Admin. Office of the Courts v. Abell Found.
| Docket Number | 48, Sept. Term, 2021 |
| Decision Date | 28 July 2022 |
| Citation | 480 Md. 63,279 A.3d 976 |
| Parties | ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, et al. v. ABELL FOUNDATION |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Argued by Kevin M. Cox, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Kathryn Hummel, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Brian E. Frosh, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Petitioners.
Argued by Benjamin Rosenberg (Lauren M. McLarney, Rosenberg Martin Greenberg, LLP, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Respondent.
Amici Curiae on behalf of the Public Justice Center, the Clinical Law Program at the University of Maryland School of Law, the Civil Advocacy Clinic of the University of Baltimore School of Law, the Legal Data & Design Clinic of the University of Baltimore School of Law, the Baltimore Action Legal Team, Common Cause Maryland, and the MDCC Press Association: Michael R. Abrams, Esquire, Murnaghan Appellate Advocacy Fellow, Public Justice Center, 201 N. Charles Street, Suite 1200, Baltimore, MD 21201.
Argued before:* Getty, C.J.; Watts, Hotten, Booth, Biran, Glenn T. Harrell, Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), Robert N. McDonald (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
McDonald, J. One who attends a major league baseball game can generally know the names of the players, as they are printed on the backs of their uniforms. One team is an exception to this general rule.1 In that case, one must buy a scorecard that contains a key that relates the number on a player's uniform to the player's name.
An analogous situation exists for one who accesses information about Maryland judicial proceedings reported in an online database known as Case Search. That database, which is overseen by Petitioner Administrative Office of the Courts ("the AOC"), provides ready and convenient public access to information about court proceedings and records that are indisputably open to the public. For cases in many courts, the judge who presided over the particular proceeding is identified in Case Search. However, for cases in the District Court sitting in Baltimore City, the judge is identified only by an alphanumeric code. The clerks who enter the information from paper records into the digital database have a code key – the equivalent of a baseball scorecard – that assigns each judge a code. However, that code key does not appear in Case Search – or apparently anywhere else that is accessible to the public. One who accesses the report of a particular proceeding in that court on Case Search sees only the code for the judge.
In July 2018, Respondent Abell Foundation ("Abell") requested a copy of the code key from the AOC under the Maryland Public Information Act. The AOC declined to provide that document, citing a Maryland Rule that states an exception to disclosure for certain types of "administrative records." This litigation ensued.
Everyone agrees that the information in the code key sought by Abell was not, and is not, confidential and is available elsewhere. The name of a judge who presided at a particular proceeding in the District Court is publicly available in paper or electronic files at the courthouse; the alphanumeric code associated with that judge appears in the Case Search entry for the proceeding. One who is willing to both visit the courthouse and access Case Search online can associate the two. This case concerns whether the record containing the code key itself falls under the exception from public access in the Maryland Rules cited by the AOC.
The Circuit Court and the Court of Special Appeals concluded that the exception did not apply to the code key. We agree. Every version of the Maryland Rules governing access to court records – as we shall see, those rules have been revised several times over the last two decades, even after this controversy arose – has begun from the principle that a judicial record relating to court proceedings is presumed to be open to inspection by a person who asks for it unless shielding or sealing it is necessary to protect legitimate privacy rights or security. That premise reflects the common law principle that judicial proceedings, records, and documents are open to public view unless a statute, rule, or decision by this Court provides otherwise.
There is a longstanding tradition of access to court proceedings and records under the common law in Maryland, and in the United States generally. See Baltimore Sun Co. v. Mayor & City Council , 359 Md. 653, 660, 755 A.2d 1130 (2000) (); Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. , 435 U.S. 589, 597-99, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978). In particular, "there is a common law right to inspect and copy judicial records and documents." Baltimore Sun Co. v. Colbert , 323 Md. 290, 305, 593 A.2d 224 (1991).
The traditional openness of court records is based in part on "the citizen's desire to keep a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies." Nixon , 435 U.S. at 598, 98 S.Ct. 1306. There is also the more general notion that records of court proceedings are "public property" for which "[t]here is no special perquisite of the judiciary which enables it, as distinguished from other institutions of democratic government, to suppress, edit, or censor events which transpire in proceedings before it." Mayor & City Council , 359 Md. at 663, 755 A.2d 1130 (quoting Craig v. Harney , 331 U.S. 367, 374, 67 S.Ct. 1249, 91 L.Ed. 1546 (1947) ).
The principle of public access to court proceedings and records is often contrasted with the secretive practices attributed to the Star Chamber, a court created by the Tudor kings of England that has been associated with abusive and overbearing prosecutorial practices, compelled testimony from criminal defendants, and religious persecution. E.g., Tharp v. State , 362 Md. 77, 93-94 & n.9, 763 A.2d 151 (2000) ; Carter v. State , 356 Md. 207, 214-18, 738 A.2d 871 (1999) ; see also Frank Reibli, The Spectre of Star Chamber: The Role of an Ancient English Tribunal in the Supreme Court's Self-Incrimination Jurisprudence , 29 Hastings Const. L.Q. 807 (2002) ().
The traditional principle that court proceedings and records are open to the public is, of course, subject to exceptions such as "where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes." Nixon , 435 U.S. at 598, 98 S.Ct. 1306 ().
The Maryland Public Information Act ("PIA"), codified at Maryland Code, General Provisions Article ("GP"), § 4-101 et seq ., generally governs access to public records of "units and instrumentalities" of the State, including the Judiciary.2 For purposes of the PIA, a "public record" encompasses "documentary material ... made ... or received by the unit or instrumentality in connection with the transaction of public business...." GP § 4-101(k)(1). The PIA provides a broad right of access to public records without unnecessary cost or delay. GP § 4-103 (). The PIA recognizes various exceptions to the general right of access to public records. Some of those exceptions are mandatory – that is, the custodian of the record is forbidden from disclosing the record.3 Other exceptions are discretionary or conditional – in the sense that the custodian must exercise judgment whether specific records or information satisfy a condition set forth in the statute for being withheld from disclosure.4
In delineating access to public records, the PIA defers to other law.5 One category of other law to which the PIA explicitly defers is "rules adopted by the Court of Appeals."
GP § 4-301(a)(2)(iii) (). Such deference is consistent with the constitutional authority of the Court of Appeals to adopt "rules and regulations ... concerning the ... administration of [the courts], which shall have the force of law until rescinded, changed or modified by the Court of Appeals or otherwise by law." Maryland Constitution, Article IV, § 18 (a); see Murphy v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co ., 478 Md. 333, 341-42, 274 A.3d 412 (2022). Thus, Maryland Rules concerning whether a Judiciary record is accessible would supersede anything in the PIA that would appear to provide to the contrary.6
If a custodian of a public record denies access to the record, the PIA provides that the person asking to inspect the record may pursue judicial review of that decision in a circuit court. GP § 4-362.
This Court has adopted rules governing access to court records. Maryland Rules 16-901 et seq . ("Access Rules"). As the PIA acknowledges, the Access Rules govern a decision by a custodian of judicial records whether to allow access to particular public records.
The Access Rules have undergone a number of revisions since their initial adoption in 2004.7 One of the peculiarities of this case is that the Access Rules not only have been amended and re-codified several times over the past 18 years, but also have been recodified and revised in the short period of time since this case began. Pertinent to this case is the version of the rules that existed as of July 2018, when Abell submitted the records request that resulted in this case. Accordingly, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the Access Rules in this opinion are to the rules in effect at that time. We shall do our best to...
To continue reading
Request your trial