p u b lic b y th e c o u r t. W e r e s ol ve the na r r ow que s t i on be f or e us on a na r r ow ba s i s w he n w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c t c our t a bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by or de r i ng the uns e a l i ng of the r e c or di ng of the tr i a l notw i ths t an d i ng the tr i a l j udge ’ s c om m i t m e ntt o the pa r t i e s tha tthe
r e c or di ng w oul d notbe pub l i cl y br oa dc a s t . T he tr i a l j udge on s e ve r a l oc c a s i ons
un equi vo ca l l y prom i se d t hatthe re cordi ng of t he t ri al w ou l d b e use d o nl y i n cham bers and n otpu bl i cl y broadcas t . H e m ade these com m i t m ent s bec ause the S up re m e C ou rt h a d in te r v e n e d in th is v e r y c a s e in a m a n n e r th a t r e q u ir e d h im to d o s o , H o llin gs w o r th- 5-

v. P erry , 1 3 0 S . C t. 7 0 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . T h u s , h is c o m m itm e n ts w e r e n o t m e r e ly br oa d a s s ur a nc e s a boutthe pr i va c y of j udi c i a l r e c or ds i n the c a s e ; the y c oul d notha ve been m ore expl i ci t l y di re ct ed t ow ar d the part i cul ar re cordi ng ati ss ue. In fi nd i ng that the tr i a l j udge ha d not m a de a c om m i t m e ntt o de ny the publ i c a c c e s s t o the r e c or di ng, the di stri ctcourtabused i t s d i sc re t i on : i t s f i nd i ng w as “ w i tho ut‘ supp orti n i nfer ence s thatm ay be draw n from the fa ct s i n t he re cord. ’ ” U ni t e d Stat e s v . Hi nk

s on , 585 F
. 3d 1247, 1262 ( 9th C i r. 2 0 09) ( e n ba nc )
. T he di s tr i c tc our tf ur the ra bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by hol di ng tha t the de t e r m i na t i ons m a de by the tr i a l j udge r e ga r di ng the pl a c e m e ntof th e r e c o r d in g u n d e rs e a l d id n o t b in d a d if f e r e n t ju d g e p r e s e n te d w ith a m o tio n to
uns e a l

— a c onc l us i on tha tw e r e ga r d a s a n “ i m pl a us i bl e ” a nd “ i l l ogi c a l ” a ppl i c a t i on
o f th e la w . I

d. E ac h o f these abuses of di sc re t i on m ani fe st s the sa m e bas i c e rr or: the di stri ct
c o u r t f a ile d to a p p r e c ia te th e n a tu r e o f th e s ta te m e n ts th a t th e tr ia l ju d g e h a d m a d e to the l i t i ga nt s , the s pe c i f

i c f a c tua l a nd l e ga l c ont e xti n w hi c h h e m ad e t h em , a nd the
c o n s e q u e n c e s o f

h is h a v in g d o n e s o . T h e in te g r ity o f o u rju d ic ia l s y s te m d e p e n d s in
n o sm all p ar t o n th e a b il ity o f lit ig an ts an d m em b er s o f th e p u b li c to re ly o n a ju d g e’s
w or d. T he r e co rd co m p e l s the f i ndi ng tha tthe tr i a l j udge ’ s r e pr e s e nt a t i ons t o the p a r tie s w e r e s o l e m n c o m m itm e n ts . U p o n th is r e c o r d , th e r e is o n ly o n e p la u s ib le
a ppl i c a t i on of

the s t a nda r d f

ors e a l i ng a r e c or d tha ti s , a r gue ndo, s ubj e c tt o the- 6-

c om m on-l aw ri g h t of

publ i c a c c e s s : the i nt e r e s ti n pr e s e r vi ng the s a nc t i ty of the j udi c i a l p r o c e s s i s a c o mp e l l i n g r e a s o n t o o v e r r i d e th e p r e s u mp t i o n i n f a v o ro f the
r e c or di ng’ s r e l e a s e . W e the r e f or e r e ve r s e the or de rof

the di s tr i c tc our ta s a n a bus e of its d is c r e tio n a n d r e m a n d w ith in s tru c tio n s to m a in ta in th e r e c o r d in g u n d e rs e a l. I In t he w ee ks pri or t o t he Ja nu ar y 2 01 0 tri al i n thi s cas e, the t ri al j ud ge, form er C hi e f J udge V a ughn R
. W a l ke rof the U . S
. D i s tr i c tC our tf orthe N or the r n D i s tr i c tof C a l i f or ni a , e xpress e d a de s i r e t o s a t i s f y the publ i c ’ s i nt e r e s ti n the c a s e by br oa dc a s t i n g a vi de o f e e d of the pr oc e e di ngs t o va r i ous f e de r a l c our thous e s a nd
o n lin e . T h a t m a y w e ll h a v e b e e n a r e a s o n a b le d e s ir e , b u t th e d e c is io n w a s n o t e n tir e ly h is to m a k e . T h e N in th C ir c u it J u d ic ia l C o u n c il h a d e s ta b lis h e d a p ilo t p r o g r a m in
m id
- D e c e m b e r2 0 0 9 to a llo w th e b r o a d c a s t o f c e r t a in p r o c e e d in g s in d is tr ic t c o u r ts
w it h in the ci rc ui t , and t he C hi ef Judg e of the C i rc ui thad app roved t hi s c ase’s in c lu s io n in th a t p ilo t p r o g r a m . S e v e r a l d a y s la te r , th e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f C a lif o r n ia
a m e nde d i t s l oc a l rul e gove r ni ng c a m e r a s i n the c our tr oom t o a l l ow f orpa r t i c i pa t i on i n t he prog ra m of ca se s broug ht i n that di stri ct . T hen, on the m orni ng of t he fi rs tday of tr i a l , the S upr e m e C our t

— a tthe r e que s tof A ppe l l a nt s , the of

f i c i a l pr opone nt s of P r o p o s itio n 8 ( “P r o p o n e n ts ” )

— is s u e d a te m p o r a r y s ta y o f th e b r o a d c a s t. H o l l i n gsw o rth v. P erry , 13 0 S
. C t . 11 32 (201 0) (m em . ). T w o days l at er , the C ou rtT h i s ru l e— th e o n e i n p l ace p ri o r t o th e at t em p t ed am en d m en t

— r e a d in 1 rel ev an tp artas fo l l o w s: U nl e s s a l l ow e d by a J udge ora M a gi s tr a t e J udge w i th r e s pe c tt o hi s or he row n c ha m be r s ora s s i gne d c our tr oom f orc e r e m oni al p u rpos e s , the t a ki ng of phot ogr a phs , publ i c br oa dc a s t i ng ort e l e vi s i ng, orr e c or di ng f or thos e purpos e s i n the c our tr oom ori t s e nvi r ons , i n c onne c t i on w i th a ny j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ng, i s pr ohi bi t e d. E l ect r oni c tr a ns m i t t a l of c our tr oom pr oc e e di ngs a nd pr e s e nt a t i on of e vi de nc e w i thi n the c onf i ne s of t he court ho use i s perm i t t ed, i f a ut ho ri ze d b y the Judg e or M agi stra t e J ud ge.

- 7- e n te r e d a f

u r th e rs ta y p e n d in g th e f ilin g o f a p e titio n f

o r m a n d a m u s o rc e r tio r a r i, h o ld in g th a t “th e c o u r ts b e lo w d id n o t f o llo w t h e a p p r o p r ia te p r o c e d u r e s s e t f o r th in fe dera l l aw before changi ng thei r rul es t o al l ow such broadcast i ng . ” H ol l i ngsw orth v. P erry , 13 0 S
. C t . 70 5, 70 6 (201 0) (percuri am ). T he e f f e c tof the C our t ’ s i nt e r ve nt i on
w as thatfor the du ra t i on of t he t ri al i n thi s m att er , the ef fe ct i ve vers i on of t he di stri ct
c o u r t’s L o c a l R u le 7 7
- 3 p r o h ib ite d th e r e c o r d in g o f th e tr ia l f

o rf u tu r e b r o a d c a s t. 1 T he di s tr i c tc our tr e c or d ed t h e f i r s ttw o da y s of

the tr i a l on the ba s i s tha tthe S u p re m e C o u rt m ig h t d ec id e t o li ft th e t em p o ra ry stay , b u t af ter th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s
s ta y b e c a m e p e r m a n e n t, P r o p o n e n ts a s k e d th a t th e r e c o r d in g b e s to p p e d . I t w a s in th is
co n t ex tth atC h i ef Ju d g e W al k er resp o n d ed as fo l l o w s: T he l ocal rul e perm i t s the re cordi ng for pu rposes . . . of use i n cham bers

. . . . A nd I thi nk i t w oul d be qui t e he l pf ul t o m e i n pr e pa r i ng the f i ndi ngs of f a c tt o ha ve tha tr e c or di ng. S o tha t ’ s the purp o se f orw hi c h the r e c or di ng i s goi ng t o be m a de goi ng f or w a r d. B ut i t ’ s notgoi ng t o be f or purpos e s of

publ i c br oa dc a s t i ng ort e l e vi s i ng.T he y di d, how e ve r , f i l e a pe t i t i on f

or a w r i t of c e r t i or a r i i n A pr i l 2010, s e e ki ng 2 t o v ac at e thi s c ou rt ’ s deni al of t hei r pet i t i on for a w ri tof m andam us t o p re ventC hi ef J u d g e W a lk e rf

r o m b r o a d c a s tin g th e tr ia l. P e titio n f o ra W r it o f

C e r tio r a r i, H o llin gs w o r th v . U

.S . D is t. C o u r t fo rN

o r th e r n D is t . o

f C a lifo r n ia , 131 S
. C t . 372 (201 0) (N o. 09 -123 8), 20 10 W L 15 13 09 3. T he S up re m e C ou rtul t i m at el y gra nt ed c e r t i o rari an d re m a nde d w i th i ns truc t i ons t o di s m i s s the pe t i t i on f ora w r i tof m a n d a m u s a s m o o t. H ol l i ngs w or th v
. U

. S. D is t . C our t

f orN or the r n D is t . of C a lifo r n ia , 13 1 S
. C t . 37 2 (20 10 ) ( m em . ). P ar agra ph 7. 3 o f the prot ec t i ve order provides i n rel evantpartthatpart i es m ay 3 di sc l os e co vere d m at er i al s “ on l y t o: (a ) .
. . C ou nsel of re cord .
. . , as w el l as e m pl oy e e s of

s a i d C ouns e l t o w hom i ti s r e a s ona bl y neces s a r y t o di s c l os e the i nf or m a t i on f

orthi s l i t i ga t i on a nd w ho ha ve s i gne d a n ‘ A gr e e m e ntt o B e B ound by P rot ec t i ve O rder ’
. . . ; (b) E xp er t s . . . (1) t o w ho m di sc l osure i s r ea sonabl y nec es sa ry f orthi s l i t i ga t i on [ a nd] ( 2) w ho ha ve s i gne d the ‘ A gr e e m e ntt o B e B ound by P r o te c tiv e O r d e r ’
. . . ; ( c ) th e C o u r t a n d its p e r s o n n e l; [ a n d ] ( d ) c o u r t r e p o r te r s , th e ir s ta f f s , a n d p r o f

e s s io n a l v e n d o r s to w h o m d is c lo s u r e is r e a s o n a b ly n e c e s s a r y f o rth is l i t i gat i on and w ho have si gn ed t h e ‘A gree m entt o B e B ou nd by P rot ec t i ve O rder ’ . . . .”

- 8- P r o p o n e n ts d r o p p e d th e iro b je c tio n a t th a t p o in t. 2 I n M a y 2 0 1 0 , s h o r tly b e f o r e c lo s in g a r g u m e n ts , C h ie f J u d g e W a lk e r o f f e r e d to
m a ke c opi e s of

the vi de o r e c or di ng a va i l a bl e t o a ny pa r t i e s t o the p ro ceed i n g w ho
w is h e d to u s e e x c e rp ts d u r in g th e ira r g u m e n ts , w ith th e p r o v is o th a t th e c o p ie s w o u ld be m a i nt a i ne d u n d er a st ri c tpr ot e c t i ve or de r . P l a i nt i f f s a nd the C i ty a nd C ounty of 3 S an F ra nci sc o o bt ai ned cop i es . A ft ercl osi ng ar gu m ent s, P ropo nent s m ov ed t o requi re th e retu rn o f t h e co p i es. C hi e f J udge W a l ke r’ s opi ni on, i s s ue d on A ugus t4, 2010, r e s ol ve d a ny
r e m a in in g q u e s tio n r e g a r d in g th e s ta tu s o f th e r e c o r d in g s :- 9-

T he tr i a l pr oc e e di ngs w e r e r e c or de d a nd us ed b y t h e c our ti n pr e pa r i ng th e f i n d i n g s o f

f a c ta n d c o n c l u s i o n s o f

l a w; th e c l e r k i s n o w D I RE CT ED t o fi l e the t ri al re cordi ng un der sea l as part of the re cord. T he part i es m ay r e t a i n the i rc opi e s of

t h e t ri al r e c or di ng pur s ua ntt o the t e r m s of the prot ec t i ve order her ein
. P ropo nent s’ m ot i on t o o rderthe copi es ’ re turn i s a c c o r d i n g l y DE NI E D. P er ry v. Schw arze negg er , 704 F
. S upp. 2d 921, 929 ( N . D . C a l
. 2010) ( doc um e nt ci t at i on s o m it te d). In t hei r app ea l fr om the j ud gm ent , P ropo nent s c hal l enged n ei ther th e d en ial o f th eir m o ti o n to co m p el th e r etu rn o f t h e c o p ie s n o r th e d istrict co u rt’s
e ntr y of the r e c or di ng i n the r e c or d. In t he sa m e op i ni on , C hi ef Judg e W al ker c i t ed t he el i m i nat i on of t he po t ent i al for pub l i c broadcas tof t he t ri al as a negat i ve fa ct or i n w ei gh i ng the evi dence offe re d b y P r o p o n e n ts . O b s e r v in g th a t “P r o p o n e n ts e le c te d n o t to c a ll th e m a jo r ity o f t h e ir d esi g n at e d w i tn esses t o t est i fy attri al , ” C h i ef Ju d g e W al k er q u o t ed P ro p o n en t s’
c o u n s e l’s e x p la n a tio n th a t th e w itn e s s e s h a d b e e n “‘e x tr e m e ly c o n c e r n e d a b o u t th e ir p e r s o n a l s a f

e ty , a n d d id n o t w a n t to a p p e a rw ith a n y r e c o r d in g o f a n y s o r t,
w hat soever . ’ ” I

d
. a t 94 4. H e the n r e j e c t e d thi s e xp l a na t i on , on the ba s i s t hat

“ pr o p o n e n t s f

a i l e d t o ma k e a n y e f

f o r t t o c a l l th e i r w i tn e s s e s a f t e r th e p o t e nt i a l f

or publ i c br oa dc a s ti n the c a s e ha d be e n el i m i na t ed
. ” I d
. (e m ph as i s a dd ed). L e s s tha n a y e a ra f

t e ri s s ui ng hi s opi ni on, C hi e f J udge W a l ke r r e t i r e d f r om the bench . B o th b ef

ore a nd af

t erhi s r et i re m ent , he di spl ay ed excerpt s f rom the t ri alW e a re no t as ked t o re vi ew the fi nd i ng that no vi ol at i on of the prot ec t i ve order 4 ha d oc c ur r e d.

- 10- r e c o r d i n g d u r i n g p u b l i c a p p e a r a n c e s . A s a r e s u l t , Pr o p o n e n t s a s k e d u s t o or de r t he
r e tur n of a l l c opi e s of

the tr i a l r e c or di ng. P l a i nt i f f s f i l e d a c r os s - m ot i on t o uns e a l the
r e c o r d in g . W e tr a n s f

e r r e d th e s e m o tio n s a n d th e s u p p o r tin g p a p e r s to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. A ft erC hi ef

Judg e W ar e, w ho re pl ac ed C hi ef Judg e W al ker a s the pres id in g j ud ge,
o rd ered al l p art i es i n p o ssessi o n o f co p i es o f th e r eco rd i n g t o sh o w cau se w h y th o se
c o p i e s s h o u l d n o t b e r e tu r n e d , f o r me r Ch i e f J u d g e W a l k e r l o d g e d h i s c o p y w i t h t he
c o u r t , a n d Ch i e f

J u d g e W a r e d i s c h a r g e d th e s h o w - c a u s e o r d e ra s t o h i m. O n Jun e 14, 20 11 , C hi ef Judg e W ar e deni ed P ropo nent s’ m ot i on for the re turn of the tr i a l r e c or di ng, f

i ndi ng tha t no vi ol a t i on of the pr ot e c t i ve or de r ha d oc c ur r e d. 4 H e a l so i nd i ca t ed t hathe w ou l d return t he re cordi ng t o form erC hi ef Ju d g e W al ker. I n r e s pons e t o C hi e f J udge W a r e ’ s i nvi t a t i on, P r opone nt s f i l e d a br i e f

a s ki ng tha tthe
r e c o r d in g n o t b e r e tu r n e d to f o r m e rC h ie f

J u d g e W a lk e ro rth a t it b e h e ld b y h im
un der the t er m s of the prot ec t i ve order. O n S e p te m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 1 1 , C h ie f J u d g e W a r e g r a n te d P la in tif f s ’ c r o s s - m o tio n to
u n s e a l th e r e c o r d i n g . P er ry v. Schw arze negg er , N o . C 0 9
- 0 2 2 9 2 J W, 2 0 1 1 WL 4527349 (N
. D . C a l
. S e pt . 19, 2011)
. H e c onc l ude d tha tthe c om m on- l a w r i ghtof p u b lic a c c e s s a p p lie d to th e r e c o r d in g , th a t n e i t h e rth e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s d e c is io n in- 11-

H o llin gs w o r th no r the l ocal rul e go verni ng audi ov i sual re cordi ng s bar re d i t s r el ea se , and t hatP ropo nent s had m ade no sho w i ng suff i cien t to ju st i fy i t s s ea l i ng i n t he fa ce
o f th e c o m m o n - la w r ig h t. I d
. a t *3- 6. H e a l s o di r e c t e d tha ta c opy of the r e c or di ng be
r e tu r n e d to f

o r m e rC h ie f

J u d g e W a lk e r . I

d
. a t*6. T hi s app ea l fol l ow ed. W e gra nt ed P ropo nent s’ m ot i on for a st ay pend i ng appeal and al l ow ed t he M edi a C oal i t i on t o i nt er vene. II A T w o que s t i ons a r e pr e s e nt e d: f i r s t , w he the r the tr i a l r e c or di ng i s s ubj e c tt o the
c o m m o n - la w p r e s u m p tio n o f p u b lic a c c e s s ; a n d s e c o n d , w h e th e r th e r e is a s u f f ic ie n tly
com pel l i ng re as on t o o verr i de any s uch p re sum pt i on here
. In re vers i ng the di stri ct
co u rt ’ s d eci si o n t o u n s e a l th e reco rd i n g , w e assu m e, fo r p u rp o ses o f t h i s case o n l y, tha tthe a ns w e rt o the f

i r s tque s t i on i s y e s a nd de c i de onl y the s e c ond que s t i on. W e r e v i e w f

o ra b u s e o f

d is c r e tio n a “d e c is io n to u n s e a l th e ju d ic ia l r e c o r d .” Ka m a ka n a v . C ity & C o u n ty o f H o n o lu lu , 44 7 F . 3d 11 72 , 11 78 n. 3 (9t h C i r. 20 06 ). U nd erthe abuse-of- di sc re t i on stan d ar d , i f “ the t ri al courti dent i fi ed t he corre ctl egal
ru le to ap p ly to th e r elief r eq u es ted ,” w e m u s t “ d eter m in e w h eth er th e trial co u rt’s
a ppl i c a t i on of

the c or r e c tl e ga l s t a nda r d w a s ( 1 ) ‘ i l l ogi c a l , ’ ( 2) ‘ i m pl a us i bl e , ’ or( 3)
w ith o u t ‘ su p p o rt in in fe re n ce s th at m ay b e d ra w n fr o m th e f a c ts in th e r ec o rd .’ ”- 12-

Hi nk s on , 58 5 F . 3d at12 62
. If i tw as , then w e ar e “ab le t o h ave a ‘ defi ni t e a nd fi rm
c onvi c t i on’ tha tthe di s tr i c t c our t r e a c he d a c onc l us i on tha tw a s a ‘ m i s t a ke ’ orw a s not
am on g i t s ‘ perm i ss i bl e’ op t i on s, and thu s that i t abused i t s di sc re t i on . ” I d. I n a ddi t i on,
a n e r r o r o f la w c o n s titu te s a n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . I

d
. at1 2 6 1 -6 2
. T h u s, w e al so rev erse i f , i n a ppl y i ng the pr ope r l e ga l s t a nda r d, the tr i a l c our t ove r l ooks orm i s c ons true s a ny b in d in g p r e c e d e n t. Se e Y okoy am a v . Mi dland N

at . L i f e I ns . C o. , 594 F
. 3d 1087, 1092- 93 (9t h C i r. 20 10 ). “H is to r ic a lly , c o u r ts h a v e r e c o g n iz e d a ‘g e n e r a l r ig h t to in s p e c t a n d c o p y p u b lic
re cords a nd do cum ent s, i ncl ud i ng j ud i ci al re cords and d ocum ent s. ’ ” Kam akana , 447 F . 3d a t1178 ( quot i ng N i xon v. W arner C om m un i ca ti on s, Inc. , 435 U
. S
. 589, 597 &
n. 7 (19 78 ))
. P r o p o n e n ts p r e s e n t tw o a r g u m e n ts th a t th is c o m m o n - la w r ig h t o f p u b lic
ac ce ss do es n o t a p p ly t o t he re cordi ng ati ss ue here. T he fi rs ti s thatthe vi deo
r e c or di ng of

a tr i a l i s not one of

the ty pe s of

r e c or ds t o w hi c h the c om m on- l a w r i ght
a t t a c he s . T he s e c ond i s tha t N or the r n D i s tr i c t of C a l i f or ni a L oc a l R ul e 77- 3, unde rthe t e r m s o f wh i c h th e tr i a l wa s r e c o r d e d i n th e f i r s tp l a c e , a b r o g a t e s th e c o m m o n l a w. As not e d a bove , w e ne e d nota nd do notde c i de w he the rP r opone nt s ’ a r gum e nt s a r e i n a ny resp ectm eri to r io u s: w e si m p l y assu m e, w i th o u td eci d i n g , fo r p u rp o ses o f t h i s case
on l y, thatthe com m on -l aw pres um pt i on of p u bl i c a cc es s app l i es t o t he re cordi ng at i s s ue he r e a nd tha ti ti s nota br oga t e d by the l oc a l rul e i n que s t i on.N or the r n D i s tr i c tof C a l i fo rn i a L oc a l R ul e 79- 5( f ) pr ovi de s tha t“ [ a ] ny 5 doc um e nt f

i l e d unde r s e a l i n a c i vi l c a s e s ha l l be ope n t o publ i c i ns pe ct i o n w i t h out fu rt h er act i o n b y th e C o u rt 1 0 years fro m th e d at e t h e case i s cl o sed , ” w i th th e p ro v i so th at“ a p art y th atsu b m i t t ed d o cu m en t s th atth e C o u rtp l aced u n d er seal i n a case m ay, u p o n s h o w in g g o o d c a u s e a t th e c o n c lu s io n o f th e c a s e , s e e k a n o r d e rth a t w o u ld c o n tin u e th e s e a l u n til a s p e c if ic d a te b e y o n d th e 1 0 y e a r s p r o v id e d b y th is ru le .”

- 13- B

“ T he com m on l aw ri gh tof ac ce ss . . . i s notabsol ut e a nd ca n b e overri dd en gi ven suffi ci ent l y c om p el l i ng re as on s f or do i ng so. ” Fol t

zv . Stat e Far m Mut . A ut o. I ns . C o. , 331 F
. 3d 1122, 1135 ( 9th C i r . 2003)
. W e c onc l ude tha t the r e i s a c om pe l l i ng
re as on i n thi s ca se for ov er ri di ng the com m on -l aw ri gh tand t hat , i n fai l i ng t o i dent i fy tha tr e a s on on the ba s i s of the r e c or d be f or e i t , the di s tr i c t c our ta bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on. T h e r e a s o n is th a t P r o p o n e n ts r e a s o n a b ly r e lie d o n C h ie f J u d g e W a l k e r ’s s p e c if ic
a s s ur a nc e s
— c om pe l l e d by the S upr e m e C our t ’ s j u st -i ss ue d opi ni on— tha tthe
re cordi ng w ou l d n otbe broadcastt o t he pu b li c, atl ea sti n t he fores ee abl e f uture. 5 W hi l e C hi ef

Judg e W ar e foun d that no such as sura nces had bee n g i ven and concl ud ed tha t , i n a ny e ve nt , he w a s notbound by pr om i s e s m a de by hi s pr e de c e s s or , 2011 W L 4 5 2 7 3 4 9 , a t* 4 , h i s f

i n d i n g wa s “ wi th o u t‘ s u p p o r ti n i n f e r e n c e s th a tm a y b e d r a wn f r om the f a c t s i n the r e c or d, ’ ” a nd hi s c onc l us i on— w hi c h c ontr a ve ne s the ve r y not i on
o f j udi c i a l i nt e gr i ty — w a s a n “ i m pl a us i bl e ” a nd “ i l l ogi c a l ” a ppl i c a t i on of the- 14-

“c o m p e llin g r e a s o n ” s ta n d a r d to th e f a c ts a t is s u e h e r e . Hi nk s on , 5 85 F
. 3d a t1262. C h ie f J u d g e W a r e th u s a b u s e d h is d is c r e tio n . I d. I n te rp r e te d in th e ir f

u ll c o n te x t, a t le a s t tw o o f C h ie f J u d g e W a lk e r ’s s ta te m e n ts
a m ountt o une qui voc a l a s s ur a nc e s tha tthe vi de o r e c or di ng a ti s s ue w oul d notbe
a c c e s s i bl e t o the publ i c . N o othe ri nf e r e nce can p l au s i bl y be dr a w n f r om the r e c or d. F i rst , fo l l o w i n g th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’ s i ssu an ce o f a st ay ag ai n stth e p u b l i c b ro ad cast of the tr i a l , C hi e f

J udge W a l ke rs t at ed i n ope n c our ttha the w a s goi ng t o c ont i nue

“ t aki ng the re co rd in g fo r pu rposes of use i n cham bers , ” butthatthe re cordi ng w as

“ notgoi ng t o be f

orpurpos e s of

publ i c br oa dc ast i n g ort e l e vi s i ng. ” I tw oul d be
u n reaso na bl e t o e xpe c tP r opone nt s , upon r e a di ng the S upr e m e C our t ’ s opi ni on a nd he a r i ng C hi e f J udge W a l ke r ’ s s t a t e m e nti n r e s pons e , t o f or e s e e tha ta r e c or di ng m a de for s uch l i m i t ed pu rposes m i gh tno net hel ess b e r el ea se d for vi ew i ng by the pu bl i c,
e i the rdur i ng ora f

t e r the tr i a l
. H a d C hi e f

J udge W a l ke rnotm a de the s t a t e m e nthe di d, P r opone nt s w oul d ve r y l i ke l y ha ve s oughta n or de rdi r e c t i ng hi m t o s t op recordi ng forthw i th, w hi ch, gi ven t he pri or t em po ra ry and furt her s t ay th ey h ad ju stob t ai ned f r o m th e S u p r e m e C o u r t, th e y m ig h t w e ll h a v e s e c u r e d
. S ec o n d , C h ief Ju d g e W alk er stated in h is o p in io n
— citi n g th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s t em p o rary an d p erm an en tst ays— th at“ th e p o te n tia l fo r p u b l i c b ro ad casti n th e case ha d be e n el i m i na t ed
. ” P erry , 70 4 F
. S up p. 2d at94 4 (em ph as i s a dd ed). H e m ade that- 15-

st at em enti n t he cont extof cr i t i ci zi ng P ropo nent s f or no thavi ng pres ent ed addi t i on al
w i tness es
— w i tness es w ho had, ac cordi ng t o P ropo nent s, been rel uct ant“ ‘ t o app ea r
w i th a ny re cordi ng of any s ort . ’ ” I d. W ith o u t th a t u n e q u iv o c a l s ta te m e n t, P r o p o n e n ts
a ga i n m i ghtw e l l h av e t ak e n a c t i on t o e ns ur e tha tthe r e c or di ng w oul d notbe m a de
a va i l a bl e f

orpubl i c vi e w i ng. C hi e f J u dge W a r e f

ound tha tthe s e s t a t e m e nt s di d notc ons t i tut e a pr om i s e by C hi ef Judg e W al ker that the re cordi ng w ou l d not be re l ea se d t o the pu bl i c. T he re cord
com pel s the op po si t e i nfer ence . C hi ef Judg e W ar e bas ed hi s fin d in g on the fa ctthat C hi e f J udge W a l ke rha d, “ w i thoutobj e c t i on, m a d e c opi e s of the di gi t a l r e c or di ng
a va i l a bl e t o the pa r t i e s f or us e dur i ng c l os i ng a r gum e nt s . ” 2011 W L 4527349, a t*4. A l l ow i ng thi s l i m i t ed and u nchal l enged i n-court room use of the re cordi ng , ho w ever , w a s n o t c o n tr a r y to C h ie f J u d g e W a lk e r ’s p r io rd e c la r a tio n s : th e c lo s in g a r g u m e n ts
w e r e n o t b r o a d c a s t to th e p u b lic , a n d th e d is p la y o f f o o ta g e d u r in g c lo s in g a r g u m e n ts
s e r v e d th e s a m e p u rp o s e a s th e r e c o r d i n g ’s in
- c h a m b e r s u s e
— h e lp in g th e ju d g e to
re ac h h is d ec isio n an d to p re p ar e h is o p in io n . W e th er ef o re re ject C h ief J u d g e W ar e’s fi n d i n g th atC h i ef Ju d g e W al k er m ad e n o co m m i t m en tt o th e p art i es t o lim i tth e u se of the r e c or di ng t o he l pi ng hi m w i th hi s ow n de l i be r a t i ons , a nd, m or e i m por t a nt , not t o al l ow the re cordi ng t o b e use d for “ pu bl i c broadcas t i ng or t el evi si ng . ” T he re cord
c l e a r l y s how s tha tC hi e f J udge W a l ke rdi d m a ke a c om m i t m en tnott o pe r m i tthe- 16-

pu bl i c broadcas tof the re cordi ng . C hi ef Judg e W ar e’ s fi nd i ng t o t he cont ra ry w as an ab u se of hi s di sc re t i on beca use i tl ac ked “ ‘ supp orti n i nfer ence s thatm ay be draw n fr om the fa ct s i n t he re cord. ’ ” Hi nk s on , 585 F
. 3d a t1262. C h ie f J u d g e W a r e f

u r th e rr e a s o n e d th a t P r o p o n e n ts h a d “o f f e r [ e d ] n o a u th o r ity i n s uppor t of the pr opos i t i on tha t the c ondi t i ons unde r w hi c h one j udge pl aces a do cum ent un der se al ar e bi nd i ng on a di ff er ent j ud ge, i f a m ot i on i s m ade t o that d iffe re n t j ud ge t o exam i ne w het her s ea l i ng i s j ust i fi ed, ” a nd thathe w as no t“ aw ar e of a ny a uthor i ty s t a ndi ng f or tha t pr opos i t i on. ” 2011 W L 4527349, a t *4. W he the ror
no tC hi ef

Judg e W ar e i s c orre ctas t o t he lack o f p re ce dentconcerni ng the general que s t i on w he the ra di s c r e t i ona r y de c i s i on m a de by one j udge bi nds a s ubs e que ntj udge i n th e sam e case, th atg en eral q u est i o n i s n o tth e o n e w e face h ere. A s a case pr ogr e s s e s a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s c ha nge , a c our tm a y s om e t i m e s pr ope r l y r e vi s e a pr i or
exer ci se of i t s d i sc re t i on , w het her the new order i s m ade by the sa m e j ud ge or anot her. T h e r e le v a n t q u e s t i o n h e r e , h o w e v e r , is w h e th e ra ju d g e m u s t in e x e r c is in g h is di sc re t i on re spec ta c o m m itm e n t th a t h is p r e d e c e s s o rh a s m a d e a n d u p o n w h ic h a p a r ty ha s r e a s ona bl y r e l i e d. C hi e f J udge W a r e ’ s r e a s oni ng i s s om e w ha ta m bi guous. T o the e xt e nttha the
co n cl u d ed th atth e rest ri ct i o n th at C h i ef Ju d g e W al k er h ad i m p o sed o n p u b l i c access t o th e reco rd i n g w as n o ta so l em n co m m i t m en tw o rt h y o f rel i an ce b u tm erel y a- 17-

tr a ns i e nte xe r c i s e of

di s c r et i o n s ubj e c tt o r e vi s i on, hi s c onc l us i on w a s i nc ons i s t e nt
w ith th e r ec o rd : h e f

ailed to re co g n ize th e leg al co n se q u en ce o f C h ief J u d g e W alk er ’s
s t a t e m e nt s gi ve n the f

a c tua l a nd l e ga l c ont e x t i n w hi c h the y oc c ur r e d. C hi e f J udge W a l ke rdi d notm e r e l y c r e a t e the r e c or di ng a nd pl a c e i ti n the r e c or d unde rc ondi t i ons tha the a nd the p art i es u n d er s t ood t o be s ubj e c tt o l a t e rm odi f i c a t i on; r a the r , he prom i se d t he li ti g ant s thatthe cond i t i on s und erw hi ch t he re cordi ng w as m ai nt ai ned
w ould not

c hange

— th atth ere w as n o p o ssi b i l i ty th atth e reco rd i n g w o u l d b e b ro ad cast t o the publ i c i n the f

utur e . N o othe ri nf

e r e nc e c oul d pl a us i bl y be dr a w n f r om the
r e c or d. T he na tur e of

C hi e f J udge W a l ke r ’ s c om m i tm e nt s a nd the r e a s ona bl e ne s s of the Pr o p o n e n t s ’ r e l i a n c e o n th o s e c o m m i t m e nt s d i s t i n g u i s h e s th i s c a s e f r o m Fo ltz , in
w h ic h w e h e ld th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a d a b u s e d its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g a m o tio n to
uns e a l j u d i c i a l r e c o r d s . I n th a t c a s e , St a t e Fa r m a s s e r t e d i t s r e l i a n c e “ o n t he
c onf i de nt i a l i ty pr ovi s i ons of [ a ] pr ot e c t i ve or de r ” a s a “ c om pe l l i ng r e a s on” t o ke e p the
r e c o r d s s e a l e d
. 3 3 1 F . 3 d a t 1 1 3 7
- 3 8
. S t a t e F a r m c o u l d n o tr e a s o n a b l y h a v e r e l i e d , we
ex p lain ed , o n a “b lan k et p ro tectiv e o rd er ” th at ith a d p r o c u r ed w ith o u t m ak in g “a part i cul ar i ze d sho w i ng of go od ca use” t o se al “ any i nd i vi du al do cum ent . ” I d
. a t1138. W e r e a c h e d th a t c o n c lu s io n b e c a u s e a b la n k e t p r o te c tiv e o r d e ro f te n c o v e r s m a te r ia ls tha tw oul d n o t qua l i f

y f orpr ot e c t i on i f

s ubj e c t e d t o a n i ndi vi dua l i z e d a na l y s i s , a nd- 18-

beca use w e had previ ou sl y w ar ned t hat“ [r ] elia nce w i l l be l es s w i th a bl anketorder, beca use i ti s by nature overincl usi ve. ” B eckm a n In d u stri es, In c. v. In t ern a t i o n a l In s. C o. , 9 6 6 F .2 d 4 7 0 , 4 7 6 ( 9 th C ir
. 1 9 9 2 )
. T h e s e a lin g o r d e r a t is s u e h e r e , b y c o n tr a s t,
w as di re ct ed preci se l y t ow ar d a si ng l e j ud i ci al re cord. T here ca n b e no q uest i on th at P r o p o n e n ts r e a s o n a b ly r e lie d o n C h ie f J u d g e W a lk e r ’s e x p lic it a s s u r a n c e s a s to th is pa r t i c ul a rr e c or d, i n c ontr a s tt o the ove r i nc l us i ve pr ot e c t i ve or de ri n Fo ltz
. M or e ove r , w he r e a s the or de ri n Fo l t z w a s i mp o s e d b y j o i n t r e que s t of t he pa r t i e s , 331 F
. 3 d at 1 1 28, C hi e f J udge W a l ke r ’ s a s s ur a nc e s w e r e c om pe l l e d by the S up re m e C ou rt ’ s rul i ng i n t hi s ver y c as e. A ft erthe S up re m e C ou rthel d t hathi s order t o br oa dc a s tthe tr i a l ha d “ c om pl i e d ne i the rw i th e xi s t i ng rul e s o r pol i c i e s northe
re qu ired p roce du re s f

or am endi ng them , ” H

o llin gs w o r th , 13 0 S
. C t . at71 3, C hi ef J udge W a l ke rc oul d notl a w f ul l y ha ve c ont i nue d t o r e c or d the tr i a l w i thou ta s s ur i ng the part i es that the re cordi ng w ou l d be used on l y for a perm i ss i bl e p u rp o se . C h i ef J u d g e W a l k e r ’ s s t a t e me n t s c o n c e r n i n g th e u s e o f th e r e c o r d i n g w e r e n o to n l y s o l e mn
c om m i t m e nt s on the i row n t e r m s , the r e f or e ; the y w e r e c om m i t m e nt s di c t a t e d by the
ac t i on s of a hi gh ercourt , and t hu s e ven w ort hi erof t he part i es ’ re l i ance . T o t he ext entthatC hi ef

Judg e W ar e di d be l i e ve tha thi s pr e de c e s s or ’ s de c i s i ons
w e r e s ol e m n c om m i t m e nt s t o the pa r t i e s , but c onc l ude d none the l e s s tha tthe y di d not b i nd hi m , hi s a bus e of

di s c r e t i on w a s e ve n m or e s e r i ous : he f a i l e d t o a ppr e c i a t e the- 19-

i m por t a nc e of

pr e s e r vi ng the i nt e gr i ty of the j udi c i a l s y s t e m . T o r e voke C hi e f J udge W al k er’ s assu ran c e s a f t er P ro p o n en t s h ad reaso n ab l y rel i ed o n th em w o u l d cau se
se r i ous da m a ge t o the i nt e gr i ty of the j udi c i a l pr oc e s s
— da m a ge tha tunde ra ny pl ausi bl e, l og i ca l appl i ca t i on of the “ com pel l i ng re as on ” st andard w ou l d h ave c ause d C hi e f J udge W a r e t o ke e p the r e c or di ng s e a l e d. Inde e d, w e e xpl a i ne d i n Fo l t z that

“ [t ] he cen tra l

co n cern in d e te r m in in g w h e th e r a c c e s s s h o u ld b e g r a n te d to d o c u m e n ts
s e a l e d unde ra pr ot e c t i ve or de ri s w he the rtha tor d er w as rel i e d upon i n the de c i s i on to p r o d u c e d o c u m e n ts .” 3 3 1 F .3 d a t 1 1 3 7 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) ; s e e B e c km an , 966 F
. 2d at 4 7 5 . C h i ef Ju d g e W are’s fai l u re t o reco g n i ze t h e b reach o f rel i an ce i n t erest s as a g r a v e th r e a t to th e in te g r ity o f th e ju d ic ia l s y s te m , a n d th u s a “c o m p e llin g r e a s o n ” to
s e a l the r e c or di ng notw i ths t a ndi ng the pr e s um e d e xi s t e nc e of a c om m on- l a w r i ghtf

or the pu b l i c t o vi e w i t , c ons t i tut e s a n “ i m pl a us i bl e ” a nd “ i l l ogi c a l ” a ppl i c a t i on of the

“ c om pe l l i ng r e a s on” s t a nda r d. H a d C h ie f

J u d g e W a r e p r o p e r l y u n d e r s to o d C h ie f J u d g e W a lk e r ’s s ta te m e n ts
a s c om m i t m e nt s t o the pa r t i e s , a nd ha d he r e c ogni z e d thos e c om m i t m e nt s a s bi ndi ng obl i ga t i ons a nd c ons trai n t s o n h i s ow n di s c r e t i on, he c oul d ha ve a r r i ve d a tonl y one
c onc l us i on tha ti s l ogi c a l , pl a us i bl e , a nd c ons i s t e ntw i th the r e c or d: t o pr e s e r v e the i nt e gr i ty of

the j udi c i a l s y s t e m , the r e c or di ng m us tr e m a i n unde rs e a l
. J us ta s the doc tr i ne of

s t a r e de c i s i s “ c ontr i but e s t o the a c tua l a nd pe r c e i ve d i nt e gr i t y of theT he r e i s one a ppa r e nte x cep t i on. I n B o w le s v . R u s s e ll , 55 1 U
. S
. 20 5 (20 07 ), 6 the S up re m e C ou rthel d t hatw here a j ud ge w as p o w er less t o chang e a j uri sdi ct i on al de a dl i ne , hi s e r ro n eo u s s t a t e m e nta s t o the a ppl i c a bl e da t e c oul d ha ve no f or c e or e f f e c t . C hi e f

J udge W a l k er w as nots i m i l a r l y pow e r l e s s t o a s s ur e the pa r t i e s tha tthe r e c o r d in g th a t h e c r e a te d

— a n d th e d i s p o s itio n o f w h ic h w a s in h is s o le c o n tr o l— w o u ld b e k e p t f r o m p u b lic b r o a d c a s t.

- 20- j udi c i a l pr oc e s s ” by “ pr om ot [ i ng] the e ve nha nde d, pr e di c t a bl e , a nd c onsi st e nt d e v e lo p m e n t o f

le g a l p r in c ip le s ” a n d “f o s te r [ in g ] r e lia n c e o n ju d ic ia l d e c is io n s ,” P ayne v. T

enness ee , 501 U
. S
. 808, 827 ( 1991) , the e xpl i c i ta s s ur a nc e s tha ta j udge
m a ke s
— no l e s s tha n the de c i s i ons the j udge i s s ue s
— m us t be c ons i s t e nt an d w o rt hy
o f r e lia n c e . C

f
. M a ssa ch u set t

s v. Sh ep p a rd , 4 6 8 U .S . 9 8 1 , 9 8 9
- 9 0 (1 9 8 4 ) ( “[W ]e
r e f u s e t o ru l e th a t a n o f

f i c e r i s r e q u i r e d t o d i s b e l i e v e a j u d g e w h o h a s j u s ta d v i s e d h i m, by w or d a nd by a c t i on, tha tthe w a r r a nthe pos s e s s e s a uthor i z e s hi m t o co n d u c tthe
s e a r c h he ha s r e que s t e d. ” )
. L i t i ga nt s a nd the publ i c m us t be a bl e t o trus t the w or d of 6
a j ud ge i f ou r j ust i ce sy st em i s t o fun ct i on prop er l y. “ [A ] s C hi ef Just i ce H ug hes once
n o te d , ‘n o m a n is a s e s s e n tia l to h is c o u n tr y ’s w e ll b e in g a s is th e u n s ta in e d in te g r ity of the c ou r t s . ’ ” G u b i e n s io
- O r tizv . Ka n a h e le , 85 7 F . 2d 12 45 , 12 64 (9t h C i r. 19 88 ),
v ac at e d on othe rgr ounds , U ni t ed St at es v. C ha vez- Sa nchez , 48 8 U
. S
. 10 36 (198 9). P r opone nt s w e r e thus e nt i t l e d t o t a ke C hi e f J udge W a l ke ra thi s w or d w he n he
a s s ur e d the m tha tthe tr i a l r e c or di ng w o u l d notbe publ i c l y br oa dc a s tort e l e vi s e d. B e c a u s e P r o p o n e n ts r e a s o n a b l y r e lie d o n C h ie f J u d g e W a lk e r ’s c o m m itm e n ts in- 21-

r e f r a in in g f r o m c h a lle n g in g h is a c tio n s , th e s e ttin g a s id e o f th o s e c o m m itm e n ts w o u ld
c om pr om i s e the i nt e gr i ty of the j udi c i a l pr oc e s s . T he i nt e r e s ti n pr e s e r vi ng r e s pe c tf or
o u r syst em o f

j us t i c e i s c l e a r l y a c om pe l l i ng r e a s on f orm a i nt a i ni ng the s e a l on the
re cordi ng , no tw i thst andi ng any pre sum pt i on thati tshou l d b e r el ea sed . W hat ever C h ie f J u d g e W a r e ’s r a tio n a le f o rh o ld in g th a t n o “ c o m p e llin g r e a s o n ” r e q u ir e d h im t o m a i nt a i n the r e c or di ng unde rs e a l

— w he the rhe f a i l e d t o r e c ogni z e tha tC hi e f J udge W al ker’ s s t at em ent s w er e s o lem n ass urances t o t he part i es , or w het her he bel i eved thathe coul d settho se as sura nc es as i de because they w er e m ade by a no ther j udge

— w e r e

j e c thi s c o n cl u si o n tha tthe c i r c um s t a nc e s unde rw hi c h C hi e f J udge W a lk e rc r e a te d th e r e c o r d in g a n d e n te r e d it in th e r e c o r d w e r e ir r e le v a n t to h is
s uc c e s s or ’ s de ci si o n w he the rt o uns e a l i t . T he f or m e rr a t i ona l e i s w hol l y “ w i thout

‘ supp ort i n i nfer ence s that m ay be draw n f rom the fa ct s i n the re cord, ’ ” and the l att er i s a n “ i m pl a us i bl e ” a nd “ i l l ogi c a l ” a ppl i c at i o n of the “ c om pe l l i ng r e a s on” s t a nda r d. Hi nk s on , 5 8 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 2 . C h ie f J u d g e W a r e th e r e f

o r e a b u s e d h is d is c r e tio n . I d. III L i ke the di s tr i c tc our t , w e ne e d notaddr e s s a n i s s ue of f i r s ti m pr e s s i on i n the ci rc ui t : w het her the F i rs tA m endm entri gh tof pu bl i c ac ce ss t o j ud i ci al re cords app l i es t o c i vi l pr oc e e di ng s. I ns t e a d, w e a s s um e a n a f f i r m a t i ve a ns w e rt o tha tque s t i on
w ith o u t d e c id in g
— o n th is o c c a s io n
— w h e th e rth e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t a p p lie s . W eO n rem and, the di stri ctcourtshall n otre turn t o form erC hi ef Judg e W al ker 7 th e c o p y o f

th e r e c o r d in g th a t h e h a s lo d g e d w ith th e c o u r t.

- 22- none the l e s s c onc l ude tha tthe a ppl i c a t i on of the F i r s tA m e ndm e ntw oul d nota f f e c tthe
r e s ul ttha tw e r e a c h. In a pp l y i ng the Fi r s tA me nd me nts t a nd a r d, w e c on s i de rw he the r“ ( 1) c l os ur e
se rves a c om pel l i ng i nt er es t ; (2) there i s a subst ant i al prob abi l i ty that , i n t he abse nce of cl osure, thi s c om pel l i ng i nt er es tw ou l d b e har m ed; and (3) t here ar e no al t er nat i ves t o cl osure thatw ou l d adequ at el y prot ec tthe com pel l i ng i nt er es t . ” O r egoni an P ub. C o.
v. U
. S
. D ist . C o u rt

f o r D ist . o f O r. , 92 0 F . 2d 14 62 , 14 66 (9t h C i r. 19 90 ). W e c on cl ud e, fo r t h e reaso n s w e ex p l ai n ed ab o v e, th atth e i n t eg ri ty o f t h e ju d ici al p ro cess i s a
c om pe l l i ng i nt e r e s ttha t i n the s e c i r c um s t a nc e s w oul d be ha r m e d by the nul l i f i c a t i on of the tr i a l j udge ’ s e xpr e s s a s s ur a nc e s , a nd tha t the r e a r e no a l t e r na t i ve s t o m a i nt a i ni ng th e r e c o r d in g u n d e r s e a l th a t w o u ld p r o te c t th e c o m p e llin g in te r e s t a t is s u e . I n s h o r t, the re cordi ng ca nn otbe re l ea se d w i tho utu n d er m in i ng the i nt egri ty of the j ud i ci al
s y s t e m. * * * F or the re as on s di sc usse d a bo ve, w e r ever se the order of the di stri ctcourtas an
a bus e of i t s di s c r e t i o n an d re m a nd w i th i ns truc t i ons t o m a i nt a i n the tr i a l r e c or di ng
u n d e rs e a l. 7- 23-

RE V E RS E D.- 24- CO UN S E L L I S T I NG Da v i d B o i e s a n d J e r e m y M. Go l d m a n , B o i e s , S c h i l l e r & F l e x n e r L L P , Ar m o n k , NY ; T he odor e B . O l s on ( a r gue d) , M a t the w D . M c G i l l , a nd A m i r C
. T a y r a ni , G i bs on, D unn & C rut cherL L P , W as hi ng t on , D . C
. ; T heod ore J . B ou tros, Jr . , C hri st op her D
. D usse aul t , T heane E vang el i s K apur, E n riq u e A
. M on agas , and Joshu a S
. L i pshu t z, G i b so n , D u n n & C ru t ch er L L P , L o s A n g el es, C A ; fo r P l ai n t i ffs-A p p el l ees. D e n n i s J. H errera, C i ty A t t o rn ey; T h erese M . S t ew art (arg u ed ), C h i ef D ep u ty C ity A t t orney; C hri stin e V an A ken and M ol l i e M . L ee , D eput y C i ty A t t orneys ; S an F ra nci sc o, C A ; for I nt er veno r- P l ai nt i ff -A pp el l ee . T ho m as R . B urke (ar gu ed) a nd R ochel l e L . W i l cox, D avi s W ri gh tT re m ai ne L L P , S an F ra nci sc o, C A ; for I nt er veno r. A nd re w P . P ug no , L aw O ff i ce s of A nd re w P . P ug no , F ol som , C A ; C harl es J. C oo per, D avi d H
. T ho m pson (a rgued), H ow ar d C
. N i el son, Jr . , and P et erA
. P att er son, C oo per and K i rk, P L L C , W as hi ng t on , D . C
. ; B ri an W . R aum and Jam es A
. C am pb el l , A l l i ance D efen se F u n d , S co t t sd al e, A Z ; fo r In t erv en o r-D efen d an t s-A p p el l an t s.