Ninth Circuit Upholds Federal Magistrate; Orders Police Records Unsealed

The Ninth Circuit has upheld a federal magistrate’s ruling ordering the unsealing of some Honolulu Police Department records filed as attachments to motions in a whistleblower lawsuit. Intervenor The Honolulu Advertiser, owned by the Gannett Corporation, moved to unseal the records under the common law right of access during the lawsuit. The  Police Department and other parties had moved to challenge the magistrate’s order to unseal the documents. The case is Kamakana v. U. S., 9th Circ., 04-15241.

According to the Ninth Circuit, the question is whether “the magistrate judge abused her discretion in determining that continued secrecy was no longer warranted for almost all of the dcouments currently under seal.” Said the court, “Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judical records and documents.’…This right is justified by the interests of citizens in “keep[ing] a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies.”…Such vigilance is aided by the efforts of newspapers to “publish information concerning the operationg of government.”…Nevertheless, access to judicial records is not absolute. A narrow range of documents is not subject to the right of public access at all….Our case law has identified two categories of documents that fall in this category: grand jury transcripts and warrant materials in the midst of a pre-indictment investigation….Unless a particular court record is one “traditionally kept secret,” a “strong presumption in favor of access” is the starting point….A party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the “compelling reasons” standard….In general, “compelling reasons” sufficient to outweight the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such “court files might have become a vehicle for improper purchase,” such as the use of record to gratify private spite, promote public schandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets….The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records….”

The court considered whether the city had “good cause” to request that the records remain sealed. “Under our precedent, the City was required to present “articulable facts” identifying the interests favoring continued secrecy….and to show that these specific interests overcame the presumption of access by outweighing the “public interest…”…Instead the City complains that it had no chance to present compelling reasons….But, in fact, the City did have a chance to show “compelling reasons” and squandered it.”

Further, the court notes, “…the magistrate judge did not summarily order the production of the City’s documents. Rather, she conducted an “exhausting if not exhaustive” in camera review of the materials. After this review, the magistrate judge noted that “the testimony and documents…do not contain information that could be used for `scandalous or libelous’ purposes”….

Read the entire opinion here.