The presiding judge closed a hearing Friday on whether to hold Andrew Young and his wife in contempt for failing to turn over a sex tape purportedly showing Rielle Hunter and disgraced former presidential candidate John Edwards consummating their much-publicized affair. The hearing was held in Chatham County, North Carolina, and it was set in a lawsuit brought by Hunter to recover possession of the tape from Young. Young, a former aide to Edwards, was apparently part of Edwards's misbegotten scheme to cover up his fathering of a child with Hunter, as Young originally claimed the child was his. In a book he recently published, Young says he found the tape in the home where Hunter lived with Young's family for a period of time.
The tawdry story has blanketed tabloids and dailies, but on Friday it gave occasion to consider an important newsroom law issue. At the hearing on whether to hold Young in contempt for not turning over the tape in response to a prior order, the judge without prior notice announced that he would hear argument in chambers, outside the presence of reporters and members of the public. As was reported in the Raleigh News & Observer, the judge heard argument for approximately one hour before emerging and issuing his ruling that Young and his wife were in contempt and would be jailed if the tape is not turned over by 2:00 pm on Wednesday.
Although the trial court administrator contended that closing the hearing was within the judge's "discretion," summarily closing the hearing without notice, without affording the press an opportunity to object, and without entering factual findings supporting closure and reflecting the consideration of alternatives violated North Carolina law.
The North Carolina Constitution specifically provides that "all courts shall be open." This provision entitles members of the press and public to a qualified right to attend civil proceedings, such as the matter between Hunter and Young. Based on the media reports of the hearing, there is no evidence that the judge considered alternatives to conducting the hearing in private or articulated any interests in secrecy that would overcome the presumption of access.
Unfortunately, it appears that none of the phalanx of media representatives who were present invoked a special North Carolina statute that provides a mechanism for gaining access to closed proceedings and sealed documents. In particular, N.C. Gen. Stat. 1-72.1 provides:
Any person asserting a right of access to a civil judicial proceeding or to a judicial record in that proceeding may file a motion in the proceeding for the limited purpose of determining the person's right of access.
Once a motion is made under the statute, the court must convene a hearing "before conducting any further proceedings" relating to the matter in question. Following the hearing, the court must
rule on the motion after consideration of such facts, legal authority, and argument as the movant and any other party to the action desire to present. The court shall issue a written ruling on the motion that shall contain a statement of reasons for the ruling sufficiently specific to permit appellate review. The order may also specify any conditions or limitations on the movant's right of access that the court determines to be warranted under the facts and applicable law.
The ruling is subject to immediate appellate review. It is unfortunate that in this case the court's decision to close the proceeding was not put to the test under G.S. 1-72.1. Nevertheless, the episode provides an important opportunity for reporters and editors to learn of this special procedural right they enjoy in North Carolina to challenge the closing of a courtroom or the sealing of a court record.
Add a comment
Archives
- January 2022
- June 2021
- March 2020
- August 2019
- March 2019
- October 2018
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- February 2016
- November 2015
- September 2015
- July 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- July 2014
- March 2014
- July 2013
- June 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- November 2011
- September 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2006
- February 2006
Recent Posts
- Rethinking Your Cyber Insurance Needs as Your Workplace Evolves
- Data Breach Defense for Educational Institutions
- COVID-19 and the Increased Cybersecurity Risk in a Work-From-Home World
- Like Incorporating Facebook into your Website? EU Decision Raises New Issues
- Lessons Learned: Key Takeaways for Every Business from the Capital One Data Breach
- Will Quick Talks to WRAL About Privacy Issues Related to Doorbell Cameras
- About Us
- Not in My House - California to Regulate IoT Device Security
- Ninth Circuit Says You’re Going to Jail for Visiting That Website without Permission
- Ninth Circuit Interprets “Without Authorization” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Topics
- Data Security
- Data Breach
- Privacy
- Defamation
- Public Records
- Cyberattack
- FCC Matters
- Reporters Privilege
- Political Advertising
- Newsroom Subpoenas
- Shield Laws
- Internet
- Miscellaneous
- Digital Media and Data Privacy Law
- Indecency
- First Amendment
- Anti-SLAPP Statutes
- Fair Report Privilege
- Prior Restraints
- Education
- Wiretapping
- Access to Courtrooms
- FOIA
- HIPAA
- Drone Law
- Access to Search Warrants
- Access to Court Dockets
- Intrusion
- First Amendment Retaliation
- Mobile Privacy
- Newsroom Search Warrants
- About This Blog
- Disclaimer
- Services