Opinion ID: 1752011
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Common-Law Constraints

Text: Because monitoring courts is an essential feature of democratic control and judicial accountability, a trial court's right to control access to its records and documents is constrained by a general, common-law right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents. Nixon, 435 U.S. at 597, 98 S.Ct. at 1312, 55 L.Ed.2d. at 579; Peers, 747 S.W.2d at 129. Under this common-law right judicial documents are presumptively available to the public, but may be sealed if the right to access is outweighed by the interests favoring non-disclosure. United States v. McVeigh, 119 F.3d 806, 811 (10th Cir.1997), cert. denied sub nom Dallas Morning News v. U.S., 522 U.S. 1142, 118 S.Ct. 1110, 140 L.Ed.2d. 163 (1998), citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 602, 98 S.Ct. at 1314, 55 L.Ed.2d. at 582. The balancing test between a court's inherent right to control access and the public's presumptive right of access is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case. Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599, 98 S.Ct. at 1312-13, 55 L.Ed.2d. at 580. Nixon is silent as to the weight to be given to the common-law right to access when striking this balance. Further, there is no uniformity among the federal courts that have addressed the issue. Compare In re Application of National Broadcasting Co. ( United States v. Myers), 635 F.2d 945 (2d Cir.1980) (the presumption is especially strong and denying access can only be justified when there are extraordinary circumstances), with Belo Broadcasting Corp. v. Clark (United States v. Clayton), 654 F.2d 423, 434 (5th Cir.1981) (a trial court may deny access for good reason). In search of a workable standard that will assist trial courts in defining the weight to give the presumption of access, we turn to a thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion that explores this very issue, United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2nd Cir.1995) ( Amodeo II ). According to the Amodeo II Court, the difficulty in making this determination flows from the purpose underlying the presumption and the broad variety of documents to which the right of access attaches. Id. In explaining this statement, the Amodeo II Court began by discussing the reasons behind the presumption to access. Access provides the means through which the citizenry monitor the courts. And monitoring provides judges with critical views of their work. Id. It casts the disinfectant of sunshine brightly on the courts, and thereby acts as a check on arbitrary judicial behavior and diminishes the possibilities for injustice, incompetence, perjury, and fraud. Id., quoting Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Technologies, Inc., 998 F.2d 157, 161 (3rd Cir.1993). Furthermore, the very openness of the process should provide the public with a more complete understanding of the judicial system and a better perception of its fairness. Id. Not meaning to lessen the importance of the presumption of access, the Amodeo II Court nonetheless recognized that an abundance of statements and documents generated in... litigation actually have little or no bearing on the exercise of ... judicial power. The relevance or reliability of a statement or document generally cannot be determined until heard or read by counsel, and, if necessary, by the court or other judicial officer. As a result, the temptation to leave no stone unturned in the search for evidence material to a judicial proceeding turns up a vast amount of not only irrelevant but also unreliable material. Unlimited access to every item turned up in the course of litigation would be unthinkable. Reputations would be impaired, personal relationships ruined, and businesses destroyed on the basis of misleading or downright false information. Id. In light of these practical, real-world considerations and concerns, the Amodeo II Court struck an appropriate and workable balance between these competing concerns by holding that the weight given to the presumption of access must be governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of ... judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the ... courts. Id. at 1048-49. Under this sliding-scale approach, documents and records that play an important role in determining the litigants' substantive rights are accorded the greatest weight. Id. at 1049. [O]nly the most compelling reasons can justify denying access to documents and records that are accorded great presumptive weight. United States v. Beckham, 789 F.2d 401, 413 (6th Cir.1986). On the other hand, documents and records that play only a minor or negligible role in adjudicating the rights of the litigants are afforded little weight and the right-of-access presumption amounts to little more than a prediction of public access absent a countervailing reason. Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1049. The presumptive weight to give to the right of access for documents and records that fall in between these two extremes must be determined through the exercise of judgment and discretion. Id. We believe that the sliding scale of Amodeo II represents the best approach in determining the weight to give to the presumption of access. Because the decision of whether to deny access should first be made at the trial level, see discussion supra, we leave it to the trial court to determine on remand where on this scale the stricken allegations at issue fall.