Court again restricts access during coronavirus surge

The Santa Clara County Superior Court is reinstituting access restrictions to its courthouses in response to surging COVID-19 cases in the South Bay, as well as a recent public health order urging people to significantly curtail gatherings in the face of rapidly eroding hospital capacity.

In the early weeks of the pandemic starting in late March, the court curtailed physical access to its facilities to stem infection risks and generally permitted only people with imminent court business. That order was never technically rescinded, but in June the court, without any fanfare, began reopening access to county court buildings, except for the courthouses in Morgan Hill and Palo Alto, which remain closed.

A new order issued Tuesday by presiding Judge Deborah Ryan limits courthouse access to people directly involved in a court hearing; those submitting an in-person pleading; familycourt petitioners seeking protective orders regarding domestic violence, gun violence, civil harassment, elder abuse, workplace and school violence and juvenile dependency; and those seeking emergency orders for eviction and child safety matters.

In a statement Tuesday, Ryan reemphasized that managing safety during a pandemic supersedes what she agreed should otherwise be open court access.

“As a responsible member of our community, we are compelled to take steps to limit the number of people in our courthouses during this critical period while continuing to ensure that our justice system remains open and accessible,” Ryan wrote.

Practically, the order is a reissuing of existing directives that never expired, and an official recognition of strict quarantine and travel restrictions issued by the county in light of worsening COVID-19 trends. On Monday, Santa Clara County reported its highest single- day case count during entire pandemic, according to data compiled by this news organization, and its daily infection rate reached an all-time high.

In two weeks, the number of people hospitalized in the county nearly doubled to its highest point of the pandemic, a number that stands to worsen if gloomy predictions based on Thanksgiving gatherings manifest in case counts over the next 10 days.

County residents scheduled to report for jury duty are exempt from the restrictions. Electronic filings will continue to be processed as well.

Those who stand to be noticeably affected by the court restrictions include people who need to go to the clerk’s office to research and obtain copies of court files required for a variety of tasks including job applications and legal defense, people who attend court to support family members through the criminal-justice process, and advocates who provide support for indigent defendants and their families.

Raj Jayadev, co-founder of the civil-rights group Silicon

Valley De-Bug, which provides much of that incourt family support, told this news organization in April that the value of advocates and relatives being present during hearings can’t be overstated, saying, “Families are in court not only to watch the proceedings, but to be seen.”

David Snyder, executive director of the Bay Areabased First Amendment Coalition, has been sparring with courts up and down the state to ensure they provide sufficient remote access to courts in the absence of safe physical attendance. In most California counties, including Santa Clara County, that has been primarily achieved through telephonic access lines that allow the public to listen to hearings.

Snyder said that restrictions on physical access to courts have to be balanced with ready availability of these alternate avenues, along with robust outreach to ensure members of the public know about them.

“The public’s voice has often been lost in this conversation,” Snyder said. “There has to be a clear way for the public to understand how to dial in and to be able to listen to what’s happening in court, and understand it.”

“Reasonable and public health- based restrictions on physical access have been and will be essential in the future,” he added. “But the court needs to remember the public’s access to court proceedings is a constitutional right. It’s not a convenience.”