06E

Overview

Minnesota

In the civil context, the Minnesota Supreme Court has declined to endorse any “presumption of privacy” for pretrial discovery materials, leaving any protection to the discretion of the district judge under the “good cause shown” standards of Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.03. In re GlaxoSmithKline, 732 N.W.2d 257, 272 n.11 ( Minn. 2007); accord Williams v. Heins Mills & Olson PLLC, No. 27-cv-07-6495, slip op. at 10 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Hennepin County Mar. 24, 2008).

Overview

Rhode Island

Overview

4th Cir.

Overview

Delaware

Overview

Missouri

Overview

South Carolina

Overview

5th Cir.

There is little specific to the 5th Circuit with respect to discovery materials and motions in civil cases, but 5th Circuit holdings in criminal cases may be applicable. The 5th Circuit has also held that a protective order can be used after-the-fact to protect privileged material included in pleadings that should not be part of the public record. In re Gunther, 791 F.2d 1151, 1154 n.2 (5th Cir. 1986).

Overview

Florida

The right of access to civil records does not extend to unfiled transcripts of depositions in civil cases. Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v. Gridley, 510 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 1987). Any discovery documents or deposition transcripts, however, that are filed become public. See, e.g., Lewis v. State, 958 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007) (materials related to defendant's prosecution, including depositions, are subject to disclosure after the case becomes final under Florida’s public records law).

Overview

Mississippi

Overview

South Dakota