Techdirt is off for Memorial Day. We'll be back with regularly scheduled posting tomorrow!Hide

Judge Rejects Request To Seal Filings In Case Over Miami Heat Owner's Unflattering Photo

from the public-interest dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about how a minority owner of the Miami Heat, Ranaan Katz, was so upset about an "unflattering photo" that a blogger/critic had posted of him, that he apparently bought the copyright on the photo and sued the blogger, claiming copyright infringement.

For the sake of understanding the story, this is the photo in question.
Katz also threatened to sue one of the blogger's lawyers directly, which is always a classy move.

However, in a somewhat surprising move, both the blogger and Katz, together decided that, even though this case was filed in court -- which is supposed to have a public record -- they both wanted the details kept secret and filed under seal. Thankfully, even though both parties were asking for such secrecy, the judge clearly rejected the request.
After a review of the parties' Joint Motion and proposed order, the Court finds that the parties have offered no compelling basis to overturn the Court's long-standing principle and practice of maintaining Court proceedings and documents public. "The Federal Judiciary has zealously protected the right of all citizens to free, open and public trials.'' Dorsman v. Glazer.... Open judicial proceedings are "rooted in the 'principle that justice cannot survive behind the walls of silence,' and in the 'traditional Anglo-American distrust for secret trials.'" Sheppard v. Maxwell.... Except in rare instances, it is the right of every American to see the public's business conducted in an open forum.
And, the judge notes, despite both of the parties wanting it, this is not one of those "rare instances." "lndeed, the parties have provided no evidence even suggesting such need." Even more ridiculous, the court notes, is the fact that the defendant in the case joined the plaintiff in asking for things to be sealed. As the court notes, there's some irony in a defendant who is worried about her free speech rights being stifled, then seeking to keep her arguments secret:
Moreover, the Court notes an inconsistency in Defendant joining the instant motion. In her Second Motion to Dismiss, Defendant argued at length that Plaintiff's lawsuit was directed at preventing her from publishing online news articles critical of Plaintiff's business; this case was allegedly no more than an attempt to silence her speech. But with this Joint Motion, Plaintiff and Defendant want to keep the factual development of this case secret.
In the end, the judge says too bad to both parties, noting that they were the ones who went to the public court system to fight this out, and now they need to live with the consequences:
ln addition, the parties elected to seek (and defend) relief in a publicly operated forum, namely the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The proceedings held in federal and state courts are open to public observation by any interested party. Pursuant to Local Rule 5.4 for the Southern District of Florida, absent some extraordinary need for secrecy, the judicial acts performed should be open to public scrutiny
That statement may be a little unfair to the defendant, who didn't really have that much "choice" in the matter, but it still seems odd to want to keep the proceedings secret.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1. icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Oct 29th, 2012 @ 7:47am

    justice cannot survive behind the walls of silence

    its a shame not all members of government feel that way.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. icon
    Rikuo (profile), Oct 29th, 2012 @ 8:26am

    How can he buy the copyright and still claim infringement? The infringement, if it had happened (which I say didn't happen), would have occurred before he bought the copyright.

    You can't claim someone violated one of your "rights" at a time when you didn't have those "rights".

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. identicon
    Mr. Applegate, Oct 29th, 2012 @ 9:24am


    Well you can claim anything! ;^)

    Just because you claim something doesn't make it legally, or morally true.

    Maybe I have the facts wrong here, but he bought the copyright, then claimed infringement.

    The current owner of the copyright can claim infringement under the current laws. No matter how big of a jack@$$ that makes him appear to be.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 29th, 2012 @ 9:32am

    You'd think by now any lawyer actually worth paying would look at a stituation like this and be like... do nothing. Oh and here's my bill for telling you to do nothing. I can't imagine a due diligence search into previous such cases would fail to turn up the true consequences...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 29th, 2012 @ 9:38am

    He's a part owner of a basketball team. It makes him a public figure. If he can't stand the heat of a picture taken at a bad moment he's in the wrong place. I congratulate him on being able to stir interest up by his actions. I had to go search to find out what the Miami Heat was. Would never have done that without this article.

    His problem with thin skin will come back to haunt him again. If he doesn't want stupid pictures out in public I suggest he learn to 'poker face'.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. icon
    Chris Brand (profile), Oct 29th, 2012 @ 11:41am

    Somebody tell the president

    I think he doesn't know about the 'traditional Anglo-American distrust for secret trials.'

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. identicon
    Cosmicrat, Oct 29th, 2012 @ 11:41am

    Thats it??!!

    That's the picture he's so worried about? I've got worse shots of me in my high school yearbook. I thought it was a nude shot or something really offensive. That guy must be so vain.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. identicon
    abc gum, Oct 29th, 2012 @ 5:49pm

    Now anytime the word "vanity" is encountered, this is what will come to mind.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 29th, 2012 @ 11:15pm

    and Streisand Effect in 3...2...1...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.