Case Name: PALM BEACH NEWSPAPERS, INC., WTWV, Inc., d/b/a WTVX-34, and News and Sun-Sentinel Company, a Delaware corporation, d/b/a Fort Lauderdale News and Sun-Sentinel, Petitioners, v. The Honorable Carl H. HARPER, Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-08-11
Citations: 417 So. 2d 1100
Docket Number: No. 82-942
Parties: PALM BEACH NEWSPAPERS, INC., WTWV, Inc., d/b/a WTVX-34, and News and Sun-Sentinel Company, a Delaware corporation, d/b/a Fort Lauderdale News and Sun-Sentinel, Petitioners, v. The Honorable Carl H. HARPER, Respondent.
Judges: DOWNEY, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 417
Pages: 1100–1101

Head Matter:
PALM BEACH NEWSPAPERS, INC., WTWV, Inc., d/b/a WTVX-34, and News and Sun-Sentinel Company, a Delaware corporation, d/b/a Fort Lauderdale News and Sun-Sentinel, Petitioners, v. The Honorable Carl H. HARPER, Respondent.
No. 82-942.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Aug. 11, 1982.
Florence Beth Snyder, West Palm Beach, for Petitioners-Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc., and WTVX-34, and Wilton L. Strickland of Ferrero, Middlebrooks & Strickland, P. A., Fort Lauderdale, for Petitioner-News and Sun-Sentinel Co.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert L. Bogen, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.
Robert T. Scott, of Gunster, Yoakley, Criser & Stewart, P. A., Palm Beach, for Herbert Pulitzer, Jr., amicus curiae.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners, two newspaper publishers and a television station, filed a petition, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(d), to review the trial court action that, petitioners contend, excluded the press and public from access to a judicial proceeding.
We have considered the petition and responses and have read the transcript of the chambers conference from which the press was excluded. It is our considered judgment that the conference between the judge and counsel was not a judicial proceeding at which the press and public were entitled to be present. The purpose of the conference was to enable the judge to apprise counsel of the fact that his secretary had received an anonymous telephone call criticizing one of the parties and suggesting that the court file in the pending case should not be sealed. The judge's action in advising counsel of the anonymous call was ethically appropriate. To require that the statement of an anonymous caller denigrat-
ing one of the parties be made public would serve no useful purpose. We would categorize the subject of this conference as being within the purview of those chambers matters referred to in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980), wherein it is stated:
Thus, when engaging in interchanges at the bench, the trial judge is not required to allow public or press intrusion upon the huddle. Nor does this opinion intimate that the judges are restricted in their ability to conduct conferences in chambers, inasmuch as such conferences are distinct from trial proceedings. 448 U.S. 555, 100 S.Ct. 2814, at 2839, n.23, 65 L.Ed.2d 973.
Notice and a hearing are only required when the court decides to close a proceeding at which the press is entitled to be present. This is hot one of those proceedings.
Although all the parties discuss an additional question involving the requested sealing of the wife's deposition without the McIntosh due process procedures, petitioners contend that they are not requesting review of that motion, which the court has not yet acted upon. Accordingly, we will treat only the single question presented by petitioners.
Accordingly, the petition is DENIED.
DOWNEY, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.