Media outlets object to LA court’s reason for editing remote program

Media entities across the U.S. have filed legal objections to the Los Angeles County Superior Court's explanation of its decision to end its remote audio attendance program.

In two amici curiae letters and one reply brief filed on Monday, outlets including the The Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today contested the court's reasoning and continued calls to reinstate the program, which would allow media and public entities access to live-streamed audio from the largest trial court in the U.S.

"We have this outpouring of support from news publishers, journalists and First Amendment scholars who have come out in force to say how important this is," Christopher C. Melcher, the Woodland Hills attorney representing USA Today, said in an interview Tuesday.

The Walzer Melcher LLP partner filed the reply brief on behalf of his clients, who first challenged Presiding Judge Eric C. Taylor's decision to discontinue the program after audio from a Britney Spears conservatorship hearing leaked to YouTube. USA TODAY v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, B315096. (C.A. S.C., filed Oct. 1, 2021).

The California Supreme Court then asked the Superior Court to defend the cancellation, which it did in a 38-page brief on Nov. 19.

In its response, prepared by Robert A. Naeve of Jones Day in Irvine, the court cited precedents from throughout the United States that placed the matter outside of First Amendment concerns.

"The First Amendment right to courtroom access ensures that there will be no secret trials," Naeve wrote. "It does not ensure that a multibillion-dollar corporation gets the most cost-effective method of covering a trial."

However, Melcher contended that none of the precedents were relevant to the dispute at hand.

The precedents "were on issues that were unrelated to remote access, and in some cases the Los Angeles Superior Court misstated the holdings of those cases," he said. "That will happen from time to time when we see briefs written by attorneys, but you figure a brief written on behalf of a court would not have inaccuracies like this."

Furthermore, Melcher said, in focusing on cases concerning the U.S. Constitution, the court failed to address California's own Constitution.

"Our state Constitution is more protective of the rights of free speech and the press than the U.S. Constitution is," Melcher said. "So we first look to our state Constitution on a question like this and only if the state Constitution doesn't answer it do we go to the U.S. Constitution."

His argument was echoed in an amici curiae letter also filed on Monday by Jeffrey D. Glasser of El Segundo, general counsel of the Los Angeles Times and San Diego Union-Tribune, on behalf of his clients and several other media outlets and advocacy groups.

Both filings took issue with the court's assertion that it wasn't violating equal protection under the law guarantees by removing the public and media remote program while keeping in place a similar program for litigants and attorneys.

"With every equal protection argument, the opponent claims that the classes are different and that, essentially, they need to be identical for them to be similarly situated," Melcher said. "But that's not what the law provides. The question is not whether the classes are exactly the same. It's whether for purposes of access to the courtroom they are similar."