Murdoch family trust case involving Fox News ownership heard by Nevada Supreme Court
CARSON CITY — Are some court cases so sensitive that the public can’t know what’s happening or even who’s involved?
The Nevada Supreme Court heard oral arguments May 7 to answer those questions — with Rupert Murdoch’s international media empire at the heart of the debate.
On the Murdoch side were seven attorneys with a table of thick binders.
On the other side was Maggie McLetchie, a Las Vegas attorney representing the New York Times, CNN, Associated Press, National Public Radio, Washington Post and ABC.
The media outlets seek access to records from a Reno probate hearing where Murdoch sought to change how control over Fox News and other conservative media outlets is divided among his four children after his death.
The family trust case was heard in Nevada because the state has what is likely the most confidential probate court system in the nation. Records in such cases can be “super-sealed” in a way that keeps the parties, attorneys, testimony, evidence and even the judge’s decision secret.
The Murdochs' case was revealed after the New York Times received leaked documents.
A Nevada Supreme Court decision may set precedent on whether super-sealing is allowed.
Arguments against secrecy in Rupert Murdoch case
McLetchie's main arguments in favor of unsealing the Murdoch records are that the district court's actions were unconstitutional, the super rich don't deserve extra secrecy because they're rich, and entire legal proceedings shouldn't be kept from the public.
Categorical denial of access to an entire case — including past and future proceedings — is unconstitutional, McLetchie said.
“There is no reason to find that probate court matters or family trust matters are an exception to the rule” that legal proceedings are public, she told the justices.
She said the public has an interest in all court proceedings.
“Courts belong to the people,” she said. “These are democratic principles. We have elected judges, and these cases implicate serious public interest with regard to the specific role of the Murdochs.”
"In a similar case,” she added, “the Court explained that proceedings in front of judges and courthouses have been presumptively open to the public for centuries.”
In a case involving Alex Falconi of the legal media site Our Nevada Judges, the Nevada Supreme Court found that even sensitive family court cases could not be kept secret from media.
McLetchie said that the family cases that Falconi sought access to — and the court granted — are not significantly different from the Murdoch family proceeding.
“The argument is that this (case's records) should be treated just like all other information that district courts handle all the time,” she said. “Just because the litigants are wealthy and important is not a basis to close proceedings.”
Arguments for secrecy in some cases
Attorney Jordan Smith represented some of the unnamed “Doe” parties in opposition to unsealing the Murdoch records.
Although the Murdochs were mentioned frequently and it was understood that attorneys before the court were representing their interests, officially their name is not associated with the case.
Conducting trusts under seal has been done for centuries under English common law, Smith said.
“There’s a very grave danger of abuse from public examinations,” Smith said, quoting James Kent, an American jurist in the early 1800s.
The Nevada Legislature approved the ability to request super-sealing in trust cases.
“The Legislature furthered the state’s interest of attracting business to Nevada and designated broad categories of information as confidential related to trusts,” Smith said.
Smith said that Nevada’s statutes don’t allow blanket confidentiality in family trust cases, but instead it is applied when it’s needed in individual cases — and that’s what the Washoe County court did in the Murdoch case.
He mentioned a case cited in the still-secret filings at issue where mistaken identity led to a Murdoch family kidnapping 54 years ago. Their significant security needs, especially about financial matters, demand the utmost confidentiality in the family trust dispute, Smith argued.
“This family requires round-the-clock security,” Smith said. “They have these things in their family history that give them a unique physical and security risk that other wealthy individuals don't face.”
What’s next for case involving Rupert Murdoch’s international media empire?
Nevada Supreme Court justices will give a ruling in the coming days or weeks.
They could order the unsealing of records in the Murdoch case. Or it could affirm the district court decision to keep them confidential.
A decision to unseal would put current Nevada law in jeopardy as possibly unconstitutional.
Mark Robison is the state politics reporter for the Reno Gazette Journal, with occasional forays into other topics. Email comments to mrobison@rgj.com or comment on Mark’s Greater Reno Facebook page.
(This story has been updated to correct the spelling of Maggie McLetchie's name.)