Opinion ID: 1748378
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appropriateness of Writ

Text: As this Court has often stated, a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and [the Courts] have always been cautious and conservative both in entertaining petitions for and in granting such relief. Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v. Trude, 151 S.W.3d 803, 808 (Ky.2004) ( quoting Bender v. Eaton, 343 S.W.2d 799, 800 (Ky. 1961)). Indeed, the circumstances justifying the grant of such a writ are limited: A writ . . . may be granted upon a showing that (1) the lower court is proceeding or is about to proceed outside of its jurisdiction and there is no remedy through an application to an intermediate court; or (2) that the lower court is acting or is about to act erroneously, although within its jurisdiction, and there exists no adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise and great injustice and irreparable injury will result if the petition is not granted. Hoskins, 150 S.W.3d at 10 (emphasis in original). Here, Appellant's petition did not challenge the trial court's jurisdiction, but rather claimed that the court erroneously denied it access to the settlement agreement. In the usual case, Appellant would have to first demonstrate that it is without an adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise and that great injustice and irreparable injury would result without issuance of the writ before the Court of Appeals would consider the merits of its claim. See Trude, 151 S.W.3d at 808. Yet, by virtue of this Court's holding in Peers, 747 S.W.2d at 128, the news media have been made an exception to the usual rules regarding standing to . . . seek mandamus [or prohibition] where access is denied, as it represents exigent circumstances justifying coming directly to the appellate courts for an extraordinary remedy. Id. at 129; see also Noble, 92 S.W.3d at 729 (Once a media representative moves to intervene and requests a hearing, the representative may attack an adverse ruling by petitioning the Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus or prohibition.) ( citing Peers, 747 S.W.2d at 129); cf. Noble, 92 S.W.3d at 729 (But where there is no order denying access, there are no exigent circumstances to justify granting the writ. Rather, the party seeking the writ . . . must satisfy the usual and strict requirements for justifying relief by prohibition or mandamus.). Such must be the case, Peers explained, because [t]he First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press and the Sixth Amendment guarantee of public trial in criminal cases, as presently interpreted and applied in judicial decisions, have placed the news media in a unique position in demanding access to court proceedings, a position that includes the right to gather news about a civil case. Peers, 747 S.W.2d at 127-28 (citing Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972); CBS, Inc. v. Young, 522 F.2d 234 (6th Cir.1975)).