PITTSBURGH – A legal news organization which monitors court case filings claims that the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas’ “no-access-before-process” policy restricts the rights of both it and the public under the U.S. Constitution.
Courthouse News Service filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 15 versus Michael McGeever (in his official capacity as Clerk of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas). Both parties are of Pittsburgh.
“Since time beyond memory, state and federal courts across the country have provided timely access to new, non-confidential, civil complaints (‘new complaints’), which was when the clerk of court received the new filing. Pennsylvania’s federal and state courts shared in that tradition of timely on-receipt access. Traditional on-receipt access meant that the press and public could review new complaints when they were filed, when the paper filing crossed the intake counter in the Clerk of Court’s office,” the suit says.
“That tradition was perhaps best described by Eighth Circuit Judge Bobby Shepherd in oral arguments in 2022 on a case involving the identical issues at issue here: ‘There was a time when – and some in this room may remember it – when you sent a pleading to the courthouse and the clerk stamped it physically and it went into different bins and it was available immediately.’ In the transition from paper filing to electronic filing, the federal courts and many state courts kept the tradition of on-receipt access in place. The Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas did not.”
The suit adds that when the defendant first implemented e-filing at the ACCCP, he “continued to allow the press to review new complaints after intake but before they were fully docketed…but as the voluntary e-filing system became more widely used, the defendant pushed press access behind docketing, now commonly called ‘processing’, thereby failing to maintain the tradition of timely, on-receipt access [and] has since refused to reinstate it.”
“The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides the press and public with a qualified right of access to new complaints. Once this qualified right of access attaches, any restriction of access is a restriction of the press’s and public’s First Amendment rights, unless constitutional scrutiny is satisfied. Whether new civil complaints are paper-filed or e-filed, this right of access attaches on receipt, which is when a new filing is delivered to, or deposited with, the clerk. In other words, the press and public have a constitutional right to access new complaints when the clerk receives them. Any delay in access thereafter that results from defendant’s processing policy is an unconstitutional restriction of the press’s and public’s First Amendment rights, unless the defendant can show that such policy satisfies constitutional scrutiny,” the suit states.
“Courthouse News has a First Amendment right of access to new complaints filed with defendant at the ACCCP. Such access is fundamental and essential to accurate and fair news reporting of civil court actions, and, thus, vital to the public’s ability to monitor the activities of the judicial branch of government. Any unjustifiable delays in access result in unconstitutional restrictions of the press’s and public’s performance of that important role. When a complaint is withheld, the news it contains grows stale. The public is left unaware that a civil action has commenced and has invoked the power of the judicial branch of government. Many state courts and most federal courts throughout the country provide the press and public with on-receipt access to newly e-filed complaints. E-Filing software can provide the virtual equivalent of the bin on the counter holding the new civil complaints. Defendant, however, enforces a policy of withholding access to newly received civil complaints until after processing is completed.”
According to the suit, the defendant has implemented a “no-access-before-process” policy that delays access to newly e-filed, non-confidential complaints, which is reflected in Rule 205.04(£)(1) of the Local Rules of the Civil and Family Division of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania –and that through the policy, the defendant is withholding access to newly e-filed complaints, effectively sealing them, in order to review the new case information entered into defendant’s e-filing system by the filer.
“These delays are unnecessary, as demonstrated by the federal and state courts across the country that provide access to new complaints on receipt and before processing. But for defendant’s no-access-before-process policy, there would be no delay. Defendant is capable of providing on-receipt access; he has just chosen not to. Since April 25, 2023, Courthouse News has attempted to correspond with defendant in hopes of resolving these delays in access. However, timely on-receipt access is not forthcoming, as defendant rejected Courthouse News’ request that defendant stop enforcing his no-access-before-process policy that withholds access to new civil complaints until after processing, thereby resulting in continued and significant delays in access to new civil complaints e-filed at ACCCP. Courthouse News brings this action to end the pervasive and ongoing deprivations of the First Amendment right of access, seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief,” the suit says.
For violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the plaintiff is seeking the following relief:
• A declaration that Courthouse News has a qualified First Amendment right of access to new, electronically-submitted, non-confidential civil complaints;
• A declaration that Rule 205.4(£)(1) is unconstitutional on its face under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;
• A declaration that defendant’s practice of withholding access to new, electronically-submitted, non-confidential civil complaints until after processing – or “clerk review” and “acceptance”, as referred to by defendant – violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;
• A preliminary and permanent injunction restraining the enforcement of Rule 205.04(£)(1), and defendant’s practice of withholding access to new, electronically-submitted, non-confidential civil complaints until after processing;
• Costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 and all other relief the Court deems just and proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Brian T. Must of Metz Lewis Brodman Must O’Keefe, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Frances M. Liebenguth of Allegheny County’s Law Department, also in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-01459
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com