Los Angeles Times v. County of Los Angeles
| Citation | 956 F.Supp. 1530 |
| Decision Date | 12 November 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 95-6972 RAP JGX.,CV 95-6972 RAP JGX. |
| Parties | LOS ANGELES TIMES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
Rex Heinke, Timothy Alger, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Los Angeles, CA, Karlene Goller, Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Leela Kapur, Los Angeles County Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant.
Pending before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below the defendant's motion for summary adjudication of the fourth claim for relief for the alleged deprivation of plaintiffs' First Amendment rights is granted. With the disposition of the First Amendment claim, the Court declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and orders them dismissed without prejudice.
For some time now, the Los Angeles Superior Court and the Los Angeles County Municipal Courts have maintained automated civil case management systems. Although these courts still maintain paper or "hard copy" case files and records, these automated systems allow the courts to track the progress of a case, and record critical case information such as the case name and number, case events initiated by the parties, or action taken by a court clerk or judicial officer. Not surprisingly, the Superior and Municipal Courts have accumulated a significant amount of information that is helpful to the courts in managing their civil cases. This information is also of interest to credit rating firms, rental agencies, title companies, or information providers. The interest is even greater when it is accessible in an electronic format on a daily basis.
This case involves the Information Access Provider ("IAP") Program, a program recently implemented by Los Angeles County whereby data compiled from the Superior and Municipal Courts automated case management systems is available — through daily electronic transmission — to private parties for a fee pursuant to a subscription agreement with the County. The IAP Program data contains such information as case name and number, attorneys' names, hearing dates, and case disposition (judgment or dismissal). The IAP Program data is available in two parts, a ten year historical compilation and periodic updates of the same information. The ten year compilation on computer tapes is available, at cost, to the general public. However, only IAP subscribers who pay the required fees may obtain daily updates.
In addition to the payment of fees, the IAP Program subscription agreement imposes certain obligations on the subscriber. The subscriber must agree to: 1) indemnify the County from any liability arising from or related to the use of IAP data; 2) maintain liability insurance with the County as an additional insured; 3) not sell the IAP Program data in bulk; and 4) maintain records for the County's review.
In this § 1983 action, the plaintiffs contend that the IAP Program data compilation is a court record to which they have a First Amendment right of access. Accordingly, they contend that limitation of access to the IAP Program data daily update service to paying subscribers with the attendant restriction violates this right.
The First Amendment claim is premised on the assertion that the daily IAP Program data compilation — in its electronic format — is a "court record." The parties dispute whether the automated daily data compilation is a "court record" under California law. Although the IAP Program data compilation may not be a classic hard file court record, it is derived from Superior and Municipal Court case files and then converted into a new automated format. Given the source of the IAP Program data compilation, the Court assumes that it is a "court record." However, for reasons explained below, the IAP data compilation is not the type of court record to which plaintiffs have a First Amendment right of access.
The plaintiffs also allege that the IAP Program violates the following state laws: (1) California Government Code § 25332, because the amount of the IAP Program fees exceeds the County's direct costs; 2) California Government Code § 68150, because the IAP Program limits reasonable public access to court records in their electronic format; and 3) Article 13A, § 4 of the California Constitution, because the IAP Program fee constitutes a "special tax" that must be approved by two-thirds of county voters.
The plaintiffs urge the Court to avoid deciding the First Amendment right of access claim by first addressing the state statutory claims. Indeed, plaintiffs remind the Court that where possible, it should avoid deciding Constitutional claims unnecessarily. The Court is mindful of this settled principle. Yet the Court must also respect principles of comity and federalism. These state law claims are novel, raise issues of first impression, and may directly impact the development, maintenance and use of automated case management systems by the state courts. Further, several of the state law claims directly challenge the County's ability to maximize its use of County resources that may be financially beneficial to the County and the Superior and Municipal Courts. In light of these concerns and the Court's decision to grant summary judgment on the First Amendment right of access claim, the Court declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
The parties stipulated to the following material facts in support of their cross-motions for summary judgment. For the convenience of the Court and the parties, the joint factual stipulation is set forth in full:
1. The Los Angeles County Municipal and Superior Courts are located in more than 40 courthouses throughout the County. A case file is maintained for each civil case. These case files are maintained in paper form and contain, among other items, documents filed by the litigants, court orders, and court generated documents such as notices.
2. To obtain information directly from a case file, a member of the public must visit the courthouse at which the file is maintained. Upon request, members of the public are provided access to these civil case files. An individual may request a copy of any document within the file and court staff will provide one at a set fee which is based upon the costs of duplicating the documents.
3. The Los Angeles County Municipal Court is comprised of 24 independent judicial districts. The Municipal Court districts currently use the following five separate computer systems known as automated case management systems ("ACMS")
a. LACAS — The automated case management system for civil cases, other than small claims matters, filed in the Los Angeles Municipal Judicial District.
b. LACAS Lite — The automated case management system for small claims cases filed in the Los Angeles Municipal Judicial District.
c. CIVAS — The automated case management system for civil cases, other than small claims matters, filed in any of the 23 municipal court districts other than the Los Angeles Judicial District.
d. SCOT — The automated case management system for small claims cases filed in any of the 23 municipal court districts other than the Los Angeles Judicial District.
e. ICMS — A pilot integrated automated case management system which is currently being implemented in the Glendale and Malibu Municipal Judicial Districts and in the Glendale and Burbank Superior Court branches. The Glendale and Malibu Municipal Court Districts have retained usage of the CIVAS and SCOT systems for management of cases that were pending prior to the time of ICMS' implementation.
4. The ACMS systems contain selected elements of information copied from documents contained within the courts' civil case files. The information contained on the ACMS systems is that information necessary to facilitate the execution of the internal clerical processing requirements of the clerks of the courts and their staff. The information contained on the ACMS systems does not constitute a comprehensive compilation of all information contained in the case files. While the information contained on the five above described ACMS systems may differ between systems, in general terms, they all contain information such as the parties' names, the attorneys' names, the case number, the filing date, the judgment amount, the judgment decision, and information relating to the progress of the case such as hearing dates.
5. When documents are filed, hearings held, or orders issued in a civil action in municipal court, court staff updates the appropriate ACMS system with the relevant information. The ACMS systems are used by municipal court staff to facilitate the court staff's clerical processing responsibilities, such as generating notices, establishing court calendars, and generating statistical reports. Through the ACMS systems, municipal court staff may determine the status of any civil case on that particular system, including any upcoming hearing.
6. Through the municipal court ACMS systems, municipal court staff produce a register of action for each municipal civil case. If a member of the public requests access to the register of action for a particular municipal court case, court staff generates and prints one from the computer and provides it to him at cost. A register of actions is a document which sets forth a chronological summary of significant events that have occurred in the case through its duration. In civil matters, the terms "register of actions" and "docket" are often used interchangeably but they refer to one and the same document.
7. There is no such document as a case index, as to a given case, contained in a municipal court civil case file or on the ACMS systems.
8. All of the information contained in the ACMS systems regarding a particular case can be found in the paper case file. However, all of the information is not located in one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Courthouse News Serv. v. Planet
...and institutional subscribers nationwide, including law firms, university and law school libraries, and major media outlets such as the Los Angeles Times and Boston Globe. It publishes sixteen reports on new litigation in federal and state courts in California and enables subscribers to rec......