Courthouse News Serv. v. Omundson

1

COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE, Plaintiff, v. SARA OMUNDSON, in her official capacity as Administrative Director of Idaho Courts, Defendant.

No. 1:21-cv-00305-DCN

United States District Court, D. Idaho

September 30, 2024

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

David C. Nye Chief U.S. District Court Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. Dkts. 60, 61. Defendant Sara Omundson also filed a Motion to Seal (Dkt. 58), and, as part of the briefing on that motion, Plaintiff Courthouse News Service (“CNS”) filed a Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply (Dkt. 77).

The Court held oral argument on July 10, 2023, and took the matters under advisement. Upon review, and for the reasons outlined below, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply (Dkt. 77), GRANTS in PART and DENIES in PART the Motion to Seal (Dkt. 58), DENIES Omundson's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 60) and GRANTS CNS's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 61.)

II. OVERVIEW

While this is a difficult case, the issues boil down to two basic questions. First, under the First Amendment, at what point in time can CNS expect access to newly-filed civil complaints in Idaho state court? And second, does the review process Omundson currently uses inhibit CNS's right of access?

The Court has researched the issues involved in this case extensively. Notably, CNS has pursued-and is currently pursuing-claims like those at issue here throughout the United States. And generally speaking, CNS has found success in its pursuit.

Many district courts have ruled in CNS's favor. See, e.g., Courthouse News Serv. v. Forman,^[1] 606 F.Supp.3d 1200 (N.D. Fla. 2022), (ruling in CNS's favor because defendant's “filing system frustrates the press and public's right to monitor their local judiciary” and infringes CNS's First Amendment rights) appeal dismissed sub nom. Courthouse News Serv. v. Broward Cnty. Clerk, 2022 WL 9643634 (11th Cir. Sept. 6, 2022); Courthouse News Serv. v. Gabel, 2021 WL 5416650, at *18 (D. Vt. Nov. 19, 2021) (enjoining the state of Vermont from “delaying public access to electronically filed civil complaints until the [] Courts' pre-access review process is complete”); Courthouse News Serv. v. Jackson, 2009 WL 2163609, at *5 (S.D. Tex. July 20, 2009) (granting CNS's motion for injunctive relief).

Some of those cases have been affirmed on appeal. See, e.g., Courthouse News Serv. v. Schaefer, 2 F.4th 318, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (affirming the district court's finding that CNS's First Amendment rights had been violated when the defendants did not make newly-filed complaints available “contemporaneously”-defined loosely as the same day as filing). But others have not. See, e.g., Courthouse News Serv. v. New Mexico Admin. Off. of Cts., 53 F.4th 1245, 1273 (10th Cir. 2022) (holding the district court erred in granting CNS's motion for preliminary injunction and imposing a bright-line, five-business-hour rule for when complaints needed to be made public).

Some courts have ruled in CNS's favor, but on more limited grounds. See, e.g., Courthouse News Serv. v. Planet, 947 F.3d 581, 594 (9th Cir. 2020) (finding some procedures unconstitutional and others constitutional).

Still other courts have decided the question is fact driven and must proceed to trial. Courthouse News Serv. v. Cozine, 2023 WL 6891322, at *6 (D. Or. Oct. 19, 2023) (“Because the Court finds that Defendant has shown genuine issues of fact for both parts of the Planet III balancing test, summary judgment in Plaintiff's favor is not appropriate. Plaintiff's First Amendment claim will proceed to trial.”).^[2]

Finally, some courts have stayed similar CNS cases in the hopes of settlement. Courthouse News Serv. v. Harris, No. CV ELH-22-0548, Dkt. 109 (D. Md. May 21, 2024) (granting joint motion to stay so parties could pursue settlement negotiations).

The varying outcomes of these cases is not surprising considering that each turns on the specific state statutes, filing rules, and court procedures at issue and whether each is constitutionally sufficient under the First Amendment. Nevertheless, the underlying analysis in each of those decisions relates to principles at play in this case and has caused the Court great consternation. There is a difficult balance here. On the one hand, nobody disputes (not even Omundson) that CNS should have access-and quick access at that- to newly filed civil lawsuits for news reporting purposes. On the other hand, everyone agrees (even CNS) that some type of review is necessary for organizational and clerical purposes. Ultimately then, the problem is timing. When does CNS's right to this information attach? And when does Omundson get to undertake her review?

CNS has a right under the First Amendment to access the information it seeks. It candidly recognizes this right is not “immediate.” But it also counters the right cannot be “delayed” either. Omundson's process includes some “delay”-at least by common parlance. Thus, the Court must resolve whether the delays stemming from Omundson's review process infringe CNS's constitutional rights. Under the circumstances, the Court finds Omundson's process does infringe CNS's rights. Accordingly, summary judgment is entered in favor of CNS and against Omundson.

III. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

CNS is a nationwide news service founded more than thirty years ago to provide coverage of civil lawsuits. It offers a variety of publications to thousands of subscribers across the United States. The publication covering Idaho courts is The Big Sky Report, written by Boise-based reporter Cathy Valenti. The Big Sky Report includes news about civil complaints filed in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, with its primary focus on actions involving businesses and public entities.

Omundson is the Administrative Director of Idaho Courts and, in her official capacity, is responsible for the administration of Idaho's e-filing and public access system-Odyssey or “iCourts”-that is used statewide by courthouses in each of Idaho's 44 counties.

As noted, the crux of this lawsuit centers on the timeliness of CNS's access to newly filed civil complaints in Idaho state court. As it currently stands, when a civil complaint is filed in Idaho, there is a short review county clerks undertake before the case is accessible to the public. This review includes checking for the following: (1) the required case information sheet has been submitted; (2) a certification of service was completed and is included; (3) the caption contains party names; (4) filing fees are paid and paid in the correct amount; (5) the document includes required signatures; and (6) the proper Magistrate division of the District Court has been selected (if applicable). See Dkt. 20-14, at 3.

The parties agree the aforementioned process takes roughly five minutes. The bigger problem is the time it takes staff to get to the review process in the first place.

CNS argues Omundson and her staff take too long, and the resulting delay infringes on its First Amendment right of access. Omundson asserts any delay is minimal and does not infringe any Constitutional rights.

B. Procedural Background

At the outset of this litigation, Omundson filed a Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 7. Therein, Omundson argued that CNS had not stated a claim upon which relief could be granted and, alternatively, that the Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over this case based upon principles of abstention. CNS opposed Omundson's Motion to Dismiss and filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction alleging the Court should enjoin Omundson from continuing to delay its access to newly filed civil complaints. Dkt. 14.

Ultimately, the Court denied both motions. Dkt. 40; Courthouse News Serv. v. Omundson, 598 F.Supp.3d 929 (D. Idaho 2022). The Court summarized its decision as follows:

Omundson's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. She is incorrect in her assertion that Planet III forecloses this case outright. Additionally, the Court joins other district courts-in conformity with the Ninth Circuit's holding-and finds abstention is inapplicable here. For these reasons, dismissal in inappropriate.

The Court cannot, however, grant CNS's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction at this time either. The outcome of Press Enterprise II's critical second question-regarding the constitutionality of any delay-cannot be determined at this early stage, even preliminarily. The Court has provided some initial rulings and guidance, but discovery is necessary to bring this fully before the Court for resolution. What's more, the remaining Winter factors are roughly even. Ultimately, the Court finds a preliminary injunction is not warranted.

Id. at 946. As alluded to, a two-prong test is at issue in this case. The Court previously found that CNS had meet the first prong of the test, but that discovery was necessary to flesh out the issues relative to the second prong. Discovery has come to an end, the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the remaining issue, and the Court held oral argument on the same.^[3] The matter is ripe for adjudication.

IV. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P 56(a). The Court's role at summary judgment is not “to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Zetwick v. Cnty. of Yolo, 850 F.3d 436, 441 (9th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up). Importantly, the Court does not make credibility determinations at this stage of the litigation. Such determinations are reserved for the trier of fact. Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 507 ...