## Facts

- Sharon Dorsett brought a federal civil-rights suit against Nassau County alleging police failures leading to her daughter Jo’Anna Bird’s murder, including allegations tied to the assailant’s status as a police informant.
- During discovery, Dorsett obtained a redacted Nassau County Police Department Internal Affairs Unit (IAU) report about police handling of Bird’s case and sought to release it publicly.
- The County obtained a protective order sealing the IAU report and limiting dissemination, citing confidentiality and law-enforcement concerns.
- The case moved toward a proposed $7.7 million settlement; the court permitted limited review of the sealed IAU report by certain County officials for governmental approval purposes, subject to the protective order.
- After reviewing the report, County legislative leader Peter Schmitt made a televised public statement that was alleged to have disclosed information from the sealed report.
- The district court initiated civil contempt proceedings to determine whether Schmitt violated the protective order, using testimony about the report rather than admitting the report itself into evidence.
- To prevent disclosure of confidential report content, the district court closed the courtroom for discrete portions of testimony and later unsealed most of the transcript but kept the IAU report sealed and maintained sealing over transcript portions implicating the report.
- Media intervenors, including Newsday, challenged the partial closure and continued sealing and appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the First Amendment presumptive right of public access applies to civil contempt proceedings arising from a civil case.
2. Whether that right extends to records connected to the contempt proceeding, including the hearing transcript and an internal affairs report subject to a protective order.
3. What findings and tailoring a court must provide to justify closure or sealing once a First Amendment access right attaches.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit held that civil contempt proceedings are subject to a First Amendment presumptive right of public access.
- The court held that judicial records connected to such proceedings (including transcripts and filings used to adjudicate contempt) are covered by a strong presumption of openness.
- Restrictions on access require specific, rigorous, on-the-record findings showing a compelling interest and narrow tailoring.
- The court distinguished between materials that function as judicial documents in adjudication (e.g., transcripts and filed submissions) and protected discovery materials not admitted or filed as adjudicative evidence (e.g., the sealed IAU report).

## Legal Principles

- The First Amendment “experience and logic” framework can extend a presumptive right of access to civil contempt proceedings.
- When the First Amendment presumption applies, closure or sealing is permissible only if necessary to protect a compelling interest and the restriction is narrowly tailored.
- Courts must make specific, on-the-record findings explaining why secrecy is required and why less restrictive alternatives (such as targeted redactions or limited closure) are inadequate.
- Transcripts and documents that play a meaningful role in the exercise of judicial power are “judicial documents” carrying a strong presumption of public access.
- Discovery materials maintained under a protective order and not admitted or filed as part of adjudication may receive different treatment from judicial records for access purposes.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit recognized a First Amendment presumptive right of access to civil contempt proceedings and the judicial records used to decide them, and required concrete, narrowly tailored findings to justify any sealing or closure, while distinguishing protected discovery materials not used as adjudicative evidence.


Newsday LLC v. County of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2013)