CPI Security Systems, Inc. v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc.

W.D. North Carolina

CPI Security Systems, Inc. v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina

DecidedMarch 20, 2023

Docket3:20-cv-00504

StatusUnknown

This text of CPI Security Systems, Inc. v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc. (CPI Security Systems, Inc. v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

CPI Security Systems, Inc. v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc., (W.D.N.C. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-CV-00504-FDW-DSC

CPI SECURITY SYSTEMS INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) VIVINT SMART HOME INC. et. al., ) ) Defendants. )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on a letter from journalist Christie Smythe docketed as a “Pro Se Motion for Transcripts” (document #153) along with the parties’ responses and Smythe’s reply (documents ##155, 156 and 164). Smythe seeks “immediate access to a copy of the transcript of the closing arguments in the trial” of this matter. Document #153 at 1. The parties acknowledge that once the transcript is prepared by the court reporter, there will need to be a brief period for making any redactions. The testimony and exhibits admitted in open court are open to the public pursuant to the broad right of access recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 266 (4th Cir. 2014) (“We have cautioned district courts that the right of public access, whether arising under the First Amendment or the common law, “may be abrogated only in unusual circumstances.”); Legal Newsline v. Garlock Sealing Techs. LLC, 518 B.R. 358, 364 (W.D.N.C. 2014) (“[T]he public and the press have a co-extensive right to view and consider documents tendered a judge and/or jury when a dispute is brought in the ultimate public forum, a courtroom”). Without citing any authority in support, Smythe contends she is entitled to the transcript before it has been reviewed for redactions and made available to the public. The Court finds no basis to expedite its normal procedures here. THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Christie Smythe’s “Pro Se Motion for Transcripts” (document #153) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, after the transcript is completed, filed by the court reporter, and redactions are completed, Smythe may order the transcript or a portion thereof and submit payment as directed by the Clerk’s Office. 2. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel of record, Ms. Smythe, and to the Honorable Frank D. Whitney.

SO ORDERED. Signed: March 20, 2023

fr AC ey David S. Cayer : -f United States Magistrate Judge ae

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-CV-00504-FDW-DSC

CPI SECURITY SYSTEMS INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) VIVINT SMART HOME INC. et. al., ) ) Defendants. )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on a letter from journalist Christie Smythe docketed as a “Pro Se Motion for Transcripts” (document #153) along with the parties’ responses and Smythe’s reply (documents ##155, 156 and 164). Smythe seeks “immediate access to a copy of the transcript of the closing arguments in the trial” of this matter. Document #153 at 1. The parties acknowledge that once the transcript is prepared by the court reporter, there will need to be a brief period for making any redactions. The testimony and exhibits admitted in open court are open to the public pursuant to the broad right of access recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 266 (4th Cir. 2014) (“We have cautioned district courts that the right of public access, whether arising under the First Amendment or the common law, “may be abrogated only in unusual circumstances.”); Legal Newsline v. Garlock Sealing Techs. LLC, 518 B.R. 358, 364 (W.D.N.C. 2014) (“[T]he public and the press have a co-extensive right to view and consider documents tendered a judge and/or jury when a dispute is brought in the ultimate public forum, a courtroom”). Without citing any authority in support, Smythe contends she is entitled to the transcript before it has been reviewed for redactions and made available to the public. The Court finds no basis to expedite its normal procedures here. THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Christie Smythe’s “Pro Se Motion for Transcripts” (document #153) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, after the transcript is completed, filed by the court reporter, and redactions are completed, Smythe may order the transcript or a portion thereof and submit payment as directed by the Clerk’s Office. 2. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel of record, Ms. Smythe, and to the Honorable Frank D. Whitney.

SO ORDERED. Signed: March 20, 2023

fr AC ey David S. Cayer : -f United States Magistrate Judge ae

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

CPI Security Systems, Inc. v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cpi-security-systems-inc-v-vivint-smart-home-inc-ncwd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack