Courthouse News Serv. v. Omundson
| Decision Date | 14 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:21-cv-00305-DCN |
| Parties | COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE, Plaintiff, v. Sara OMUNDSON, in her official capacity as Administrative Director of Idaho Courts, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho |
Amber N. Dina, Debora Kristensen Grasham, Givens Pursley LLP, Boise, ID, Jonathan G. Fetterly, Pro Hac Vice, Katherine A. Keating, Pro Hac Vice, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.
Anne E. Henderson, Duke Evett, PLLC, Boise, Keely E. Duke, Duke Evett, PLLC, Boise, ID, for Defendant.
Pending before the Court is Defendant Sara Omundson's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 7) and Plaintiff Courthouse News Service's ("CNS") Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 14).
The Court held oral argument on February 18, 2022, and took the matters under advisement. Upon review, and for the reasons outlined below, the Court DENIES Omundson's Motion to Dismiss and DENIES CNS's Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
The First Amendment covers some of the most recognized rights under the United States Constitution. At issue in this case is whether the First Amendment confers a right to access documents filed in court, and, if so, at what point in time does that right attach. Assuming such a right exists, the Court must also consider whether any procedures utilized for processing court documents are justified in scope and timing.
Plaintiff, CNS, brings the present suit in an effort to remedy what it sees as a violation of its right to speedily access materials filed in Idaho state court. It argues that the electronic case filing system used in Idaho delays its access to noteworthy materials and that these delays are unreasonable, unnecessary, and, ultimately, unconstitutional. CNS asks the Court to preliminarily enjoin the current scheme in Idaho until these matters can be resolved. Notably, CNS has brought, or is currently bringing, similar suits in numerous states throughout the country. Some have been resolved in CNS's favor, others have not. Some are still on appeal.
Defendant Sara Omundson has asked that the Court dismiss CNS's lawsuit in its entirety claiming that the redress CNS seeks is foreclosed by prior caselaw and under the legal doctrine of abstention.
CNS is a nationwide news service founded more than thirty years ago upon the belief that a great deal of news about civil litigation goes unreported or underreported by traditional news media outlets. It offers a variety of publications to thousands of subscribers nationwide. Sara Omundson is the Administrative Director of Idaho Courts and, in her official capacity, is responsible for the administration of the statewide e-filing and public access systems used by state courthouses in Idaho.
The crux of this lawsuit centers on the timeliness of media access to new civil complaints filed in Idaho state court.
Historically, reporters in Idaho—such as Boise-based reporter Cathy Valenti, who writes for CNS—would travel to various courthouses near the end of the day and review any new complaints filed that day. For example, in Ada County, new complaints were typically placed in a press-review box, or cart, that enabled the press to review and report the contents of newly filed civil complaints. The complaints may, or may not, have been "processed," "screened," or "administratively reviewed" prior to being placed in the press-review box.
The advent of technology made case filing even easier. With the development of electronic filing systems, individuals can automatically upload documents to the Court system, thus eliminating the need for "runners" to hand-deliver materials. In addition, much of the physical work done at a courthouse intake counter was eliminated. At the same time, however, clerical staff still needed to (at some point) review the submissions to ensure compliance with all appropriate rules and procedures.
In 2015, Idaho courts began migrating to an e-filing system through their adoption of Tyler Technologies’ Odyssey software suite, branded for Idaho Courts as "iCourt." Implementation wrapped up in 2018. Odyssey allows parties to submit electronic documents to Idaho's courts from anywhere in the world and at any time—the proverbial "24/7/365."
Tyler provides courts using the Odyssey program with several options for making new e-filings available to the press and public. The default configuration withholds newly filed civil complaints until after a clerk manually processes and "accepts" them. Idaho employs this default method.2 CNS argues that waiting for this "acceptance" or "processing" procedure results in delays that (1) did not previously occur with paper filings and (2) are not acceptable under the First Amendment.
CNS brought suit asking the Court to find certain policies and procedures of the Idaho state courts unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. CNS also asks the Court to issue a preliminary and permanent injunction against Omundson (and her agents, successors, etc.) curtailing the current procedure which "den[ies] access to complaints until after administrative processing." Dkt. 1, at 15.
Shortly after CNS filed its Complaint, Omundson filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 7) arguing that CNS had not stated a claim upon relief could be granted and, alternatively, that the Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over this case based upon principles of abstention. CNS opposes the Motion. Dkt. 11.
For its part, CNS doubled down on its prayer for injunctive relief and filed a formal Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Dkt. 14. Omundson opposes that motion. Dkt. 20.
The Court set both matters for hearing. Dkt. 22.
Following the close of briefing on the two pending motions, but before the hearing, Omundson filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority. Dkt. 28. As the Court alluded to above, this is not the sole case related to these issues CNS has filed. In fact, there appear to be roughly a dozen such cases in varying stages throughout the country. One such case, out of the District of Maine, was recently dismissed. CNS has appealed that dismissal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The Conference of Chief Justices—an organization comprised of state judicial officers—has apparently filed an amicus brief before the First Circuit for consideration in that case. It is that brief Omundson wishes to present to the Court via supplement. CNS contends the Court should not give the amicus brief any weight as it involves an issue that was not before the Maine District Court (abstention) and because the position the Conference of Chief Justices takes is in stark contrast to Ninth Circuit precedent. Dkt. 30. The Court notes this submission but finds it of marginal relevance to the issues before it today.
Omundson also filed a sur-reply addressing various calculations CNS used in support of its argument that there are delays in Idaho state court. Dkt. 29. CNS does not object to Omundson's sur-reply, but contends the information does not change any of the arguments presented in briefing. Dkt. 31. CNS's acquiesces aside, the Court would have preferred this submission had been filed as a motion. Omundson recognizes the standard procedure of seeking leave to file a sur-reply (Dkt. 29, at 1) but chose not to actually utilize the process. As the Court has explained before, "[a]bsent permission by the Court , neither the District of Idaho's local rules, nor the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, permit sur-replies." Stanger v. Way , 2021 WL 4303605, at *4 (D. Idaho Sept. 21, 2021) (emphasis added). Nevertheless, because the information contained in the sur-reply is unopposed (and appears relevant), the Court will accept, and consider, the submission.
The week of the hearing, CNS filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority bringing to the Court's attention a recent decision by a magistrate judge of the District of Oregon in a case substantially similar to this one.3 Dkt. 32. The Court notes this submission. The Oregon District Judge adopted the Magistrate Judge's decision over an objection by the Defendant, and many of the underlying issues are the same as presented here.4 Thus the Court finds the analysis therein helpful.
Finally, after the hearing, both parties filed supplements answering questions posed by the Court during oral argument. Dkts. 33, 35. The Court appreciates the parties’ diligence in responding to its inquires.
In her Motion to Dismiss, Omundson argues CNS has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because no one has a First Amendment right to immediate and instantaneous access to court filings in light of existing Ninth Circuit law. Alternatively, Omundson asks the Court to decline to exercise jurisdiction under principles of abstention, equity, comity, and federalism because of the nature of the requested relief: changes to Idaho state court proceedings.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a claim if the plaintiff has "fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." "A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal may be based on either a ‘lack of a cognizable legal theory’ or ‘the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.’ " Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP , 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008) (cleaned up). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," in order to "give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 554, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). "This is not an onerous burden." Johnson , 534 F.3d at 1121.
A complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations," but it must set forth "more than labels and conclusions,...
To continue reading
Request your trial