Courthouse News Service v. Planet, No. 16-55977 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Applying Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986), the Ninth Circuit held that the press has a qualified right of timely access to newly filed civil nonconfidential complaints that attaches when the complaint is filed. However, the panel held that this right does not entitle the press to immediate access to those complaints. Furthermore, some reasonable restrictions resembling time, place, and manner regulations that result in incidental delays in access are constitutionally permitted where they are content-neutral, narrowly tailored and necessary to preserve the court's important interest in the fair and orderly administration of justice.
In this case, CNS filed suit seeking immediate access to newly filed civil complaints from Ventura County Superior Court. The panel affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment as to the no-access-before-process policy, but reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment as to the scanning policy. The panel vacated the district court's injunction and award of fees, remanding for further consideration.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Courthouse New Service in its action seeking immediate access to newly filed civil complaints from Ventura County Superior Court. Prior to 2014, Ventura County had a “no-access-before- process” policy pertaining to new civil complaints which often resulted in significant delays between the filing of a complaint and its availability to Courthouse News Service. After this suit was filed, the County dropped the no-access- before-process policy and instituted a “scanning policy,” which requires court staff to scan new civil complaints before reviewing or processing them. After scanning, the complaints are available on public computer terminals in the Ventura County clerk’s office. Prior to July 2016, complaints filed after 3:00 PM were scanned and made publicly available the next day. The district court concluded that both Ventura County’s no-access-before-process policy and its scanning policy unconstitutionally infringed Courthouse News Service’s right to timely access the complaints. Applying Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (Press-Enterprise II), 478 U.S. 1 (1986), the panel held that the press has a qualified right of timely access to newly filed COURTHOUSE NEW SERVICE V. PLANET 3 civil nonconfidential complaints that attaches when the complaint is filed. However, this right does not entitle the press to immediate access to those complaints. Some reasonable restrictions resembling time, place, and manner regulations that result in incidental delays in access are constitutionally permitted where they are content-neutral, narrowly tailored and necessary to preserve the court’s important interest in the fair and orderly administration of justice. The panel held that although Ventura County has a substantial interest in the orderly administration and processing of new complaints, its former no-access-before- process policy failed, under a rigorous but not strict scrutiny analysis, both prongs of the balancing test set forth in Press- Enterprise II. Thus, Ventura County had not shown a “substantial probability” that more contemporaneous access to the newly filed complaints would impair its interest in orderly administration. In fact, the record demonstrated that the lengthy delays under the no-access-before-process policy were entirely unrelated to Ventura County’s asserted governmental interests. Moreover, the policy caused far greater delays than were necessary to adequately protect Ventura County’s administrative interests given the reasonable alternatives available. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment as to the no-access-before process policy. The panel held that Ventura County’s scanning policy passed constitutional scrutiny. The panel determined that there was a substantial probability that Ventura County’s interest in the fair and orderly administration of new judicial filings would be impaired if the scanning policy was not in place. Moreover, unlike with the no-access-before-process policy, there was nothing in the record to indicate that 4 COURTHOUSE NEW SERVICE V. PLANET Ventura County considered but rejected reasonable alternatives to the scanning policy. Additionally, the panel noted that prior to 2014, Ventura County was undergoing severe budget constraints, and it had demonstrated that the overnight delay in access to complaints filed during the last ninety minutes of the court’s public hours was no greater than essential to manage necessary court operations under the circumstances existing at the time. The panel therefore reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to the scanning policy, vacated the district court’s injunction and award of fees, and remanded for further consideration consistent with the panel’s opinion. Concurring as to part III of the opinion, Judge N.R. Smith stated that the majority correctly determined that Ventura County’s access policies resembled time, place, and manner restrictions—they were content-neutral and affected only the timing of access to the newly filed complaints. However, Judge N.R. Smith stated that rather than adopt the time, place, and manner test, the majority applied a strict scrutiny analysis which Supreme Court precedent does not require.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.