Opinion ID: 1752011
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: First Amendment Constraints

Text: In addition to the common-law public right of access, a number of courts have held that there is also a qualified First Amendment right of access to court records and documents. McVeigh, 119 F.3d at 811 (citing cases). The holdings in these cases are extensions of the holdings and reasoning set forth in Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 7-9, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 2739-41, 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) ( Press-Enterprise II ) (recognizing a First Amendment right of access to preliminary hearings as conducted in California), and Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 104 S.Ct. 819, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 (1984) ( Press-Enterprise I ) (recognizing a First Amendment right of access to voir dire proceedings). Id. In such cases, the presumption in favor of access can only be overcome by an overriding interest based on findings that [denying access] is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. In re Providence Journal Co., Inc., 293 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir.2002). Constitutionally-based claims to access are reviewed de novo. Id. Because the appellee newspapers claim a First Amendment right to the stricken allegations, we review this claim below. The determination of whether a particular document is entitled to a First Amendment right of access is made using a two-pronged inquiry that asks (1) whether the document is one which has been historically open to inspection by the press and public, and (2) whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question. McVeigh, 119 F.3d at 811, quoting Press-Enterprise II, 478 U.S. at 8, 106 S.Ct. at 2740, 92 L.Ed.2d. at 10. As to the first prong of the test, there is nothing to indicate that the public and the press historically have had access to sham, immaterial, impertinent, redundant or scandalous material that is without legal effect. Further, allowing access to such material serves a negative rather than a positive role, as is exemplified by this case. The publication of the stricken allegations via press access to court files and records will create or reinforce a connection between the stricken, irrelevant, and scandalous allegations and the underlying case against the Diocese. This connection can only serve to improperly prejudice the populace in general, and potential jurors in particular, against the Diocese's case. As to the second prong of the test, it is difficult to see how access to irrelevant and scandalous allegations that have no legal effect will substantially further the public's understanding of the judicial process. The trial court's finding that certain allegations fall within the grounds for striking portions of a pleading, and the trial court's description of the stricken allegations as sham, redundant, etc., is sufficient to understand why the trial court granted the motion to strike. Access to the allegations themselves would sensationalize, but not inform. Therefore, assuming that such a right exists, no First Amendment right of access to the stricken allegations in question arises.