• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, April 18, 2011

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of MediaPost in a case concerning public access to a court document.

The document detailed Google's compliance with an order issued by U.S. District Court Judge James Ware directing the company to deactivate a Gmail user's account. MediaPost sought to unseal the report, with the user's name deleted, but Ware rejected that request. He ruled that the document wasn't a judicial record because Google had "lodged" it rather than "filed" it.

That decision was reversed by the appellate court on Friday.

"The district court did not point to any authority for the proposition that lodging alone is sufficient to overcome the public's right to access," a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit wrote.

The 9th Circuit added that the public "would be entitled to access to the report" absent a further determination that some or all of the information in the report should be deleted.

The original dispute stemmed from a misdirected email sent by Wilson, Wyo.-based Rocky Mountain Bank. In August 2009, the bank mistakenly sent names, addresses, Social Security numbers and loan information of more than 1,000 customers to a Gmail address. When the bank realized the problem, it sent a message to that same address asking the recipient to contact the bank and destroy the file without opening it. No one responded, so the bank contacted Google to ask for information about the account holder.

In keeping with its privacy policy, Google refused to provide the information without a court order. The bank responded by seeking an injunction requiring Google to disclose the information.

Rocky Mountain's request was heard by Ware, who not only ordered Google to reveal identifying information but also to "deactivate" the user's account. Several days later, Google presented a report to Ware outlining how it had complied with the order. Soon afterward, Ware vacated the order without ever making public the document Google submitted, even with the user's name deleted.

Represented by Public Citizen, MediaPost sought to intervene for purposes of obtaining the report. MediaPost argued that the report should be made available so the public could learn what steps Google took to comply with the court's order, and what factors went into the disposition of the case.