Skip to content

G. Post-trial records

Posts

  • 10th Circuit

    The Tenth Circuit has noted that there is generally a “right of access to judicial records.” United States v. Apperson, 642 Fed. Appx. 892, 898 (10th Cir. 2016) (quoting Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

    view more
  • 2nd Circuit

    The Second Circuit has not addressed this matter specifically; however, at least one other Circuit Court has found that such a right exists.  See Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796, 801 (11th Cir. 1983) (recognizing a constitutional right of access to post-trial proceedings in a civil case dealing with prisoners’ rights).

    view more
  • 5th Circuit

    Nothing found specific to the Fifth Circuit.

    view more
  • 7th Circuit

    Even though in-chambers hearings on implementation of institutional reform consent decree would not be open to the press and public, “any proceedings on the merits of this case will continue to be held in open court,” and “the public will have access to records of the in-chambers conferences. . . .” B.H. v. McDonald, 49 F.3d 294, 299 (7th Cir. 1995).

    view more
  • Alabama

    Subject to the provisions of Holland v. Eads, 614 So. 2d 1012, 1016 (Ala. 1993), post-trial records should be available to the public.

    view more
  • Arizona

    No published decisions.

    view more
  • Georgia

    Uniform Superior Court Rule 21 makes “all” court records presumptively available to the public, including post-trial records. See, e.g., Atlanta Journal-Constitution v. Long, 259 Ga. 23, 24 (1989) (vacating an order sealing from public access “all pleadings and discovery, either pre-trial or post-trial, for the duration of the records’ existence”).

    view more
  • Idaho

    Idaho Courts Administrative Rule 32 does not expressly mention any civil post-trial motions or records.  Instead, Rule 32(d)(7)’s general provision that access is allowed to “[p]leadings, motions, affidavits, responses, memoranda, briefs and other documents filed or lodged in a case file” should apply.

    view more
  • Kansas

    A presumption of openness applies to post-trial records in civil cases under the Kansas Open Records Act, 45-215 et seq., as implemented by the Kansas Judicial Branch.  See Kansas Judicial Branch, Administrative Order No. 156, Administration of the Kansas Open Records Act, http://www.kscourts.org/kansas-courts/supreme-court/administrative-orders/Admin-order-156.pdf.

    view more
  • Nevada

    Post-trial records are presumed open unless sealed by the court. The Nevada Rules for Sealing and Redacting Court Records promulgated by the Nevada Supreme Court provide that “[a]ll court records in civil actions are available to the public, except as otherwise provided in these rules.”  SRCR 1(3).   For purposes of this rule, the term “court record” includes, but is not limited to any document, information, exhibit, or other thing that is maintained by a court in connection with a judicial proceeding; and any index, calendar, docket, register of actions, official record of the proceedings, order, decree, judgment, minute, and any information in a case management system created or prepared by the court that is related to a judicial proceeding.  SRCR 2(2).

    view more
  • New Mexico

    Rule 1-079 NMRA dictates that “court records are subject to public access unless sealed by order of the court or otherwise protected from disclosure under the provisions of this rule.” Because “court record” is defined as “all or any portion of a document, paper, exhibit, transcript, or other material filed or lodged with the court, and the register of actions and docket entries used by the court to document the activity in a case,” it follows that post-trial records are allowed the same presumption to public access. As such, post-trial records shall be open to the public absent statutory exclusion, see NMSA 1978, § 32A-58(C); NMSA 1978, § 24-1-15(J); NMSA 1978, § 24-2B-5.1(B); and NMSA 1978, § 40-11A-625, or a court order to the contrary. The order must set forth the court’s findings that:

    “(a) the existence of an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the court record;

    (b) the overriding interest supports sealing the court record;

    (c) a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the court record is not sealed;

    (d) the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and

    (e) no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.”

    Rule 1-079.

    The order shall require the sealing of the record only to the extent necessary. Id. The order shall further specify who is authorized to have access to the sealed court record and a date or event upon which it expires or shall explicitly state that the order remains in effect until further order of the court. The order shall specify any person or entity entitled to notice of any future motion to unseal the court record or modify the sealing order. Id.

    view more
  • Pennsylvania

    There is a presumptive right of access to judicial records filed in post-trial proceedings. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Martinez, 917 A.2d 856, 860 (Pa. Super. 2007).

    view more