Courthouse News Serv. v. Glessner

• Decision Date: 16 July 2021
• Docket Number: Docket No. 1:21-cv-00040-NT
• Citation: 549 F.Supp.3d 169
• Parties: COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE, et al., Plaintiffs, and Bangor Publishing Company, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. James T. GLESSNER et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maine

549 F.Supp.3d 169

COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE, et al., Plaintiffs,

and

Bangor Publishing Company, Plaintiff-Intervenor,

v.James T. GLESSNER et al., Defendants.

Docket No. 1:21-cv-00040-NT

United States District Court, D. Maine.

Signed July 16, 2021

Jeffrey J. Pyle, Pro Hac Vice, Prince Lobel Tye LLP, Boston, MA, Sigmund D. Schutz, Preti, Flaherty, Portland, ME, for Plaintiff Courthouse News Service.

Sigmund D. Schutz, Preti, Flaherty, Portland, ME, for Plaintiffs MTM Acquisition Inc., SJ Acquisition Inc.

Bernard J. Kubetz, Christopher T. Uphouse, Eaton Peabody, Bangor, ME, for Plaintiff-Intervenor.

Jason Anton, Thomas A. Knowlton, Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, ME, for Defendants.

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Nancy Torresen, United States District Judge

Plaintiffs Courthouse News Service, MTM Acquisition, Inc., and SJ Acquisition, Inc. ("Courthouse News Plaintiffs ") and Plaintiff-Intervenor Bangor Publishing Company (collectively, "Plaintiffs ") filed complaints (ECF Nos. 14–15) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that would allow them access to civil complaints the moment they are received by Maine's state courts. Along with their respective complaints, the Plaintiffs filed motions seeking a preliminary injunction (ECF Nos. 23, 25). The Defendants, the State Court Administrator for the State of Maine Judicial Branch and the Clerk of the Penobscot County Superior Court, ("Defendants ") oppose the motions for injunctive relief (ECF No. 30) and have moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ complaints (ECF Nos. 16, 22). For the reasons set forth below, I grant the Defendants’ motions to dismiss and deny as moot the Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction.

BACKGROUND

I. The Maine Courts’ Implementation of Electronic Filing Rules and the Courthouse News Plaintiffs’ First Challenge to the Rules

In 2020, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC ") initiated a pilot e-filing project for the Maine state court system in Penobscot County Superior Court, in the Bangor District Court, and for the Business and Consumer Docket. Decl. of James T. Glessner ("Glessner Decl. ") ¶¶ 5–6 (ECF No. 16-1). In conjunction with the e-filing pilot project, the SJC adopted the Maine Rules of Electronic Court System ("RECS "), which have been amended several times since their adoption in August of 2020. Glessner Decl. ¶¶ 4, 8. According to their preamble, the RECS "are intended to facilitate public access to and use of the courts in the electronic environment, while providing maximum reasonable public access to court records and minimizing the risk of harm to individuals and entities involved in court proceedings." RECS Preamble (ECF No. 23-2). In developing the RECS, the SJC "carefully considered and weighed the importance of both public access and protection of privacy in court records in the context of an electronic case management and filing system." RECS Preamble.

In mid-December 2020, the SJC amended Rule 4(A)(1) of the RECS (the "December RECS ") to provide that no civil court record would be accessible to the public until three business days after the court clerk had accepted both the case-initiating documents and proof of service of process on at least one defendant. Compl. ¶ 4 (ECF No. 1); Glessner Decl. ¶ 8; RECS Rule 4(A)(1). On February 3, 2021, the Courthouse News Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that the December version of Rule 4(A)(1) denied them access to newly filed civil complaints at the Penobscot County Superior Court. Compl. ¶¶ 5, 29. The Courthouse News Plaintiffs alleged that the adoption of electronic filing substantially delayed their access to newly filed complaints, in some instances by several weeks from the date of filing, so they asked me to declare that they had a "First Amendment right of access to civil complaints and other civil judicial records" that "attaches upon receipt of such records by the court" and that RECS Rule 4 violated their "right of contemporaneous access to court records." Compl. ¶ 29, Prayer for Relief. They also asked me to enjoin the Defendants from "continuing their policy of denying immediate access to civil complaints and associated court records." Compl. Prayer for Relief.

With their Complaint, the Courthouse News Plaintiffs also moved for a preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin the Defendants from enforcing the December version of Rule 4 and requiring that the Defendants make civil litigation records available immediately upon receipt. Pls.’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj. 20 (ECF No. 3).¹

II. The Maine Courts’ Revision of the Electronic Filing Rules

On February 22, 2021, about three weeks after the Courthouse News Plaintiffs initiated this action, the SJC amended the RECS, effective March 15, 2021 ("March RECS ").² Pls.’ First Am. Compl. ¶ 5 (ECF No. 14); Intervenor-Pl.’s First Am. Compl. ¶ 5 (ECF No. 15). The March RECS did away with the provision prohibiting public access to a new civil complaint until after service on a defendant and replaced it with the following language: "Unless prohibited by law or by court order, a court record in a civil case is accessible by the public upon entry into the electronic case file." RECS Rule 4(A)(1). Under the March RECS, the following e-filing procedure is followed. First, a party submits a document for filing on the electronic filing system ("EFS ").³ Next the court clerk performs a ministerial check on the document for compliance with certain filing rules and enters the document into the electronic case file.⁴ When the document is entered into the electronic case file, it is considered "accepted"⁵ by the court as an electronic filing that can be accessed by the public.⁶

Because the March RECS have only been in effect for about four months, there is not much of a track record about how long it will take the court clerks to enter complaints into the electronic case file, thereby making them available to the public. The Defendants claim that the process is "ministerial" and essentially "the equivalent of the examination of paper submissions that occurs in other Maine courts." Glessner Decl. ¶ 12. The SJC expects that, "except in extraordinary circumstances," the clerk's office review will be completed within four business hours. Glessner Decl. ¶ 12.

III. The Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaints and the Pending Motions

After the RECS were amended in February and before they went into effect on March 15, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed amended complaints (the "Amended Complaints "). Pls.’ First Am. Compl. (ECF No. 14); Intervenor-Pl.’s First Am. Compl. (ECF No. 15). The Plaintiffs seek the same relief that they did in their original complaints—declarations that (1) there is a First Amendment right of access to civil complaints and other civil judicial records that attaches upon receipt of such records by the court and (2) the March RECS violate the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right of contemporaneous access to court records, and a permanent injunction prohibiting the "Defendants from continuing their policy of denying immediate access to civil complaints and associated court records." Pls.’ First Am. Compl. Prayer for Relief; Intervenor-Pl.’s First Am. Compl. Prayer for Relief.

On March 4, 2021, the Courthouse News Plaintiffs withdrew their first motion for preliminary injunction because the SJC had issued a temporary order allowing court clerks to provide paper copies of newly filed complaints to those requesting access. Pls.’ Notice of Withdrawal of Mot. for Prelim. Inj. and Notice of New Judicial Branch Standing Order 1 (ECF No. 18), Ex. A (ECF No. 18-1).⁷

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaints on the grounds that (1) the challenge to the abrogated December version of Rule 4(A)(1) is moot, and (2) the challenge to the March version of Rule 4(A)(1) is not ripe for adjudication and fails as a matter of law. Mot. to Dismiss First Am. Compl. ("Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss ") 2, 6–9 (ECF No. 16); Mot. to Dismiss Intervenor-Pl.’s Bangor Publishing Company's First Am. Compl. 1 (ECF No. 22).⁸

On March 17, 2021, two days after the amended March RECS took effect, the Plaintiffs again moved for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Defendants "from enforcing so much of the [March RECS] as deny press and public access to electronically filed court records until after the ‘entry’ of the records into the electronic case file." Pls.’ Second Mot. for Prelim. Inj. ("Pls.’ PI Mot. ") 20 (ECF No. 23); see Pl. Bangor Publishing Company's Second Mot. for Injunctive Relief 2 (ECF No. 25) ("identical" request for injunctive relief).⁹ They request that I "requir[e] Defendants to make records relating to new civil actions available to the public upon their receipt." Pls.’ PI Mot. 20.

On June 9, 2021, I held oral argument (ECF No. 36) on both the Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Because counsel for Courthouse News indicated at oral argument that the challenge was primarily a facial challenge to the existing RECS, following the argument, I directed the Plaintiffs to notify the Court as to whether they were still pursuing an as-applied challenge, and, if so, to supplement the record with evidence relating to the existence and duration of any access delays to newly filed complaints. Order (ECF No. 37). The Defendants were given an opportunity to respond with evidence of their own.

On June 14, 2021, the Courthouse News Plaintiffs filed their notice clarifying that—in addition to their facial challenge—they also "are pursuing an as-applied challenge to the RECS." Notice of As-Applied Challenge Pursuant to Order Dated June 9, 2021 ("Pls.’ Notice ") (ECF No. 38). In support of their contention that the current March RECS policy has resulted in delays in access, the Plaintiffs filed a declaration stating that, out of twenty-six complaints filed since the March RECS went into effect, six were not available to the public until the day after the filing and one...