Opinion ID: 2716172
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Meet the Experience Test

Text: In the alternative, Sullo & Bobbitt argue that their pleadings satisfied the experience test through “plaintiffs’ allegations of historical access in the defendant-jurisdictions and throughout the State of Texas.” We hold that the district court did not err in rejecting this argument, as the experience test requires that a right be established nationwide. In its May 13, 2013 order, the district court held that Sullo & Bobbitt failed the experience test because “plaintiffs fail to allege, or argue in response to the motions to dismiss, that courts nationally have given such public access.” Sullo & Bobbitt, 2013 WL 1949835 at . It reasoned that “[b]ecause plaintiffs assert a constitutional right under the United States Constitution, they must 4 See In re U.S. for an Order Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 2703(D), 707 F.3d 283, 291 (4th Cir. 2013) (“To determine whether the First Amendment provides a right to access § 2703(d) orders and proceedings, we employ the ‘experience and logic’ test . . . .”); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[I]t is well established that the public and the press have a ‘qualified First Amendment right to attend judicial proceedings and to access certain judicial documents.’”); In re Boston Herald, Inc., 321 F.3d 174, 182 (1st Cir. 2003) (recognizing “a qualified First Amendment right of access to certain judicial proceedings and documents” and applying experience and logic test); Grove Fresh Distribs., Inc. v. Everfresh Juice Co., 24 F.3d 893, 897 (7th Cir. 1994) (noting that “[t]he public’s right of access to court proceedings and documents is well-established” and explaining that “[t]he First Amendment presumes that there is a right of access to proceedings and documents which have ‘historically been open to the public’”); In re Search Warrant for Secretarial Area Outside Office of Gunn, 855 F.2d 569, 573 (8th Cir. 1988) (applying experience and logic test and holding that “the first amendment right of public access does extend to the documents filed in support of search warrant applications”). 7 Case: 13-10869 Document: 00512724950 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 No. 13-10869 make allegations or raise arguments that are sufficient to support a reasonable inference that courts throughout the United States have historically released citations or citation information to the public.” Id. The district court’s holding is consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in El Vocero de Puerto Rico (Caribbean International News Corp.) v. Puerto Rico, 508 U.S. 147, 150–51 (1993). In El Vocero, the Court explained that “the ‘experience’ test of Globe Newspaper [Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982),] does not look to the particular practice of any one jurisdiction, but instead ‘to the experience in that type or kind of hearing throughout the United States.’” Id. at 150 (bold emphasis added). Sullo & Bobbitt’s challenges to the district court’s straightforward application of Supreme Court precedent are unavailing. In a cursory fashion, they argue that this case is distinguishable from cases applying El Vocero’s rule of nationwide application because each of those cases involved either a state statute or a court rule with state-wide application, whereas the challenged policies here vary from municipality to municipality within a state. They further argue that the Supreme Court’s decisions do not provide guidance as to how many jurisdictions are needed to satisfy the “experience” test. Because “it should not be necessary for plaintiffs to plead and prove more in the way of experience than they have offered to do,” they rest on the evidence provided in their Second Amended Complaint that four close-by municipal jurisdictions give access to court records in a more timely fashion than appellees. We hold that the district court was correct to apply El Vocero’s instruction to look at practices “throughout the United States” for experience test purposes, and that Sullo & Bobbitt’s limited evidence of Texas practices is insufficient to establish a right under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. While they may be correct that the Supreme Court has 8 Case: 13-10869 Document: 00512724950 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 No. 13-10869 not described at length what is required for a practice to be adopted nationwide, appellants’ failure to even allege that other municipalities provide access to these documents within one business day of their filing simplifies our inquiry. 5 After correctly applying the experience test to Sullo & Bobbitt’s claims, the district court did not err in holding that the right to immediate access to these types of court records is not established throughout the United States. For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s orders are AFFIRMED. 5 Even assuming that Sullo & Bobbitt are correct that we can limit our consideration under the experience test to neighboring Texas municipalities’ practices, their own evidence does not establish any right to access court records within one business day of their filing. In their Second Amended Complaint, Sullo & Bobbitt allege: “By comparison with the Defendant entities, the cities of Carrollton, Grand Prairie, and Richardson provide access to the records much more quickly. For example, over 85% of Carrollton’s court case records are made available within 3 days. About 85% of Grand Prairie’s court case records are made available within 7 days. About 92% of Richardson’s court case records are made available within 3 days.” Pls.’ 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 29. Sullo & Bobbitt thus ask this court to declare as constitutionally required practices that are not even in place in the few municipalities they hold out as exemplars. 9