Source: https://www.rcfp.org/privilege-sections/2-expedited-appeals/
Timestamp: 2019-10-19 05:35:50
Document Index: 756529574

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1826', '§ 1657', '§ 1826', '§ 1088', '§ 5', '§ 7', '§ 38', '§ 38']

2. Expedited appeals Archives - The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Rule 12(c) provides that upon its own motion or the motion of a party, the Court may expedite an appeal. According to the rule, “A motion to expedite should state clearly the reasons supporting expedition, the ability of the parties to present the appeal on existing record, and the need for oral argument.” The case law does not clarify the standards for granting an expedited appeal or indicate any special considerations for situations involving news media subpoenas.
A civil contempt order confining a recalcitrant witness that is issued in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1826(a) is entitled to expedited review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1657. An appellate court must resolve such an appeal not more than 30 days from the filing of the appeal. Id. § 1826(b). The 30 day provision is not considered jurisdictional, however, and the Fifth Circuit regularly extends the date for resolving the appeal as needed to allow the appeal to be handled in an efficient, expedited fashion. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 29 Media L. Rep. 2301, 2303 (5th Cir. Aug. 17, 2001) (per curiam) (unpublished) (affording expedited treatment to Vanessa Leggett’s appeal of an order holding her in civil contempt and confining her pursuant to Section 1826 for refusing to submit to a grand jury subpoena); see also In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 605 F.2d 750, 752 n.1 (5th Cir. 1979) (noting that court may extend the date for resolving the appeal). Further, if the contemnor is released from confinement, the 30 day period does not apply. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of Am. v. Energy Gathering, Inc., 2 F.3d 1397, 1405 n.17 (5th Cir. 1993). Finally, failure to adhere to the 30-day period does not entitle an incarcerated contemnor to be released from custody. In re Dinnan, 625 F.2d 1146, 1150 (5th Cir. Unit B Aug. 28, 1980).
As a general matter, motions for expedited appeal in civil and criminal cases made to the Fifth Circuit require a showing of "good cause." 5th Cir. R. 27.5. Only the court (as opposed to the clerk of the court) may grant such a motion. Id. A single judge of the circuit is authorized to rule on a motion to expedite the appeal. Id. 27.2.8. If the motion is granted, the clerk will fix an appropriate briefing schedule unless a judge of the circuit sets a date certain for its resolution. Id. 27.5.
There is no provision in federal law for expedited appellate review of the merits of a court order requiring a reporter to comply with a subpoena. The best way to get expedited relief is to seek a stay of the court's disclosure order pending resolution of the merits of an appeal.
Alaska's appellate court rules establish procedures for expedited appeals, but set forth no special considerations that affect news media subpoenas. Alaska appellate courts have not had occasion to squarely address the existence or scope of a reporter's privilege. Various trial courts have recognized and applied the qualified constitutional privilege in a number of cases, and in none of these has testimony or production of documents been compelled, so the issue of expedited review for the press has not arisen. Parties to litigation whose subpoenas have been quashed to date have not sought expedited review of these rulings.
Under Arkansas procedure, when a judge enters an order that is not appealable, the objecting party may petition the Arkansas Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to correct the proceeding in the lower court where it is apparent from the face of the record that there has been a plain, clear and gross abuse of discretion by the trial court and an appeal would not provide an adequate remedy. See, e.g., Zimmerman, supra, at 777, 20 S.W.3d at 304; Lupo v. Lineberger, 313 Ark. 315, 318, 855 S.W.2d 293, 295 (1993). A party served with a subpoena also may petition the Court for a writ of prohibition if the lower court is wholly without jurisdiction. See Nucor Holding Corp. v. Rinkines, 326 Ark. 217, 22, 931 S.W.2d 426, 429 (1996).
The California Code of Civil Procedure authorizes the appellate court to issue a peremptory writ in the first instance, i.e., without a full briefing schedule or oral argument. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1088. However, California law imposes limits on the use of such writs. The Code of Civil Procedure provides that the writ must be preceded by at least ten days’ notice to the adverse party. Id. This notice typically is issued directly by the Court of Appeal to the respondent. See, e.g., Swaithes v. Superior Court, 212 Cal. App. 3d 1082, 1089, 261 Cal. Rptr. 41 (1989). However, the party seeking issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance should give clear notice of that request in the writ petition.
In addition, California courts have limited the availability of such writs. One California court explained that,
The second option, i.e., the peremptory writ in the first instance, is subject to severe restrictions. As the exception to the rule, the procedure may only be used in the limited situation where entitlement to relief is so obvious that no purpose could reasonably be served by plenary consideration of the issue. … Moreover, on those rare occasions that a reviewing court resorts to use of a peremptory writ in the first instance, it is constrained to comply with the procedural safeguards in Palma [v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc., 36 Cal. 3d 171, 681 P.2d 893, 203 Cal. Rptr. 626 (1984)] – that is, to receive or solicit opposition before directing issuance of the writ.
Kernes v. Superior Court, 77 Cal. App. 4th 525, 529, 91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 765 (2000). See also Ng v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 4th 29, 35, 840 P.2d 961, 13 Cal. Rptr. 2d 856 (1992) (asserting that court may issue peremptory writ in the first instance “only when petitioner’s entitlement to relief is so obvious that no purpose could reasonably be served by plenary consideration of the issue – for example, when such entitlement is conceded or when there has been clear error under well-settled principles of law and undisputed facts – or where there is an unusual urgency requiring acceleration of the normal process”). Other writs are available under California statutory law, but for those writs, the Court of Appeal generally will issue an order to show cause why the lower court’s decision should not be reversed, giving the court and the parties an opportunity to brief the issues. Although California law contemplates that writ proceedings will move more quickly than appeals, that is not always the case in practice because the Courts of Appeal are under no statutory obligation to quickly resolve writ proceedings.
There are no special statutory procedures in place to address the appeal of an order compelling a newsperson to testify or provide documents. A newsperson could move for an expedited appeal. To succeed, the movant must show a reason why the appeal is time sensitive.
A journalist may request that the appeal be expedited. In the case of the news media, courts often will grant review on an expedited basis. If appeal is taken on an expedited basis, the court typically will alter the normal briefing schedule by an order establishing the response times to apply to the expedited proceeding.
The Georgia appellate courts will consider motions to expedite an appeal. However, in most circumstances, such a motion should not be necessary, because the filing of the notice of appeal itself stays the trial court from pursuing a contempt citation or imposing any punishment to compel compliance with its order. See generally O.C.G.A. §§ 5-6-46; 5-6-13(a).
A motion to expedite an appeal may be filed pursuant to Rules 2, 27, and 28 of the Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 27 provides that an application for an order or other relief from the Hawai'i Supreme Court shall be made by filing a written motion with proof of service on all other parties. Rule 2 permits a Hawai'i appellate court to suspend the requirements or provisions of any of the Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure in the interest of expediting a decision. Rule 28 governs the timing for filing of briefs. In the motion to expedite, the movant should request that Rule 28, along with any other applicable rules, be suspended or modified to expedite a decision on the appeal.
There is no particular procedure for expedited appeals, although expedited attention to the matter may be requested by motion. Ordinarily, the most expeditious manner of obtaining review of a contempt order is to seek immediate scrutiny by the Idaho Supreme Court in the form of an extraordinary writ of review, under the Idaho Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. However, in a writ of review the primary question is whether or not the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the contempt order, so careful attention should be paid to the nature of the challenge to be made to the contempt order. See Marks v. Vehlow, 105 Idaho at 564, 671 P.2d at 477; Idaho Code § 7-208 (2018).
After the docketing statement is filed with the reviewing court, the court on its own motion or on the motion of a party may place the case on accelerated docket for good cause shown. This motion shall contain an affidavit stating the reasons for the expedited appeal. Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 311. There are no special considerations that affect news media subpoenas.
The order granting the appeal may also provide an expedited timeline for briefing and submission. Iowa R. App. P. 6.104(2). Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.902 provides special rules for expedited appeals involving certain children's issues and lawyer disciplinary proceedings. Otherwise, no special rules apply to expedited appeals.
There are no special considerations that affect news media subpoenas with regard to expedited appeals. An attorney seeking an expedited appeal would need to know the rules for requesting a writ of prohibition.
The Maine Supreme Court ordinarily will expedite interlocutory appeals to avoid unduly delaying proceedings in the trial court. See In re Letellier, 578 A.2d 722, 724 n.3 (Me. 1990) (the court granted a motion for expedited hearing).
Maryland procedure for expedited appeals includes, inter alia:
By election of parties.
(1) Election. Within 20 days after the first notice of appeal is filed or within the time specified in an order entered pursuant to Rule 8-206(c), the parties may file with the Clerk of the Court of Special Appeals a joint election to proceed pursuant to this Rule.
(2) Statement of case and facts. Within 15 days after the filing of the joint election, the parties shall file with the Clerk four copies of an agreed statement of the case, including the essential facts, as prescribed by Rule 8-413(b). By stipulation of counsel filed with the clerk, the time for filing the agreed statement of the case may be extended for no more than an additional 30 days.
(3) Withdrawal. The election is withdrawn if (1) within 15 days after its filing the parties file a joint stipulation to that effect or (2) the parties fail to file the agreed statement of the case within the time prescribed by subsection (b)(2) of this Rule. The case shall then proceed as if the first notice of appeal had been filed on the date of the withdrawal.
(9) Decision. Except in extraordinary circumstances or when a panel of the Court recommends that the opinion be reported, the decision shall be rendered within 20 days after oral argument, or if all parties submitted on brief, within 30 days after the last submission.
Md. R. App. Rev., Ct. App. & Ct. Special App. 8-207 (a)(1) - (a)(3), (a)(9) (2017).
Rule 8-206(c) provides: The court shall enter an order to proceed with an appeal if it does not first enter an order referring the parties to alternative dispute resolution or directing the parties to appear for a scheduling conference or if, upon conclusion of the dispute resolution process or the scheduling conference, it does not appear the appeal will be dismissed. Md. R. App. Rev., Ct. App. & Ct. Special App. 8-206(c) (2017).
Rule 8-413(b) provides in pertinent part that: "If the parties agree that the questions presented by an appeal can be determined without an examination of all the pleadings and evidence, they may sign and, upon approval by the lower court, file a statement showing how the questions arose and were decided, and setting forth only those facts or allegations that are essential to a decision of the questions. The parties are strongly encouraged to agree to such statement. . . ." Md. R. App. Rev., Ct. App. & Ct. Special App. 8-413(b) (2017).
Rule 2-602(a) provides that: "Except as provided in section (b) of this Rule, an order or other form of decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all of the claims in an action . . . or that adjudicates less than an entire claim, or that adjudicates the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties to the action: (1) is not a final judgment, (2) does not terminate the action as to any of the claims or any of the parties; and (3) is subject to revision at any time before the entry of a judgment that adjudicates all of the claims by and against all of the parties." Md. R. Civ. Proc. 2-602(a) (2017).
Massachusetts does not have an explicit procedure for expediting appeals. Massachusetts Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 2, entitled "Suspension of the Rules," states: "In the interest of expediting decision, or for other good cause shown, the appellate court or a single justice may ... suspend the requirements or provisions of any of these rules in a particular case on application of a party or on its own motion and may order proceedings in accordance with its direction. Such suspension may be on reasonable terms." For more on expedited appeals procedures, see Davalene Cooper, "Possible But Not Likely: Expedited Appeals in Massachusetts," 4 Journal of Appellate Practice and Process 235 (Spring, 2002).
The rules provide for an expedited appeal though the filing of a motion for immediate consideration. If one is appealing an adverse ruling on a subpoena, expedited hearing on appeal should be sought because there is no automatic stay upon the filing of the appeal. You can ask the trial judge for a stay (and in fact you must ask the trial judge before you may ask the Court of Appeals for a stay) but a judge who has refused your motion to quash a subpoena is probably not going to be sympathetic to your request for a stay.
Therefore, a motion for immediate consideration is in order for most interlocutory appeals on the denial of a motion to quash a subpoena. Each aspect of the appeal requires its own motion for immediate consideration.
Other than Miss. R. App. 5(d), which states that "[t]he Court may in its discretion expedite the appeal and give it preference over ordinary civil cases," there is no statutory or case law addressing this issue.
The rules for the time of the writ process is set out in Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.22, et seq. The entire process moves fairly quickly, and a ruling is issued by the Court in an expedited matter.
There are no procedures for the expedited appeals of these issues, which decision would lie completely in the discretion of the Montana Supreme Court.
A petition for writ of prohibition or mandamus in connection with a discovery order is an appropriate remedy to prevent pretrial discovery of privileged material. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct. In & For Cty. of Clark, 113 Nev. 521, 526, 936 P.2d 844, 847 (1997). An emergency petition that seeks relief from an interlocutory order in less than 14 days may be filed in accordance with Rule 21 of the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure.
In the event the subject order is a final order or has otherwise been certified as final pursuant to Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of notice of entry of judgment in a civil case and within 30 days of a judgment of conviction in a criminal case. A party may file a motion to expedite an appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court. There is no specific statute or rule which provides for an expedited appeal in cases involving news media subpoenas. A motion to stay a district court order must be made in the district court prior to the filing of a motion to stay a district court order that is filed in the Nevada Supreme Court.
The privilege does not specifically provide for an expedited appeal but the newsperson can move to expedite the appeal, such requests are usually granted.
The New Mexico Court of Appeals – the forum to which nearly all appeals of right from the district court are taken, see infra pt. VIII(B)(1) – maintains an “expedited bench decision program” under which briefing times are shortened, cases are submitted to a panel of judges at the court's earliest opportunity, and decisions are ordinarily rendered on the day of oral argument. Any appellate litigant can move for expedited case-handling on this basis. See Rule 12-210(F) NMRA (referring interested litigants to court’s website for details). But the reporter’s privilege statute specifies an appeal to the supreme court, see NMSA 1978, § 38-6-7(C) (1973), where no such expedited option is routinely available. While the constitutionality of this appeal provision in the context of judicial proceedings isn’t entirely clear, see supra pt. VIII(A)(1), the portion of the statute declaring that an appeal from a disclosure order “shall be considered as an extraordinary proceeding and shall be heard de novo and within twenty days from date of docketing,” NMSA 1978, § 38-6-7(C) (1973), is plainly invalid, see Ammerman v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., 89 N.M. 307, 312-13, 551 P.2d 1354, 1359-60 (1976).
There are no explicit rules or statutes setting forth procedures for requesting expedited appeals. Likewise, there is no statute or reported case establishing a right to expedited appeal in a reporter's privilege case. Nonetheless, the appellate courts do entertain motions for expedited briefing and oral argument schedules, and, where a showing of need is made, the courts do grant such motions. In particular, where constitutional rights are at stake, the appellate courts have shown sensitivity to the need for expedited proceedings.
Challenges to orders regarding subpoenas are not governed by appeal rules in Oklahoma.
There are no special rules for expedited appeals. An appeal may be expedited upon motion of the reporter, the party seeking to compel or the appellate court on its own motion. There is no special treatment for appeals by news media.
There is no statutory or case law addressing this issue with regard to the reporter's privilege. For questions about expedited appeals generally, see Rule 31 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure.
A party may request an expedited appeal by filing a motion with the Vermont Supreme Court (an original and one copy of the motion must be filed) explaining why an expedited appeal is warranted. V.R.A.P. 27(d)(2). The opposing party must be sent a copy of the motion when it is filed. Examples of possible grounds for an expedited appeal include a pending contempt order, a pending criminal trial and a pending discovery request such as a subpoena with regard to which a protective order has been sought and denied.
There are no provisions in the Virginia Code that allow for an expedited appeal for news media subpoenas.
Washington's appellate courts will entertain and if appropriate grant motions for expedited review. Washington's case law has not yet squarely addressed this issue. For an (unpublished) Commissioner's order explaining the procedure and granting accelerated review in connection with a claim of reporter's privilege, see In re Azula, 28 Med. L. Rptr. 2180 (Wash. App. 2000).
There is no specific procedure for requesting an expedited appeal. Rule 2 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure allows the state Supreme Court to suspend its usual rules "[i]n the interest of expediting decision, or for other good cause shown[.]" There are no special considerations that affect subpoenas to reporters, other than the fact that Petitions for a Writ of Prohibition or a Writ of Mandamus are more favorably looked upon because of their First Amendment considerations than such Petitions that address other issues. Rule 28(a) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure allows a party petitioning for appeal make an application for a stay of the lower court's order to the circuit court. Rule 28(b) allows a party to then make such an application for a stay to the state Supreme Court if the lower court refuses to grant the stay.
There is no right to an expedited appeal of the denial of motion to quash.