0b CIVIL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS STATE OF LOUISIANA Pesuay NUMBER 15-655 DIVISION “L/8” IN RE: INTERDICTION OF THOMAS MILTON BENSON, JR. FILED: DEPUTY CLERK MOTION TO ALLOW NEW ORLEANS HEARST TELEVISION INC., HEARST NEWSPAPERS, LLC, GANNETT RIVER STATES PUBLISHING CORPORATION AND ESPN, INC. TO INTERVENE OR OTHERWISE BE HEARD NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, come New Orleans Hearst Television Inc, (the owner and operator of WDSU-TV), Hearst Newspapers, LLC (the publisher of the San Antonio Express-News), Gannett River States Publishing Corporation (the publisher of the Lafayette Daily Advertiser, the Shreveport Times, the Alexandria Town Talk, the Monroe News-Star and the Opelousas Daily World) and ESPN, Inc. (collectively, the “News Media”), ‘who move this Court to enter an order allowing them to intervene in the above-captioned case or to otherwise be heard on their motion for the Court to vacate its orders that closed alll court proceedings to the public and sealed the entire record in this case, and to enter orders that are narrowly tailored to cause the least interference possible with the right of public access to court proceedings and court records. ‘The News Media seck to intervene because these blanket closure and sealing orders violate well-established constitutional law. There is a “strong constitutional bias in favor of open access by the public to court proceedings,” Copeland v. Copeland, 07-177 (La, 10/16/07), 966 So.2d 1040, 1047, and the “right of the public to have access to public records is a fundamental right, guaranteed by the Constitution.” Bester v, Louisiana Supreme Court Committee on Bar Admissions, 00-1360 (La. 2/21/01), 779 So.2d 715, 721. Under article 1091 of the Lonisiana Code of Civil Procedure, the News Medig have an interest in this litigation that allows them to intervene or otherwise be heard on their motion.For the reasons set out in the News Media’s memorandum in support of this motion, the ‘News Média seek to intervene or to otherwise be heard on their motion for the Court to vacate its orders that closed all court proceedings to the public and sealed the entire record in this case, and to enter orders that are narrowly tailored to cause the least interference possible with the right of public access to court proceedings and court records. Respectfully submitted, PHELPS DUNBAR LLP CG tet apie? Mary Ellen Roy,T.A. (La. Barl#14388) Dan Zimmerman (La. Bar #2202) 365 Canal Street, Suite 2000 ‘New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-6534 Telephone: (504) 566-1311 Telecopier: (504) 568-9130 roym@phelps.com dan.zimmerman@phelps.com ATTORNEYS FOR NEW ORLEANS HEARST TELEVISION INC., HEARST NEWSPAPERS, LLC, GANNETT RIVER STATES PUBLISHING CORPORATION AND ESPN, INC. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that I have on this 28th day of May, 2015 served a copy of this motion on all counsel of record by e-mail. aCIVIL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS STATE OF LOUISIANA NUMBER 15-655 DIVISION “L/8” IN RE: INTERDICTION OF THOMAS MILTON BENSON, JR. RULE TO SHOW CAUSE Upon considering the Motion of New Orleans Hearst Television Inc., Hearst Newspapers, LLC, Gannett River States Publishing Corporation and ESPN, Ine. for the Court to enter an order allowing them to intervene or otherwise be heard on their motion for the Court to vacate its orders that cldsed all court proceedings to the public and sealed the entire record in this case, and to enter orders that are narrowly tailored to cause the least interference possible with the right of public access to court proceedings and court records, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners, Renee Benson, Rita LeBlanc and Ryan Benson, and Defendant, Thomas Milton Benson, Jr., appear before this Honorable Court on the at ‘e day oflreye 2015, at 4 x AAW and show cause why the Court should not grant the requested relief and allow New Orleans Hearst Television Inc., Hearst Newspapers, LLC, Gannett River States Publishing Corporation and ESPN, Inc. to intervene or otherwise be heard cn their motion for the Court to vacate its orders that closed all court proceedings to the public and sealed thé entire record in this case and to enter orders that are narrowly tailored to cause the least interference possible with the right of public access to court proceedings and court records. ag Signed in New Orleans, Louisiana, this_ oD “day of May, 2015. (Sod) Kem A. Reese CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, DIVISION “L” 207PLEASE SERVE: Renee Benson, Rita LeBlane and Ryan Benson through their attorney of record SMITH & FAWER, LLC Randall A. Smith Stephen M. Gele 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3702 New Orleans LA 70170 and - Thomas Milton Benson, Jr. through his attomey of record STONE PIGMAN WALTHER WITTMAN, LLC Phillip A. Wittman 546 Carondelet Street New Orleans LA 70130CIVIL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS <0 STATE OF LOUISIANA. ref > NUMBER 15-655 DIVISION “L/6” IN RE: INTERDICTION OF THOMAS MILTON BENSON, JR. FILED: ee DEPUTY CLERK MEMORANDUM {N SUPPORT OF MOTION TO ALLOW NEW ORLEANS HEARST TELEVISION INC., HEARST NEWSFAPURS, LLC, GANNETT RIVER STATES PUBLISHING CORPORATION AND ESEN, INC. TO INTERVENE OR OTHERWISE BE HEARD ‘New Orleans Hearst Television Inc. (the owner and operator of WDSU-TV), Hearst ‘Newspapers, LLC (the publisher of the San Antonio Express-News), Gannett River States Publishing Corporation (the publisher of the Lafayette Daily Advertiser, the Shreveport Times, the Alexandria Town Talk, the Monroe News-Star, and the Opelousas Daily World), and ESPN, Inc. (collectively, the “News Media”), file this memorandum in support of their motion for the Court to vacate the blanket orders that closed the trial to the public and sealed the court record in this case and to enter orders that are narrowly tailored to cause the least interference possible with the right of public access to court proceedings and court records. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ‘The subject of this interdiction proceeding, Thomas Milton Bensoa, Jr, is the owner of the New Orleans Saints National Football League team and the New Orleans Pelicans National Basketball Association team.’ Mr. Benson also owns multiple automobile dealerships in the New Orleans and San Antonio, Texas metropolitan areas.” Mr. Benson reportedly is the wealthiest man in Louisiana, and he has been a major charitable benefactor in both New Orleans * See Petition, $9, 16, The Saints and the Pelicans receive millions of dollars of state funds and direct and indirect ‘benefits from the State. * See Petition, $7.and San Antonio.’ Mr. Benson is, by any standards, a person of great interest to the public in both New Orleans and San Antonio," On January 22, 2015, Mr. Benson unexpectedly announced plans to transfer future owmership of the New Orleans Saints and New Orleans Pelicans, and much of his other business interests, to his wife, Gayle, replacing his daughter from a previous mariage, Renee LeBlanc, and Renee’s children, Ryan LeBlanc and Rita Benson LeBlanc, who had been the heirs apparent. The following day, Renee, Ryan and Rita filed their petition for interdiction against Mr. Bopson, alleging that he is incompetent: Numerous lawsuits have now been filed by the parties and their representatives or allies, In slato and federal court in New Orleans and San Antonio, These lawsuits hayo been of, considerable public interest and have been the subject of innumerable news reports in newspapers nnd on television in New Orleans, San Antonio and nationally. Although it is impossible for undersigned counsel to be precise because of the secrecy orders this Court has entered, it appears that this Court on April 23, 2015, May 1, 2015 and May 19, 2015 entered orders with the cumulative effect of imposing a blanket closure of all court proceedings and a blanket sealing of the court record in this case. ‘The News Media seek to intervene because, under the well-established law of Louisiana, there is a “strong constitutional bias in favor of open access by the public to court proceedings,” Copeland y. Copeland, 07-177 (La, 10/16/07), 966 So.2d 1040, 1047 (“Copeland 12”), and because the “right of the public to have access to public records is a fundamental right, guaranteed by the Constitution.” Bester v. Louisiana Supreme Court Committee on Bar Admissions, 00-1360 (La. 2/21/01), 719 So.2d 715, 721. The Court’s closure and sealing orders deny the public their constitutional rights of access to the Court proceedings and records. > See Petition, $18 “The New Orleans Saints played a number of “home” football games in San Antonio inthe post-Katrina 2005 NFL season and there was considerable public speculation tat the Saints might relocate permanently to San Antonio. br. Benson had publicly stated that he intended for Rita Benson LeBlanc to take over ownership ofthe New Orleans Saints after his death. See Petition, f 31-37. ‘See Petition, $9 50-78.ARGUMENT ‘The News Media are entitled to intervene to vindicate their constitutional rights. ‘The News Media have an interest in this case that supports intervention because the Court's orders closing the trial and sealing the record infringe their rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article 1, § 7 (“Free Press”), Article 1, § 22 (Open Courts”), and Article 12, § 3 (“Public Documents”) of the Louisiana Constitution.” ‘The United States Supreme Court has stated that “representatives of the press and general public ‘must be given an opportunity to be heard on the question of their exclusion.” Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 609 n. 25 (1982), quoting Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 401 (1979) Powell, J., concurring). In Copeland v. Copeland, 06-1023 (La. 6/2/06), 930 So.24 940 (“Copeland P’), the Louisiana Supreme Court allowed a newspaper to intervene to challenge a court order sealing the record ina divorce case, In Copeland I, the Supreme Court ruled decisively in favor of the right of the press and the public to accoss court records. Other courts in Louisiana and elsewhere repeatedly have allowed news organizations to intervene to challenge court orders restricting access to court proceedings. In Davis v. Kast Baton Rouge Parish School Board, 78 F.3d 920, 926 (Sth Cir. 1996), for example, the Court stated that, for the news media to have standing to intervene, they need only “show an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the challenged act and that is likely to be redressed by the requested remedy.” The News Media meet these standards because, prior to the issuance of the closure and. sealing orders, they attended hearings, reviewed the court record, and reported on the proposed interdiction. They would continue to do so, but for the court orders that now restrict their access. In Danis, the Court relied upon numerous cases that “have held that news agencies have standing to challenge confidentiality orders in an effort to obtain information or access to judicial 7 Article 1091 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Prooedure states: “A third person having an inferest therein may iplorvene in a pending action to enforce a right related to or connected with the object of fhe pending potion ‘gjnst ove oF more of the parties thereto by: (1) Joining with plaintiff in demanding the seo or sindlar relief agulnst the defendant; 2) Uniting with defendant io resisting the plalmifts deusand; ot (3) Opposing both plaintiff and defendant.”proceedings, although they are neither parties to the litigation nor restrained directly by the orders.”* Ia. To “deny the media standing to challenge closure of courtroom proceedings or demand ‘access to records of proceedings required to be public would rob the relevant statutes as well as the First Amendment of meaning with respect to the public’s deep interest in trials.” Chicago Tribune Co. v. Mauffray, 08-522 (La.App. 3d Cir, 11/5/08), 996 So.2d 1273, 1279-1280. Respectfully submitted, PHELPS DUNBAR LLP Mary Ellen S TA. (Ca Bar #14388) Dan Zimmerman (La. Bar #2202) 365 Canal Street, Suite 2000 ‘New Osleans, Louisiana 70130-6534 Telephone: (504) 566-1311 Telecopier: (504) 568-9130 roym@phelps.cora dan.zimmerman@)phelps.com ATTORNEYS FOR NEW ORLEANS HEARST TELEVISION INC., HEARST NEWSPAPERS, LLC, GANNETT RIVER STATES PUBLISHING CORPORATION AND ESPN, INC. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that I have on this 28th day of May, 2015 served a copy of this motion on all counsel of record by e-mail. a * The Davis Court cited Pansy v. Borough af Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 777 (3d Cir. 1994) (news media allowed to intervene to challenge order sealing settlement agreement in civil rights case) In re Application of Dow Jones & Co., 842 F.2d 603, 608 (2d Cir), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 946 (1988) (news media allowed to intervene to challenge gag order that applied to trial participants); Journal Publishing Co. v. Mechem, 801 F.2d 1233, 1235, (10th Cir. 1986) (news media allowed to intervene to challenge post-trial order prohibiting interviews with jurors); Radio & Television News Ass'n y, United States District Court, 781 F.2d 1443, 1445 (9th Cir. 1986) (ews media allowed to intervene to challenge order probibiting defense counsel from making extrajudicial statements); United States v. Gurney, 558 F.2d 1202, 1206 (5th Cir, 1977), cert, denied, 435 U.S. 968 (1978) (news media allowed to intervene to challenge orders denying access to documents and exhibits); and CBS, Inc, vy, Young, $22 F.2d 234, 238 (6th Cir. 1975) (news media allowed to intervene to challenge gag order that applied to trial participants)CIVIL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS STATE OF LOUISIANA NUMBER 15-655 DIVISION “L/8” IN RE: INTERDICTION OF THOMAS MILTON BENSON, JR. “DEPUTY CL MOTION BY NEW ORLEANS HEARST TELEVISION INC., HEARST NEWSPAPERS, LLC, GANNETT RIVER STATES PUBLISHING CORPORATION AND ESPN, INC. TO OPEN TRIAL AND UNSEAL COURT RECORDS NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, come New Orleans Hearst, Television Inc. (the owner and operator of WDSU-TV), Hearst Newspapers, LLC (the publisher of the San Antonio Express-News), Gannett River States Publishing Corporation (the publisher of the Lafayette Daily Advertiser, the Shreveport Times, the Alexandria Town Talk, the Monroe News-Star, and the Opelousas Daily World), and ESPN, Ine. (collectively, the “News Media”), ‘who move this Court to vacate the blanket orders that closed the trial to the public and sealed the - court record in this case and to enter orders that are narrowly tailored to cause the least interference possible with the right of the public to access to court proceedings and court records. As set forth in the memorandum in support of this motion, the blanket closing of a trial and sealing of court records violates the United States and Louisiana Constitutions. In order to determine whiether any hearings should be closed or any records should be sealed, the Court must weigh the constitutional right of access against the specific private interests put forward by Mr. Benson, Any closure or sealing orders must be narrowly tailored to cause the least interference possible with the right of public access. The Court's blanket orders closing all court proceedings to the public and sealing the entire record in this case are not narrowly tailored as required. See Copeland v. Copeland, 06-1023 (La, 6/2/06), 930 $0.24 940 and Copeland v. Copeland, 07-177 (La. 10/16/07), 966 So.2d 1040, 1047.Respectfully submitted, PHELPS DUNBAR LLP Mary Ellen i da “a #14388) Dan Zimmerman (La. Bar #2202) 365 Canal Street, Suite 2000 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-6534 Telephone: (504) 566-1311 Telecopier: (504) 568-9130 roym@phelps.com dan.zimmerman@phelps.com ATTORNEYS FOR NEW ORLEANS HEARST TELEVISION INC., HEARST NEWSPAPERS, LLC, GANNETT RIVER STATES PUBLISHING CORPORATION AND ESPN, INC. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Ihereby certify that I have on this 28th day of May, 2015 served a copy of this motion on all counsel of record by e-mail. (i |CIVIL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS“ STATE OF LOUISIANA NUMBER 15-655 DIVISION “L/8” IN RE: INTERDICTION OF THOMAS MILTON BENSON, JR. RULE TO SHOW CAUSE Upon considering the Motion of New Orleans Hearst Television Inc., Hearst Newspapers, LLC, Gannett River States Publishing Corporation, and ESPN, Inc. for the Court to vacate the blanket orders that closed the trial to the public and sealed the court record in this case and to enter orders that are narrowly tailored to cause the least interference possible with the right of public access to court proceedings and court records, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners, Renee Benson, Rita LeBlanc and Ryan Benson, and Defendant, Thomas Milton Benson, Jr,, appear before this Honorable Court on the at day of Mv i 2015, at © 2% (Und show cause why the Court should not grant the requested relief and (1) enter an order vacating the blanket orders thet closed the trial to the public and sealed the court record in this case, and (2) enter orders that are narrowly tailored to cause the least interference possible with the right of publie access to court proceedings and court records. f Signed in Now Orlearis, Louistana, this x day of May, 2015, (Sgd.) Kern A. Reese KERN REESE, JUDGE CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, DIVISION “L” PLEASE SERVE: Renee Benson, Rita LeBlane and Ryan Benson through their attomey of record SMITH & FAWER, LLC Randall A. Smith Stephen M. Gele 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3702 ‘New Orleans LA 70170and - Thomas Milton Benson, Jr. through his attorney of record STONE PIGMAN WALTHER WITTMAN, LLC Phillip A. Witunan 546 Carondelet Sireet New Orleans LA 70130CIVIL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS 7.5 STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 15-655 DIVISION “L” IN RE INTERDICTION OF THOMAS MILTON BENSON, JR. FILED: DEPUTY CLERK MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION BY NEW ORLEANS HEARST TELEVISION INC., HEARST NEWSPAPERS, LLC, GANNETT RIVER STATES PUBLISHING CORPORATION AND ESPN, INC. ‘TO OPEN TRIAL AND UNSEAL COURT RECORD Intervenors, New Orleans Hearst Television Ine. (the owner and operator of WDSU-TV), “Hearst Newspapers, LLC (the publisher of the San Antonio Express-News), Gamnett River States Publishing Coxporation (the publisher of the Lafayette Daily Advertiser, thé Shreveport Times, the Alexandria Town Talk, the Monroe News-Star, and the Opelousas Daily World), and ESPN, Inc. (collectively, the “News Media”), submit this Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Open Trial and Unseal Court Records conceming the possible Interdiction of New Orleans Saints and New Orleans Pelicans owner Tom Benson. INTRODUCTION ‘The News Media seck to challenge the blanket orders of this Court that closed all court proceedings and sealed the entire court record in this case of significant public concern. The blanket closing of a trial and sealing of an entire court record violates the United States and Louisiana Constitutions. The fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts makes such ‘blanket rulings overbroad. See Copeland v. Copeland, 06-1023 (La. 6/2/06), 930 So.24 940 (“Copeland 2”). ‘The burden is oni parties seeking closure of a trial or sealing court records to make “a specific showing that their privacy interests outweigh the public’s constitutional right of access,” and any closure must be “narrowly tailored to cause the least interference possible with the right PDam4783.4of public access.” Copeland v. Copeland, 07-177 (La. 10/16/07), 966 So.2d 1040, 1041, 1042 (Copeland IP”). ‘The public interest in access to the trial and to the court record in this case outweighs any private interests Mr. Benson may have put forth.’ Because this is a case involving the “civil death” of Mr. Benson — the owner of the New Orleans Saints and the New Orleans Pelicans, and reportedly the wealthiest man in Louisiana — public concer in the case is unusually high.” The privacy interests of Mr. Benson do not outweigh the public interest in the right to know what is happening in the public courts in a case of such significance to the people of New Orleans and of San Antonio* Thus, the blanket orders closing the trial and sealing the entire court record should be vacated, Mr, Benson should be required to make “a specific showing that [his] privacy interests, outweigh the public’s right of access” to the courts. See Copeland Il, 966 $0.24 at 1042, Most importantly, the Court then “must ensure that its order is narrowly tailored to cause the least interference possible with the right of public access.” Id. at 1047. ARGUMENT 1, The blanket closing of the trial and sealing of the court record violate the state and federal constitutions. In Copeland Land Copeland If, the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld a newspaper's challenge to a court order sealing a court record and ruled decisively in favor of the right of the public to access to the courts in civil cases, even in sensitive domestic disputes. The Copeland decisions arose out of contentious divorce and child custody proceedings involving the high profile restaurant entrepreneur and Popeyes Chicken magnate Al Copeland, ‘The parties filed a joint motion to seal the entire court record pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 1426, which the Court granted. A newspaper sought access to documents in the record. The trial court justified its order sealing the entire record as protecting the parties’ minor children from ' Because the entire record is sealed, the public and the News Media do not know exac{ly whut interests Mr. Benson ‘serie. ? According to Forbes.com, Mr. Benson is worth $1.9 billion and is the 351st wealthiest person in the United States. ‘See pr forbes com sefrialmadheir/2015/03/1/feud-over-sains-cner-iom-benson-e-ore- coraton-ian-yoa-may think 2 ? Mr. Benson owns multiple autompbile dealerships in the New Orleans dnd San Antonio, Texas metropolitan arves. In addltion, the Now Orleans Saints played a numberof home football games in San Antonio in the post- Katrina 2005 NFL secon, and there was considerable publie speculation thatthe Sains might relocate permanently to San Antonio, Po.amm47ea.tembarrassment and possible harm which might result if information about the proceedings became public. ‘The Louisiana Supreme Court in the Copeland cases based its rulings primarily on federal and state constitutional law, The United States Supreme Court held in 1947 that “a trial is a public event” and what “transpires in the court room is public property.” Craig v, Harvey, 331 U.S. 367, 374 (1947). “[C]losure must be necessitated by a compelling governmental interest, and must be narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Copeland II, 966 So.2d at 1043 n, 1, citing Globe Newspapers Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. $96, 607, 102 $.Ct. 2613 (1982). The United States Supreme Court “also recognized that the public has a right to inspect and copy public court records.” Copeland I, 966 So.2d at 1042, citing Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. 435 S. 589, 597 (1978). Historically, “both civil and criminal trials have been presumptively open.” Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 580 n. 17 (1980). “In some civil cases, the public interest in access, and the salutary effect of publicity, may be as strong as or stronger than in most criminal cases.” Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 443 U.S. 368, 387 (1979). The “First and Fourteenth Amendments clearly give the press and the public a right of access to trials themselves, civil as well as criminal.” Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court. (“Press-Enterprise 2"), 464 U.S, 501, 599 (1984) (Stewart, J,, concurring). Under “the rationale of Richmond Newspapers, the First Amendment guarantees a public right of access to civil trials.” Doe v. Sante Fe Indep. School Dist., 933 F Supp. 647, 659 (S.D. Tex. 1996), citing Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 181 (Sth Cir. 1981). Accordingly, the trial in this case must remain generally open to the public unless denial of the constitutional right of access “is necessitated by a compelling governmental interest, and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Globe Newspaper, 457 U.S. at 607 (applying this strict sorutiny test to conclude that closing sexual-offense trials during the testimony of a minor is not narrowly tailored to meet the compelling governmental interest of protecting a minor’s mental and physical welfare); see also, e.g., Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen,733 F.2d 1059, 1070 3d Cir. 1984) (applying strict scrutiny to determine the constitutionality of closure of public access to civil trials). PDATRATES.IIn other words, in this case, the “presumption of openness” at trial “may be overcome .. only by an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values, and is narrowly tailored to preserve that interest.” Press-Enterprise I, 464 U.S. at 510. ‘The Louisiana Constitution has an explicit “Access to Courts” provision, which states: “All courts shall be open. ...” La. Const, art. I, §22. In addition, with regard to public trials and public records, the Louisiana Constitution states: “No person shall be denied the right to observe ‘he deliberations of public bodies and examine public documents, except in cases established by law.” La. Const, art 12, §3. ‘The “United States Supreme Court has ruled that ‘the First Amendment can be read as protecting the right of everyone to attend trials so as to give meaning to [the freedoms of speech, press, and assembly].”” Chicago Tribune Co. v. Mauffray, 08-522 (La.App. 3d Cir. 11/5/08), 996 So.2d 1273, 1278 (bracketed language in original), quoting Richmond Newspapers. Copeland IT observed that “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 observe the judicial system.” 966 So.2d at 1043, citing State v. Birdsong, 422 So.2d 1135, 1137 (La. 1982). In addition, openness in the courtroom “discourages perjury and may result in witnesses coming forward with new information regardless of the type of the proceeding.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1178-79 (6th Cir. 1983). The constitutional right of access to the judicial process “is fundamental to a democratic form of government, serving as a check on possible abuses by the court system, and helping to produce ah ‘informed and enlightened public opinion.” Jn Re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, 98 F.R.D. 539, 543 (E.D. N.Y, 1983), quoting Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 247 (1936); see SEC y. Van Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d 845, 848 (5th Cir. 1993) (public access to court records “serves to promote trustworthiness of the judicial process, to curb judicial abuses, and to provide the public with a more complete understanding of the judicial system"); . In Copeland J, the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that “the authority granted to the court under La, Code Civ. P, art, 1426 is tempered by La. Const. Art. I, §22, which requires all pDar47t3.1courts to be open.” 930 So.2d at 941. The Court reiterated its prior holding that “the public has a constitutional right of access to court records.” Id. at 940, citing Title Research Corp. v. Rausch, 450 So.2d 933 (La. 1984). In Copeland UI, the Court reaffirmed the balancing test to be used: “the parties have the burden of making a specifie showing that their privacy interests outweigh the public's constitutional right of access to the revord, The trial court, should it grant such relief, must ensure that its order is nariowly tallored to cause the least interference possible with the right of public access.” 966 So.2d at 1047. The burden of proof is on the party seeking closure. Id ‘The Court held that Mr. and Mrs. Copeland had a privacy interest relating to the safety and protection of their children, but also that Mr. Copeland had “made no showing that he has a expectation of privacy in his financial information that is constitutionally protected or that would outweigh the public’s right of access to this information.” Id, at 1048 and n.8. The Court unsealed the entire record of the divorce and custody proceedings, except for redaction of the name of the children’s schoo! and the location of the family home. Jd, at 1048. Louisiana’s Publie Records Law contains “a broad definition of public records” and specified limited exceptions to the general principle of keeping court records open. See Copeland II, 966 So.2d at 1043. The definition of public records includes all “books, records, vrritings . . . having been used . .. or retained for use in the conduct, transaction, or performance of any business... under the authority of the constitution or the law of this state. ...” La. RS. 44:1(A)(2)(@). Specifically with respect to court records, the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure states that, except as otherwise provided by law, the clerk of court “shall permit any person to examine, copy, photograph, or make a memorandum of any of these records at any time during which the clerk’s office is required by law to be open.” La. C.CP. art. 251. ‘Thus, in Louisiana, the right of public access to records on file with the clerk of court “is a fundamental right, and is guaranteed by the constitution.” Copeland If, 966 So.2d at 1043-44, citing Title Research, 450 So.2d at 936 (access to mortgage and conveyance records). The Louisiana Supreme Court explained the importance of this right in Title Research and reaffirmed it in Copeland It: p.r722478,1‘The provision of the constitution must be construed liberally in favor of free and unrestricted access to the records, and that access can be denied only when a law, specifically and unequivocally, provides otherwise. Whenever there is doubt as to whether the public has the right of access to certain records, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the public’s right to see. To allow otherwise would be an improper and arbitrary restriction on the public's constitutional rights. Title Research, 450 So.2d at 936; Copeland II, 966 So.2d at 1044. While the constitutional right of access is not absolute and may be limited by the constitutional right to privacy, similarly, the right to privacy is not absolute and also is “limited by society’s right to be informed about legitimate subjects of public interest.” Copeland II, 966 So.2d at 1046, citing Plaquemines Parish Comm. Council v. Delta Development Co., 472 80.24 560, 567-68 (La. 1985). Thus, the blanket closure of the trial and sealing of the entire court record is unconstitutional and should be vacated. To determine whether any testimony should be seeret and records sealed, the Court must weigh the important public interests at stake in the right of access against the specific private interests put forward by Mr. Benson. 2. The public interest in access is especially strong here where the subject of the interdiction is the owner of the New Orleans Saints and New Orleans Pelicans. ‘This case is more than simply a private dispute among relatives ~ it involves the power of the state to declare one of the wealthiest and most influential men in Louisiana unable to handle his affairs. The necessity of citizens being able to examine firsthand the workings of its government is of paramount concern in a democracy. See Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) (the “expressly guaranteed freedoms shate a common core purpose of assuring freedom of communication on matters relating to the functioning of government”). The patties to a lawsuit are not the only people who have a legitimate interest in the record compiled in a legal proceeding... . the publie at large pays for the courts and therefore has an interest in what go¢s on at all stages of a judicial proceeding. . . . The judge is the primary representative of the public interest in the judicial process and is duty-bound therefore to review any request to seal the record (or part of it). Citizens’ First National Bank v. Cincinnati Ins. Cos., 178 F.3d 943, 944-45 (7th Cir. 1999) Posner, 5.) (citations omitted). ppam2s783.1‘Tho public interest in access is especially strong here. This case involves not just any well-off citizen, but the owner of the New Orleans Saints and the New Orleans Pelicans, two muuch-beloved teams whose fortunes are of tremendous interest to ordinary citizens. According ‘0 Forbes.com, Mr. Benson will receive over $350 million of subsidies from the State of Louisiana and its taxpayers — cash payments, tax breaks and inflated rental payments — through 2025. Over the 15-year term of the Saints lease with the State, the State will pay Mr. Benson at least $198 million in increased revenue stom the Superdome, $142 million in rental payments on property Benson owns, $10 million in bonuses for bringing the Super Bowl to New Orleans and $2.6 million in tax breaks.* There should be no question that the public has an interest in the question whether Mr, Benson is competent to manage these payments from the public fisc. The millions of dollars of public monies expended on these sports franchises — on the stadium and the arena, on traffie control, on construction and infrastructure upgrades for related major professional sports events ~ alone justify public concém in this matter. Moreover, especially since Hurricane Katrina and the resultant flooding of New Orleans and surrounding parishes, the psychological impact of Mr. Benson’s sports teams on the public has been considerable, Who will manage and control these enterprises is of tremendous public interest. See Welsh v. City and County of San Francisco, 887 F, Supp. 1293, 1297 (ND. Cal. 1995) (access is particularly appropriate when the subject matter of the litigation is of especial public interest). 3. The rigorous standard required to close court proceedings and seal court records cannot be met in this ease. “Interdiction is a harsh remedy. A judgment of interdiction amounts to civil death, it isa declaration that the interdict is incapable” of caring for himself or his estate. Jn re Interdiction of Parnell, 129 S0.3d 690, 692 (La.App. 4th Cir, 2013), citing Doll v, Doll, 156 So.2d 275 (La.App. Ath Cir. 1963), While article 4547 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that interdiction hearings “may be closed for gaod cause,” “good cause” must be judged in light of the constitutional principles at stake. In Copeland J, the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that “the authority * See bitp:shvww forbes comv/sites/danalexander/2013/07/31 /billionaire-saints-owner-tom-benson-to-sc0re-400- ‘million-revenue-boost-froro-agreement-with-state/ pp.r7224088.1granted to the court under La. Code Civ. P. art. 1426 [which also allows limiting access for “good cause” is tempered by La. Const. Art. I, §22, which requires all courts to be open.” 930 So.2d at 941, In balancing the rights of the public against private interests, closure must be “essential to preserve higher values and . .. narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Press-Enterprise I, 464 USS. at 510, The trial court must find that sealing documents is “strictly and inescapably necessary.” Associated Press v, U.S, District Court, 705 F.2d 1143, 1145-46 (9th Cir. 1983). Closure and sealing “should be no broader than is necessary to protect those specific interests {identified as in need of protection.” Johnson v. Greater Southeast Community Hosp. Corp., 951 F.2d 1268, 1278 (D.C, Cir. 1991). With these principles and guidelines in mind, blanket closing of the trial and sealing of the entire record are not justified. Certainly, Mr. Benson’s medical condition does not justify such blanket orders. Every day in this court private, personal medical information about the health of litigants is made publie in open court via testimony, evidence presented, and pleadings filed. In criminal matters, private psychiatric information is made public when insanity or competency to stand trial is at issue Nor do Mr, Benson’s vast financial resources justify blanket closure of the trial and sealing of the record. See Copeland II (Al Copeland’s expectation of privacy in financial information did not outweigh the public’s right of access to the information). ‘The Civil Code provides that an interdiction may be ordered when an individual “is unable consistently to make reasoned decisions regarding the care of his person and property, or to communicate those decisions.” La. C.C. art. 389. This provision necessarily implies that persons other than physicians and psychiatrists likely will give testimony concerning Mr. Benson’s ability to make and to communicate “reasoned decisions” concerning the management of his holdings, including his sports franchises, the Saints and the Pelicans, and his automobile dealerships. Itis believed, for example, that the petitioners may testify, as well as officials in the Saints and Pelicans sports’ organizations. Certainly the public has a great interest in leaning ‘whether Mr. Benson’s recent decisions concerning management of these very public institutions have been “reasoned,” or, instead, irrational. PDaTz24785,1Fundamentally, the Court’s closure and sealing orders violate the Supreme Court’s holdings in the Copeland cases that a court “must ensure that its order is narrowly tailored to cause the least interference possible with the right of public access.” 966 So.2d at 1047. A nartowly-tailored order would permit, at the very least, the testimony of lay witnesses, non- medical evidence, and the arguments of counsel to be open to the public, both in open court and in the court record. Only such a “narrowly tailored” order would be consistent with the dictates of the state and federal constitutions and the Louisiana Supreme Court in the Copeland cases. CONCLUSION ‘The blanket closure and sealing orders are unconstitutional and violate the presumptive rights of the public to access to trials and to court records. The rights of the public are particularly significant in this case given that the state is being asked to adjudicate the possible “civil death” of the wealthiest man in Louisiana, owner of two professional sports teams who are followed by millions of this state’s citizens, and the recipient of over $300 million Louisiana taxpayer dollars The Court’s blanket orders should be vacated so that “narrowly tailored” orders can be entered. Respectfully submitted, PHELPS DUNBAR LLP Eu Mary Ellen Roy (La. Bér #14388) Dan Zimmerman (La. Bar #2202) 365 Canal Street, Suite 2000 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-6534 Telephone: (504) 566-1311 Telecopier: (504) 568-9130 roym@phelps.com dan.zimmerman@phelps.com BY: [ ATTORNEYS FOR ATTORNEYS FOR NEW ORLEANS HEARST TELEVISION INC., HEARST NEWSPAPERS, LLC, GANNETT RIVER STATES PUBLISHING CORPORATION AND ESPN, INC. PDAm2783.1CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 d6 hereby certify that I have on this 28th day of May, 2015, served a copy of the foregoing on counsel for all parties to this proceeding, via e-mail. -10- PDamae7s3.1