Gannett Co. v. Depasquale

17 Citing briefs

  1. Nursing Home Pension Fund et al v. Oracle Corporation et al

    MOTION to Compel

    Filed June 3, 2005

    The Supreme Court has left no doubt that there is a federal common-law right “to inspect and copy . . . judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, 98 S. Ct. 1306 (1978); Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 387 n.15, 99 S. Ct. 2898 (1979) (“For many centuries, both civil and criminal trials have traditionally been open to the public.”).

  2. Animal Legal Defense Fund et al v. Herbert et al

    MOTION to File Amicus Brief

    Filed December 10, 2013

    Similarly, journalists and the public have consistently been allowed to challenge statutes and judicial decisions limiting public access to court proceedings and records without having to prove an individualized interest. The key Supreme Court access cases – Nixon v. Warner Case 2:13-cv-00679-RJS Document 34 Filed 12/10/13 Page 20 of 29 9 Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978); Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (1979); Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980); Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, Riverside (“Press-Enterprise I”), 464 U.S. 501 (1984); and Press- Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, Riverside (“Press-Enterprise II”), 478 U.S. 1 (1986) – do not examine the question of standing to bring an action for access. These cases establish a presumption of a right of access based on the important public interests at stake and do not even pause to consider whether the parties have demonstrated any particular harm.

  3. The People, Respondent,v.Andrew Moss, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed March 18, 2013

    Id. at 48 (emphasis added); see Press-Enterprise Co v. Super. Ct. of Cal., 478 U.S. 1, 13-15 (1986); Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 393 (1979).5 And, in Ramos, this Court stated that the principles set forth in Waller "require trial courts, before excluding the public, to consider whether something short of complete closure would protect the 'overriding interest' at stake." 90 N.Y.2d at 502-03 (emphasis added).

  4. The People, Respondent,v.Martin Johnson, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed March 18, 2013

    Id. at 48 -37- (emphasis added); see Press-Enterprise II, 478 U.S. at 13-15; Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 393 (1979).9 And, in Ramos, this Court stated that the principles set forth in Waller “require trial courts, before excluding the public, to consider whether something short of complete closure would protect the ‘overriding interest’ at stake.” 90 N.Y.2d at 502-03 (emphasis added).

  5. In Re: Bank of America Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) Contract Litigation

    MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Confidential Information

    Filed August 24, 2012

    Id. at 33 (citations omitted); see also Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 396 (1979) (Burger, C.J., concurring) (“[I]t has never occurred to anyone, so far as I am aware, that a pretrial deposition or pretrial interrogatories were other than wholly private to the litigants. A pretrial deposition does not become part of a ‘trial’ until and unless the contents of the deposition are offered in evidence.”)

  6. Kwong et al v. Bloomberg et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 24 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment. and in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. Document

    Filed July 28, 2011

    u.s. v. Quattrone, 402 F.3d304, 309 -310 (2d Cir. 2005). It is uniquely linked to the First Amendment. Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 393 n. 25 (1979). Plaintiffs cite no case that makes that doctrine applicable to the regulation of guns.

  7. Paul v. Intel Corporation - Consolidated Action

    RESPONSE to Motion re MOTION to Intervene MOTION to Unseal the Following Document

    Filed September 8, 2008

    The civil discovery process has not historically been open to the public. Seattle Times, 467 U.S. at 33; see also Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 396 (1978) (Burger, C.J., concurring) (explaining that written interrogatories were used in 18th-century litigation, but “no one ever suggested that there was any ‘right’ of the public to be present at such pretrial proceedings as were available in that time; until the trial it could not be known whether and to what extent the pretrial evidence would be offered or received”). Nor would public access significantly enhance the performance of the discovery process.

  8. The Facebook, Inc. v. Connectu, Inc et al

    Reply to Opposition re MOTION to Intervene and MOTION to Unseal Document and Hearing Transcript

    Filed July 1, 2008

    As the quoted concurrence went on to explain, “[u]pon timely objection to the granting of the motion” to close the courtroom, “it is incumbent upon the trial court to afford those present a reasonable opportunity to be heard.” Gannett Co., 443 U.S. at 401. Implementing this mandate, the Ninth Circuit requires that “where possible, motions requesting closure be docketed a reasonable time before they are acted upon,” so that members of the press and public may have notice and an opportunity to be heard before the hearing is closed.

  9. Hepting et al v. AT&T Corp. et al

    RESPONSE in Support Defendant AT&T Corp.'s Response to Brief of Amici Curiae Center for Constitutional Rights and American Civil Libeties Union in Opposition to Filing Documents Under Seal [DKT. 30-32]

    Filed April 28, 2006

    Id. at 33-34 (citing Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 399 (1979) (Powell, J., concurring)). This language is dicta (dissemination of independently acquired information was not at issue in the case).

  10. Sharkey v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 151 MOTION in Limine NUMBER 7 SEEKING TO PRESERVE THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF JPMC CLIENTS AND EMPLOYEES. . Document

    Filed January 13, 2017

    Openness in court proceedings may improve the quality of testimony, induce unknown witnesses to come forward with relevant testimony, cause all trial participants to perform their duties more conscientiously, and generally give the public an opportunity to observe the judicial system.” Huminski v. Corsones, 396 F.3d 53, 81 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 383 (1979)). Defendants have not presented any special circumstances here that would justify obstructing public access to information about this case at trial.