Our Nevada Judges, This Is Reno file legal objections

Washoe County Second Judicial District Court Probate Commissioner Edmund Gorman on Tuesday denied media coverage of the Rupert Murdoch family trust hearings in September. Gorman said the parties in the case—the billionaire conservative media mogul and his children—deserve confidentiality.

“Any evidentiary hearing will also reveal certain of the trustee’s business records, ownership information, personally identifying information, information relating to the relationship with a contracting trustee, and other types of ‘confidential information’ protected under [state law],” he wrote. “The parties in this case brought their case in this jurisdiction and invoked their rights under the Nevada Revised Statutes under the expectation that this ‘confidential information’ would remain confidential.”

Our Nevada Judges, a nonprofit that tracks court cases and provides video coverage of court hearings, objected to Gorman’s reasoning. ONJ’s Alex Falconi said it is clear the Murdochs are getting special treatment since Gorman, on Aug. 8, granted ONJ access to a hearing in a separate trust case.

ONJ’s objection by attorney Luke Busby argued that barring the media from covering court hearings violates constitutional rights and contradicts ONJ’s recent Nevada Supreme Court precedent. Busby also represents This Is Reno in public records litigation.

Gorman “super sealed” the Murdoch case on Jan. 26, which means little information, including attorney names, is available about it. Due to the secrecy, it was not known until recently that the Murdoch family fight was even in Washoe County courts.

“Sweeping exclusions of camera access to court proceedings is inconsistent with SCR 230 and the Falconi decision.”

A blanket closure is unconstitutional based on the Nevada Supreme Court’s recent Falconi v. Eighth Judicial District Court decision, Busby argued. Gorman’s reasons for the media coverage denial have already been determined by the state court to be insufficient.

“The Commissioner cites the same rationale considered and rejected by the Falconi Court in the context of domestic relations matters; that a statute may permit the automatic closure of court proceedings without a requirement for a party seeking closure to show a compelling interest and that closure be narrowly tailored to serve that compelling interest,” Busby argued.

In Falconi’s Supreme Court case, the court held that there is a constitutional right of public access to civil proceedings, including family law cases. The ruling confirmed that proceedings are presumed open unless a compelling interest for closure is demonstrated.

Busby argued that the probate commissioner improperly relied on Nevada statutes to allow the closure of trust proceedings without considering the issues overriding the First Amendment. “The press has a constitutional right to access civil proceedings, and such proceedings are presumed open to the public.”

“Secrecy of this level — where the public is not privy even to the name of the family involved — is outrageous overkill.”

Statutes cited by Gorman cannot trump constitutional requirements any more than family law statutes could in Falconi, Busby added. “Statutes categorically and arbitrarily barring physical access to domestic relations matters are as unavailing as a basis to categorically and arbitrarily bar physical access to trust proceeding.”

The nonprofit called for the court to reject the commissioner’s recommendation and conduct an analysis as mandated by the state court in Falconi’s previous case. This would require identifying a compelling interest for closure and ensuring any restrictions are narrowly tailored. ONJ also argued that even if some witnesses require protection, other parts of hearings could still be recorded. 

“Sweeping exclusions of camera access to court proceedings is inconsistent with SCR 230 and the Falconi decision,” the objection notes.

Open courts are crucial in Nevada, Falconi said, in part because judges are elected.

“This is especially important in a state where citizens elect their judges because it ensures that the public has the necessary knowledge to serve as a check on the judicial branch on election day,” Busby wrote.

The trust case remains sealed pending the resolution of the access issues. This Is Reno joined Our Nevada Judges in objecting to Gorman’s order.

The Nevada Open Government Coalition issued a statement about the secrecy of the case.

“Secrecy of this level—where the public is not privy even to the name of the family involved—is outrageous overkill and risks making cases of great public import literally unfindable,” Michelle Rindels, the group’s president, said. “It appears to contradict a recent Nevada Supreme Court ruling that underscores the importance of careful judicial review of requests to close court proceedings.

“The Nevada Open Government Coalition is deeply disappointed these proceedings have been closed to the media and calls for more transparency in matters of trusts overall,” she added. “This case is a prime example of how personal trusts can have implications far beyond an individual family when that family has massive influence on the public discourse, and a cryptic index of case documents labeled ‘Doe’ and posted online falls far short of serving the public good.”

Commenters online noted the irony of the case’s secrecy since Murdoch’s News Corporation media have been accused of hacking into celebrities’ phones. He also faced bribery and corruption investigations. News Corp lists its assets as A&E, the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, the New York Post and other international media outlets. 

UPDATE: This story was updated after publication to include a statement from the Nevada Open Government Coalition, which was requested prior to the story being published.