Courthouse News Serv. v. Quinlan

• Decision Date: 25 April 2022
• Docket Number: 21-1624, No. 21-1642
• Citation: 32 F.4th 15
• Parties: COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE; MTM Acquisition, Inc., d/b/a Portland Press Herald, d/b/a Maine Sunday Telegram, d/b/a Kennebec Journal, d/b/a Morning Sentinel; SJ Acquisition, Inc., d/b/a Sun Journal, Plaintiffs, Appellants, Bangor Publishing Co., Inc., d/b/a Bangor Daily News, Plaintiff, v. Amy QUINLAN, in her official capacity as State Court Administrator for the State of Maine Judicial Branch; Peter Schleck, in his official capacity as Clerk of the Penobscot County Superior Court, Defendants, Appellees. Bangor Publishing Co., Inc., d/b/a Bangor Daily News, Plaintiff, Appellant, Courthouse News Service; MTM Acquisition, Inc., d/b/a Portland Press Herald, d/b/a Maine Sunday Telegram, d/b/a Kennebec Journal, d/b/a Morning Sentinel; SJ Acquisition, Inc., d/b/a Sun Journal, Plaintiffs, v. Amy Quinlan, in her official capacity as State Court Administrator for the State of Maine Judicial Branch; Peter Schleck, in his official capacity as Clerk of the Penobscot County Superior Court, Defendants, Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

32 F.4th 15

COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE; MTM Acquisition, Inc., d/b/a Portland Press Herald, d/b/a Maine Sunday Telegram, d/b/a Kennebec Journal, d/b/a Morning Sentinel; SJ Acquisition, Inc., d/b/a Sun Journal, Plaintiffs, Appellants,

Bangor Publishing Co., Inc., d/b/a Bangor Daily News, Plaintiff,

v.Amy QUINLAN,^* in her official capacity as State Court Administrator for the State of Maine Judicial Branch; Peter Schleck, in his official capacity as Clerk of the Penobscot County Superior Court, Defendants, Appellees.

Bangor Publishing Co., Inc., d/b/a Bangor Daily News, Plaintiff, Appellant,

Courthouse News Service; MTM Acquisition, Inc., d/b/a Portland Press Herald, d/b/a Maine Sunday Telegram, d/b/a Kennebec Journal, d/b/a Morning Sentinel; SJ Acquisition, Inc., d/b/a Sun Journal, Plaintiffs,

v.Amy Quinlan, in her official capacity as State Court Administrator for the State of Maine Judicial Branch; Peter Schleck, in his official capacity as Clerk of the Penobscot County Superior Court, Defendants, Appellees.

No. 21-1624

No. 21-1642

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

April 25, 2022

Barbara A. Smith, with whom Roger Myers, Rachel Matteo-Boehm, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, Jeffrey J. Pyle, Prince Lobel Tye LLP, Sigmund D. Schutz, and Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios, LLP were on brief, for appellants Courthouse News Service, MTM Acquisition, Inc., and SJ Acquisition, Inc.

Bernard J. Kubetz, with whom Eaton Peabody was on brief, for appellant Bangor Publishing Co., Inc.

Bruce D. Brown, Katie Townsend, and Shannon A. Jankowski on brief for amici curiae Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press and twenty-eight media organizations in support of appellants.

Thomas A. Knowlton, Deputy Attorney General, with whom Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General, and Jason Anton, Assistant Attorney General, were on brief, for appellees.

Joshua D. Dunlap, Peter J. Guffin, Laura M. O'Hanlon, and Pierce Atwood LLP on brief for amicus curiae Conference of Chief Justices in support of appellees.

Before Barron, Chief Judge, Lynch and Thompson, Circuit Judges.

LYNCH, Circuit Judge.

When the Maine Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) piloted an electronic case filing system for the state's trial courts, its original rules required court clerks to withhold public access to new civil complaints until three business days after at least one defendant had been served, resulting in delayed access, possibly for months. On February 3, 2021, a group of Maine newspapers and a national legal media company sued a pair of state court officials, alleging that such delayed access violated the First Amendment. The SJC then changed its rules to eliminate the specific timeframe for providing access. Instead of delineating a new deadline, it now allows the public to access newly filed civil complaints after court clerks process them. The rules do not specify how quickly that processing must occur.

The plaintiffs filed first amended complaints alleging that, despite that change, the rules still imposed significant delays on accessing newly filed civil complaints. They sought a preliminary injunction. The defendants sought dismissal of the amended complaints, asserting that the plaintiffs had failed to state a plausible First Amendment claim. In their response to the motion for a preliminary injunction, the defendants disputed the plaintiffs' assertion of undue delays.

The district court held that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim, dismissed the complaint, and denied the motion for a preliminary injunction as moot. Courthouse News Serv. v. Glessner, 549 F. Supp. 3d 169, 194 (D. Me. 2021). We vacate the dismissal and remand.

I.

A. Factual Background¹

Prior to the SJC's adoption of electronic filing rules in August 2020, parties commenced civil cases in Maine state court by filing paper complaints with the appropriate clerk's office.² On August 21, 2020, the SJC adopted the Rules of Electronic Court Systems (RECS). The RECS provide for electronic filing of and access to court records. The state is piloting electronic filing in a handful of trial courts. The plaintiffs challenge the RECS on their face and as applied in one of those early adopters, the Penobscot County Superior Court.

Initially, the RECS prohibited public access to electronically filed records "until three business days after acceptance by the court clerk of the filing of such record and proof of service of process on at least one defendant." RECS (4)(A)(1) (effective Aug. 21, 2020). We refer to these initially adopted rules as the Former RECS. As plaintiffs in Maine have ninety days to serve defendants, Me. R. Civ. P. 3, the initial version of the RECS potentially delayed public access to newly filed complaints for more than three months.

After the plaintiffs here sued, the SJC amended the Former RECS in February 2021 to eliminate the three-business-days-after-service provision and did not substitute an express deadline. We refer to these amended rules as the Operative RECS. The Operative RECS provide that "[u]nless 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."³ RECS 4(A)(1) (effective Mar. 15, 2021). A record is considered entered into the electronic case file "after a court clerk has determined that the submission complies with" rules governing the submission of documents in Maine courts. RECS 2(A)(1) (citing Me. R. Civ. P. 5(f) and RECS 34). Just as with paper records, the clerk must confirm that the record is signed and accompanied by all "legally required element[s], including but not limited to, a filing fee, appeal fee, registry recording fee and envelope or summary sheet, [and], if filed by an attorney, ... the attorney's Maine Bar Registration Number." Me. R. Civ. P. 5(f). Additionally, the clerk must confirm that the document has been properly formatted and uploaded. RECS 34. Only at that point, under the Operative RECS, is the record available to the public electronically.⁴ RECS 4(A)(1).

Several Maine newspapers -- the Portland Press Herald, Maine Sunday Telegram, Kennebec Journal, Morning Sentinel, Sun Journal, and Bangor Daily News -- and Courthouse News Service, a national legal media company, are the plaintiffs in this action. They seek public access only to newly filed, non-confidential civil complaints filed in the Penobscot County Superior Court, on which they regularly report. They allege that before that court's implementation of electronic filing, they "could review and report on newly filed civil complaints by reviewing them in paper form and copying them at the courthouse. Since the adoption of electronic filing [under the Former RECS], however, [their] review of new complaints has been substantially delayed."

The plaintiffs allege that under the Former RECS, they experienced long delays in obtaining newly filed complaints. Courthouse News alleged that it sent a reporter to the Penobscot courthouse "nearly every business day" between February 3 and 25, 2021, that the reporter sought access to any new complaints filed since her last visit, and that over those four weeks, the clerk "regularly inform[ed] her that there [were] no additional complaints for her to see, due to the continued applicability of the [Former RECS]." The plaintiffs say that between January 1 and February 24, 2021, twenty civil complaints were filed electronically in Penobscot County Superior Court, but the clerk permitted the Courthouse News reporter "to review only eight of them -- and all of those after a delay of several days to two weeks."

After the SJC amended the Former RECS but before the Operative RECS went into effect, the plaintiffs amended their complaint. They pointed to an automated email from the Penobscot County Superior Court to electronic filers, which stated that the processing period for newly filed civil complaints would take "up to 24 business hours." Based on that email, the plaintiffs alleged that once the Operative RECS took effect, they would experience delays of up to three business days to receive new complaints. They also claim that "a record filed at noon on a Friday could remain unavailable until noon the following Wednesday" and that a holiday weekend would delay access until the following Thursday.

B. Procedural History

The plaintiffs sued the defendants, the administrator of Maine's judicial branch and the clerk of the Penobscot County Superior Court, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine. They raised both facial and as-applied First Amendment challenges to the Former RECS.⁵ After the SJC amended the Former RECS, but before the Operative RECS came into effect, the plaintiffs amended their complaints. The defendants then moved to dismiss the first amended complaints, contending that the plaintiffs' claims were unripe and that the First Amendment permits the sort of "negligible delay" imposed by the Rules. Once the Operative RECS took effect, the plaintiffs moved to preliminarily enjoin them, and the defendants opposed the motion, supporting their opposition with a declaration. The defendants expressly disavowed reliance, at this stage of the case, on any abstention doctrine.

The district court dismissed the first amended complaints for failure to state a claim. Glessner, 549 F. Supp. 3d at 194. It held that the claims were ripe because they were fit for review and because the Operative RECS "create[ ] a direct and immediate dilemma for the parties and hardship to the Plaintiffs looms." Id. at 179. Turning to the merits, the district court held the First Amendment protects a qualified right of the public to access newly filed civil complaints. Id. at 189. It then determined that the Operative RECS imposed reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the plaintiffs' access to judicial records and so rejected the plaintiffs' facial and as-applied challenges. Id. at 191-94. It also denied the motion for preliminary injunction as moot. Id. at 194.

The plaintiffs...