Opinion ID: 2716172
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Applicability of the Experience Test

Text: “Neither the First Amendment nor the Fourteenth Amendment mandates a right of access to government information or sources of information 5 Case: 13-10869 Document: 00512724950 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 No. 13-10869 within the government’s control.” Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 15 (1978). But with respect to court proceedings, the Supreme Court has developed a two-part “experience and logic” test for rights of access. In PressEnterprise II, the Supreme Court explained: In cases dealing with the claim of a First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings, our decisions have emphasized two complementary considerations. First, because a tradition of accessibility implies the favorable judgment of experiences, we have considered whether the place and process have historically been open to the press and general public. . . . Second, in this setting the Court has traditionally considered whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question. 478 U.S. at 8 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “If the particular proceeding in question passes these tests of experience and logic, a qualified First Amendment right of public access attaches.” Id. at 9. Sullo & Bobbitt argue that the experience test does not apply “because historical access by the defendants is undisputed,” 3 and because the precedential cases on the issue dealt with court proceedings, and not court records. We reject these arguments for two reasons. First, Sullo & Bobbitt never argued to the district court that the experience test should not apply. Their position below was that their pleadings satisfied the experience test. See Pls.’ Resp. Br. to Lopez’s Mot. to Dismiss 3 (asserting that their “pleading for quick access to these court case records meets the ‘experience’ test of PressEnterprise II”). Because “[a]n argument not raised before the district court cannot be asserted for the first time on appeal,” Nunez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 604 F.3d 840, 846 (5th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted), Sullo & 3 By appellants’ own admission, the defendants have always made the contested records available, and “the only real disagreement between the parties is a temporal one, that is, how quickly must the charging instruments be made available?” 6 Case: 13-10869 Document: 00512724950 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/06/2014 No. 13-10869 Bobbitt waived this argument. Second, even if they did not waive this argument, it is nonetheless meritless. Although neither the Supreme Court nor this circuit has explicitly held that the experience and logic tests apply to court records, other circuits have, and none has found that the experience and logic tests do not apply. 4 We hold that the district court did not err in applying the experience test.