Court Opinion

ID: 9771686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:51:13.621713+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:35.467722
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION TO ORDER OVERRULING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF
November 11, 1992.
DOGGETT, Justice.
My opinion of October 21, 1992 is withdrawn, and the following is substituted in its place.
In a public courtroom in Dallas, Texas, a trial is underway. As in any trial, lawyers are marking documents as exhibits that are offered into evidence for consideration by the jury. As in no other jury trial, an appellate court has interfered to prohibit the public from seeing the evidence. A principal reason for this extraordinary intrusion is a party’s desire that evidence in a public trial “not be allowed to be published [in a local newspaper].”1 That newspaper, The Dallas Morning News, has been joined by a public interest group, Public Citizen, in an emergency plea asking this court to permit the public to see the evidence introduced in accord with traditional Texas procedure.2
On October 5, 1992, trial began to determine whether Upjohn Company, a drug manufacturer, failed to warn adequately of the dangerous effects of its product, a sleep-inducing pharmaceutical, Halcion. On October 7, Upjohn asked the trial court to bar disclosure to the press and public of many of the trial exhibits to be offered by the parties. Upjohn claimed that the documents in question were included in pretrial discovery and were already the subject of a pending appeal concerning disclosability. While conceding the right of witnesses to discuss and read aloud from the documents in open court in the presence of any attendee, Upjohn sought to prohibit the provision of the documents themselves to non-parties, particularly the press. No evidence of any type was offered in support of this unusual motion to seal. After a hearing, at which the trial court denied the motion, Upjohn obtained emergency relief from the Fifth Court of Appeals restricting exhibit access to the trial judge, jury and the parties’ attorneys and expert witnesses.
Under Rule 76a(l), court records “are presumed to be open to the general public.” Trial exhibits are unquestionably subject to this presumption. In Texas, court records belong to the people, and the people may be denied access to them only when a movant proves:
(a) a specific, serious and substantial interest which clearly outweighs:
(1) this presumption of openness;
(2) any probable adverse effect that the sealing will have upon the general public health or safety;
(b) no less restrictive means than sealing records will adequately and effectively protect the specific interest asserted.
Tex.R.Civ.P. 76a(1). Totally disregarding these requirements, Upjohn also failed to post public notice and schedule a pretrial hearing for consideration of its sealing motion concerning the trial exhibits as provided by Rule 76a(3) and (4).
Instead, it sought improperly “a temporary sealing order” which is authorized only
upon a showing of compelling need from specific facts shown by affidavit or by verified petition that immediate and irreparable injury will result to a specific interest ... before notice can be posted and a hearing held.
Tex.R.Civ.P. 76a(5). This extraordinary procedure should not be used to evade the *664notice and hearing requirements provided in the rule when circumstances allow ample time for compliance. Any emergency existing here was created solely by Upjohn’s litigation tactics; the failure to seek protection during the last six months for these specific exhibits contradicts the claim of the immediacy of any harm. The claim that immediate and irreparable injury would result is further belied by the fact that the courtroom remains open and witnesses can read from and discuss the documents. Clearly an order barring access to the documents themselves would not provide further protection for any confidential information contained in the exhibits. The trial court correctly concluded that Upjohn failed to make the necessary showing under Rule 76a(5).
Upjohn’s previously pending appeal represents a challenge to the trial court’s March 1992 ruling that certain documents produced during pretrial discovery were court records to which public access was guaranteed under Rule 76a(2)(c). As provided by Rule 76a(8), that order denying records closure was final and appealable. See Chandler v. Hyundai Motor Co., 829 S.W.2d 774 (Tex.1992). Pending its consideration of that ruling, the Fifth Court of Appeals temporarily stayed public disclosure in April.3 Even if resulting in a determination that these materials are nondis-closable during discovery, that appeal in no way controls the public’s presumptive right of access regarding the particular documents that are admitted as exhibits in a public trial. See In re Continental Illinois Securities Litigation, 732 F.2d 1302, 1310 (7th Cir.1984) (finding of “good cause” for pretrial issuance of protective order did not preclude public disclosure of same document after introduced into evidence). Nor is there any indication that all of the pretrial discovery documents subject to that appeal will be introduced as trial exhibits. Contrary to Upjohn’s assertion, allowing nonparties to inspect and copy the trial exhibits would not moot its previous appeal. The issues there differ from those now before us, and cannot justify the veil of secrecy the majority imposes on these trial exhibits.
As it has so candidly admitted, Upjohn is not concerned with protecting proprietary interests, but solely with obstructing news media coverage of the trial. Accordingly, today’s decision implicates the fundamental constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press. Only recently we have had an opportunity to consider the rights of free expression guaranteed by article I, section 8 of the Texas Constitution. In Davenport v. Garcia, 834 S.W.2d 4, 10 (Tex.1992, orig. proceeding), we “affirm[ed] that a prior restraint on expression is presumptively unconstitutional” and announced that:
[A] gag order in civil judicial proceedings will withstand constitutional scrutiny only where there are specific findings supported by evidence that (1) an imminent and irreparable harm to the judicial process will deprive litigants of a just resolution of their dispute, and (2) the judicial action represents the least restrictive means to prevent that harm.
Id. We clearly recognized that:
[Ajrticle one, section eight of the Texas Constitution provides greater rights of free expression than its federal equivalent [and].... that a prior restraint will withstand scrutiny under this test only under the most extraordinary circumstances. That result is consistent with the mandate of our constitution recognizing our broad right to freedom of expression in Texas. An individual’s rights under the state constitution do not end at the courthouse door; rather, the courthouse is properly the fortress of those rights.

Id.

In Star-Telegram, Inc. v. Walker, 834 S.W.2d 54, 56 (Tex.1992, orig. proceeding), we declared that “[t]his [Davenport] test enables reviewing courts to ensure the preservation of the press’ constitutionally sanctioned right of access to the judicial *665process.” There we concluded that an “order to prohibit a newspaper from publishing information already disclosed in open court and made part of a trial court’s public record” represented “an invalid prior restraint on Star-Telegram’s article I, section 8 right to disseminate public information.” Id. at 55, 58. In Texas we have recognized that this constitutional right of access to the judicial process encompasses the right of access to court documents as well as court proceedings.4 The fundamental guarantee that our courts will remain fully open to all is today unjustly abandoned in favor of secrecy for the privileged few.
By its action, the majority has placed trial exhibits introduced in open court under lock and key. This hostility toward freedom of information is further displayed by the majority’s conscious refusal to accord a sense of urgency to this emergency request for temporary relief. With each passing day the ability of The Dallas Morning News and Public Citizen to inform the public about documents as they are introduced is reduced.5 It is the “ ‘contemporaneous review in the forum of public opinion [that assures] an effective restraint on possible abuse of judicial power.’ ” Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 592, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 2835, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980) (Brennan, J., concurring) (emphasis supplied; citations omitted). See also In re Continental Illinois Securities Litigation, 732 F.2d at 1309 n. 12, 1310 (applying “tradition of contemporaneous access” to mandate disclosure of evidence introduced in civil action).
As for the majority’s objection to “an absolute right to immediate”6 and “unlimited access to trial exhibits,” Maj. op. at 660, when one seeking to exclude the public records proves no “paramount” interest, the right is absolute; access is unlimited.7 *666The right of access asserted here by the Dallas Morning News is no more or less “absolute” than that advanced by the Port Worth Star Telegram in Star Telegram, Inc., 834 S.W.2d 54. Freedom of information that vacillates — that is dependent upon whom it helps — is not much freedom. This is a vital principle that should not be defended when adverse to an individual personal injury plaintiff as in Star Telegram and surrendered when challenged by a corporate defendant here. Nor should this court accord emergency relief to seal records, see Eli Lilly & Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 156 (Tex.1992, orig. proceeding) (Doggett, J., dissenting to granting of a drug manufacturer’s motion for temporary relief to conceal documents within one day of its receipt), but deny prompt attention to open public records here.
The majority’s reliance on Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978), to proscribe access to public trial exhibits is misplaced. At issue there was whether the trial court erred in prohibiting copying of the Watergate tapes when a full transcript was already publicly available. Rather than holding, as the majority asserts, that there is no right of access to materials considered in open court,8 the Court stated:
It is clear that the courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents .... The interest necessary to support the issuance of a writ compelling access has been found, for example, in the citizen’s desire to keep a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies, and in a newspaper publisher's intention to publish information concerning the operation of government.
435 U.S. at 598, 98 S.Ct. at 1312 (citations omitted). As the opinion makes clear, the situation in Warner differed substantially from that presented today:
In the instant case, however, there is no claim that the press was precluded from publishing or utilizing as it saw fit the testimony and exhibits filed in evidence. There simply were no restrictions upon press access to, or publication of any information in the public domain.... There is no question of a truncated flow of information to the public.
Id. at 609, 98 S.Ct. at 1318. Here, there is no question that the press is barred from publishing and utilizing the trial exhibits, with the result that the flow of information to the public is seriously impaired.
Although joining in the majority’s opinion, Chief Justice Phillips objects to any writing here on grounds that "this Court’s decision to decline to hear a case is not an adjudication on the merits.” At 661 (Phillips, C.J., concurring with “Separate Opinion”). When the question is whether a lower court may obstruct the ability of the press to provide to the public a complete statement of the evidence at a public trial, the refusal of this court to intervene constitutes an adjudication. Without the exchange of opinions occurring here, the public and the parties would simply be led to speculate as to why access to public trial exhibits has been denied. When this court of last resort concurs in the denial of access, an explanation is appropriate.
The implication of his opinion that the majority would be empowered to suppress writings such as this dissent is most troubling. Id. at 666. Dissents of this type have occurred both in this court,9 see id. at nn. 1 & 2, and in the United States Supreme Court. Justice Stevens, upon whom Chief Justice Phillips relies in questioning the desirability of such opinions, see id. at 661, has himself exercised this right. See Benten v. Kessler, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2929, 120 L.Ed.2d 926 (1992) (Stevens, J., *667dissenting). Nor do the vast majority of state courts across this country feel justified in silencing their own members.10 Moreover, this court has previously noted the constitutional implication associated with a judge’s right to dissent. See O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 887 S.W.2d 94, 96-97 (1992). Public awareness of our differing views on issues of such significance strengthens rather than weakens our system of justice.
Freedom of information is among the most critical liberties for our democracy. Without it, citizens cannot make the decisions necessary for the proper functioning of our government. Certainly this applies to these documents hidden from public view by the action of the majority solely to prevent their publication in a newspaper. As I have previously urged:
Public court records are rich with democracy’s indispensable raw material: infor-mation_ Information’s free flow allows citizens to govern their fate and fortune. When its passage is arrested or reduced to a trickle, control over our lives is wrested from our hands. If the public is to make intelligent decisions about our courts, our laws and the effectiveness of those officials that enforce them, a presumption of openness should govern.11
In the judiciary, our third branch of government, freedom of information should not be restricted or merely tolerated, it should be encouraged.
MAUZY, HIGHTOWER and GAMMAGE, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.

. Argument of counsel for Upjohn Company before the trial court.

. William Freeman, the plaintiff in the underlying action, subsequently joined in the request for mandamus relief from the order of the court of appeals.

. Upjohn made no request to expedite the appeal, on which the court of appeals has failed to act during the ensuing six months.

. Nor, as the majority suggests, at 659 (Gonzalez, J.), are we required to do otherwise by the writing of four justices in Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 99 S.Ct. 2898, 61 L.Ed.2d 608 (1979) (interpreting conflicting federal constitutional interests concerning the effect of public access to a pretrial suppression hearing on a defendant’s right to a fair trial in a criminal proceeding). As that decision recognized, the federal charter lacks a specific provision guaranteeing access to the courts such as those found in many state constitutions. 443 U.S. at 386-87 & nn. 15 & 17, 99 S.Ct. at 2908-09 & nn. 15 & 17. The Texas Constitution unquestionably provides such a right. Tex. Const, art. I, § 13 ("All courts shall be open_”). Moreover, a majority of the justices in Gannett would deny public access only upon a showing of irreparable harm and that no less restrictive means to prevent that harm is available. 443 U.S. at 400-01, 99 S.Ct. at 2916 (Powell, J., concurring) & 441-42, 99 S.Ct. at 2936-37 (Blackmun, J., joined by Brennan, White, and Marshall, JJ., concurring and dissenting).

. The implication that today’s failure to grant emergency relief means "only three weeks” of delay until oral argument in the Fifth Court of Appeals is misleading. Maj. op. at 657 n. 3. By then, the trial will have ended; the public attention focused on this matter substantially diminished. Nor is there a likelihood of a final resolution as to disclosability at that time. Half of a year transpired between the filing of the prior appeal and the presentation of oral argument. Certainly additional months will pass before issuance of the appellate opinion. This prospect can hardly be viewed as "contemporaneous access;” it represents no meaningful substitute for the access that is denied today.

. Certainly in affording public access the trial court can take reasonable precautions to avoid disruption of a trial. That, however, is in no way at issue here. Judge Marshall apparently had full and appropriate control of the trial proceedings. The source of any disruption was not the media but the appellate courts.

. The specific explanation offered by the majority for limiting freedom of information is, however, unpersuasive. Maj. op. at 659. "[D]ocuments filed in an action originally arising under the Family Code” are excluded in Rule 76a(2)(a)(3) from the definition of "court records” and are not therefore subject to the Rule’s procedural requisites, but neither are they absolutely "exempt” from disclosure. Rather, Rule 76a(9) clearly provides that "[a]ccess to documents in court files not defined as court records by this rule remains governed by existing law." A court may well benefit from looking to Rule 76a procedures and principles in considering even those documents formally excluded from the Rule's definition. See Lloyd Doggett & Michael J. Mucchetti, Afterword to Public Access to Public Courts: Discouraging Secrecy in the Public Interest, in Texas Litigation Reader 158, 204 (A.F. Brooke II and Gregory S. Coleman eds., 1992). Nor did we make any determination on the merits with our order denying access to a videotape exhibit in Boyles v. Kerr, 815 S.W.2d 545 (Tex.1991). There, relying on Rule 76a(7), we simply "referred the movant to the trial court which has continuing authority to modify its sealing orders.” Afterword, supra, at 204.

. The language quoted by the majority from 435 U.S. at 609, 98 S.Ct. at 1317 as the holding is in fact a party’s argument as to the scope of a prior decision.

. Chief Justice Phillips voiced no similar concern as Justices Cornyn and Hecht wrote separately in an identical procedural context when this court denied temporary relief. Del Valle Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Dibrell, 830 S.W.2d 87 (Tex.1992) (Cornyn and Hecht, JJ., dissenting from denial of request for temporary relief to stay or suspend court-ordered election).

. A judge is apparently not prohibited from making known that judge’s dissenting view to such an order in at least thirty-eight states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Responses to survey by William L. Willis, Executive Assistant, Supreme Court of Texas.

. Lloyd Doggett & Michael J. Mucchetti, Public Access to Public Courts: Discouraging Secrecy in the Public Interest, 69 Texas L.Rev. 643, 653, 655 (1991) (footnotes omitted).