The court reviewed comments on allowing live blogging of the criminal trial. The court does not believe live blogging violates the rule against broadcasting judicial proceedings. It views live blogging as reporting, not the proceeding itself. The court is open to live blogging if concerns about maintaining order and accuracy can be addressed, but news outlets did not provide suggestions to address these concerns. The court will not delay its decision waiting for a committee recommendation and does not feel bound by any committee ruling. Anyone may reply to the comments by September 15.

1. Case 1:10-cr-00576-SOM Document 283 Filed 09/01/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 2354
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CR. NO. 10-00576 SOM
)
Plaintiff, )
) COURT’S COMMENTS ON
vs. ) SUBMISSIONS ADDRESSING LIVE
) BLOGGING REQUEST
MORDECHAI ORIAN, et al., (01) )
)
Defendants. )
_____________________________ )
COURT’S COMMENTS ON SUBMISSIONS ADDRESSING LIVE BLOGGING REQUEST
The court has reviewed the comments that have been submitted
concerning live blogging and notes the following.
First, with respect to the Government's concern that live
blogging may violate Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure, the court's view is that Rule 53 prohibits broadcasts
of judicial proceedings, not broadcasts of reports of judicial
proceedings. Live blogging, even if it purports to quote
statements made in court, is viewed by this court as a report,
not as a judicial proceeding itself. As noted at the hearing in
the related case of United States v. Sou, Criminal No. 09-00345,
on July 25, 2011, live blogging has been permitted in federal
criminal trials in other districts in the Ninth Circuit, as well
as in trials in other circuits, including the District of
Columbia. If problems arose with live blogging in some of those
trials, the court is not aware that those problems related to the
status of live blogging as a broadcast of a judicial proceeding.

2. Case 1:10-cr-00576-SOM Document 283 Filed 09/01/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 2355
Notably, the Government cites no appellate decision suggesting
that the live blogging of any of those cases violated Rule 53.
The court does not agree with the Government that the court
should prohibit quotes in live blogging. As reporters writing
notes in longhand may quote participants, and attorneys sometimes
quote participants in briefs they file in the public record, the
court does not view quotes as prohibited. Of course, reporters
may not suggest that their quotes constitute the official record
of judicial proceedings, but quotes in live blogging are not
materially different from quotes in reports based on longhand
notes. Consider, for example, a reporter who sits in the
courtroom with pen and notepad, scribbles down in longhand the
exact words of a witness, feeds pages with those quotes to an
associate, then directs the associate to leave the courtroom
every few minutes to phone in those quotes so they can be
included in a series of "tweets" in a newspaper's online
discussions with readers. Such a procedure was actually followed
in a federal case in this district. The court does not see how
that process, which is very much like live blogging, could have
been objected to by the Government.
Second, with respect to news outlet's requests that all news
outlets be permitted to live blog from the courtroom, the court
wishes that such requests had been accompanied by specific
suggestions as to how to address the concerns expressed in the
2

3. Case 1:10-cr-00576-SOM Document 283 Filed 09/01/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 2356
court's earlier letter to the Star Advertiser in the Sou case.
The news outlets may have concluded that the court's concerns did
not matter to them. While the court, of course, can understand
that view, the court is unlikely to allow multiple live blogging
if it cannot adequately address its concerns. It had been the
court's hope that any attempt by the court to fashion a system
that addressed its concerns while providing more access would be
assisted by specific suggestions from those seeking more access.
The court knew before issuing its invitation for comments that
multiple news organizations wanted to live blog. The court may
not have been clear enough about wanting substantive discussion
about the best ways to address the court's concerns, not just
multiple requests to live blog.
Third, with respect to the Star Advertiser's suggestion that
the court refer the matter to Judge Seabright's committee for its
recommendation, the court states that, although it is happy to
receive input from all sources, the court is unlikely to let the
committee's schedule govern the timing of its ruling. As the
Star Advertiser knows, that committee does not have the authority
to require any judge to act in a particular manner in any
particular case, and the court doubts that even judges who are
members of the committee would agree to be bound by it. At most,
the committee may propose action to the judges on this court, but
the court is unlikely to purposely wait for such a proposal. I
3

4. Case 1:10-cr-00576-SOM Document 283 Filed 09/01/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 2357
do not know what procedures the committee will adopt, but
certainly litigants in any particular case should not feel
compelled to make arguments about the handling of their ongoing
case to the committee in the hope that the committee's
recommendation to the court will favor them in their specific
case.
Anyone who submitted comments by the deadline of August 31,
2011, may comment on other's comments (including this court's
comments in the present document) by September 15, 2011.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, September 1, 2011.
/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
Chief United States District Judge
United States v. Mordechai Orian, et al.; Cr. No. 10-00576 SOM;
COURT’S COMMENTS ON SUBMISSIONS ADDRESSING LIVE BLOGGING REQUEST
4