BURLINGTON — Nobody wants to read old news, a lawyer for several media outlets and First Amendment advocacy groups told a judge Monday.
That’s why, attorney William Hibsher said, an injunction should be granted to force Vermont’s judiciary to end delays and provide public access to civil complaints at the time they are filed.
“The news cycle goes much faster these days,” Hibsher said during a hearing on that request in federal court.
Assistant Attorney General David Boyd countered that the Vermont judiciary needs time to review the complaints to remove any confidential information contained in them before their release.
Also, Boyd said, Vermont is doing better than many jurisdictions and is already working on a “more efficient and uniform process” for the handling of the complaints when they first come in.
Judge Christina Reiss listened to arguments from both sides for more than 90 minutes. She said as the hearing came to a close that she would issue a written ruling. The judge did not say when that decision would be coming.
Reiss said during the hearing it appeared that both sides differ on significant facts in the case. She said absent an evidentiary hearing to determine who is right, making a decision will be made more difficult.
One point both parties agree on is that the records should be released — but the question is when, Reiss said.
The case stems from a legal action filed in May by lead plaintiff Courthouse News Service, a Pasadena, California-based organization.
Among those joining Courthouse News in the legal action are the Vermont Press Association and the New England First Amendment Coalition, as well as the parent entities of VTDigger.org, Seven Days, the Burlington Free Press and WCAX-TV.
Patricia Gabel, Vermont’s court administrator, is listed as the defendant as are several court clerks around the state.
The filing alleges that despite the Vermont court’s implementation of a statewide electronic filing system, the public is still unable to access records until they have been reviewed by court clerks.
In some instances, it could take a day or longer for that process to occur, creating the potential for the news value of that filing to diminish as time passes on, said Hibsher, an attorney with Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, in New York City.
Hibsher, arguing in court on behalf of the news media outlets, contended that the records should be publicly available “contemporaneous” to their filing.
Boyd, representing the state’s judiciary, said the judiciary is centralizing the system for the processing and reviewing of civil lawsuits. That will not only provide a more consistent result, but also will speed up the system, he said, with the judiciary already hiring some people for the jobs.
Reiss, who throughout the hearing peppered the attorneys with questions and comments, said the judiciary could have waited to go live with the electronic filing system until it already had that centralized process in place.
At one point, Reiss said she could not find any provision in state law or judiciary rules that called for a court clerk to review a filing before releasing it to the public.
Boyd countered that while no single rule called for such a review, the requirement exists by reading two provisions together regarding the handling of confidential matters.
Hibsher had a quicker — and different — answer when the judge said she didn’t see where court clerks are granted the authority to review civil lawsuits before the documents can be publicly available.
“We agree,” Hibsher responded.
