Loading…
An order of the Presiding Judge (GCSC 2025-SO-02), signed by Hon. Donald Cole Byrd, Presiding Judge, rescinding and replacing prior Order No. 25-02, dated May 22, 2025: photographing, videotaping, televising or otherwise recording any court proceeding prohibited unless a written request (form MC-500) has been filed at least five (5) days before the hearing date (unless good cause is shown) and approved before the commencement of the hearing (California Rules of Court, Rule 1.150); no photography, video, audio or electronic recording in the common areas within the courthouse - including hallways and the lobby area - without an Order on Media Request to Permit Coverage (form MC-510) on file and except as authorized by rule 1.150; the order made under Code of Civil Procedure sections 128, 177 and 187, rule 1.150 and the Court’s inherent powers, the inside of a courthouse a nonpublic forum; Court-sponsored or Court co-sponsored community activities and permitted uses by judicial officers or court employees excepted; requests to record in common areas directed to the Court Executive Officer and following the same procedures, television and still photographers filming in public areas only with prior court approval and without impeding court business; an area of media coverage designated in special circumstances upon written approval; a violation an unlawful interference with the proceedings of the Court - an order terminating media coverage, a citation for contempt (Code of Civil Procedure section 1209(a)(5)), monetary sanctions up to $1,500 per violation (section 177.5) or prosecution under Penal Code section 166(a)(3), (4) or (5); and requests to film for commercial or documentary purposes governed by the Judicial Council of California’s Third-Party Use of Court Facilities Policy.
California > Third Appellate District > Glenn County > Superior Court of California, County of Glenn
GCSC 2025-SO-02 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF GLENN ORDER RE USE OF RECORDING DEVICES IN COURT FACILITIES This Order rescinds and replaces prior Order No. 25-02, dated May 22, 2025. Photographing, videotaping, televising or otherwise recording any court proceeding is prohibited unless a written request (form MC-500) has been filed at least five (5) days before the hearing date (unless good cause is shown) and approved before the commencement of the hearing. (See California Rules of Court, Rule 1.150.) There shall be no photography, video, audio or electronic recording conducted in the common areas within the courthouse – including but not limited to hallways and the lobby area – without an Order on Media Request to Permit Coverage (form MC-510) on file and except as expressly authorized by California Rules of Court, rule 1.150. This Order is made pursuant to the explicit authority granted by Code of Civil Procedure sections 128, 177 and 187, California Rules of Court rule 1.150 and the Court’s inherent powers, including the Court’s inherent power to protect witnesses’ and jurors’ safety and privacy. Townsel v. Superior Court (1999), 20 Cal.4th 1084, 1091; People v. Virgil (2011), 51 Cal.4th 1210, 1237. The inside of a courthouse, including the lobbies, hallways and courtrooms, is a nonpublic forum. Berner v. Delahunty (1st Cir. 1997), 129 F.3d 20, 26; Huminski v. Corsones (2nd Cir. 2004), 396 F.3d 53, 91. This Order shall not apply to authorized Court-sponsored or Court co-sponsored community activities or events relating to the administration justice, or to permitted uses by judicial officers or court employees. All requests to allow for photography, videotaping, televising or otherwise recording in common areas of the courthouse shall be directed to the Court Executive Officer. These special requests to film in common areas of the courthouse shall follow the same procedures outlined above. Television and still photographers may film in public areas of the courthouse only with prior court approval and so long as they are not impeding the conduct of court business. It is the Court’s intent to protect the privacy of its employees and those members of the public using court services. In special circumstances, upon written approval, an area of the courthouse may be designated as an area of media coverage to allow those court users and employees not wishing to be photographed to move aside. Any violation of California Rule of Court 1.150 or a specific order made under this general Order is an unlawful interference with the proceedings of the Court and may be the basis for an order terminating media coverage, a citation for contempt of court in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1209(a)(5), or an order imposing monetary or other sanctions as provided by law. The latter may include monetary sanctions in amounts up to $1,500 per violation pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5; or prosecution for criminal violations of Penal Code section 166(a)(3), (4) or (5). This Order does not cover requests to film in the courthouse for commercial or documentary purposes. All such requests are governed by the Judicial Council of California’s Third-Party Use of Court Facilities Policy. DATED: Hon. Donald Cole Byrd Presiding Judge
GCSC 2025-SO-02 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF GLENN ORDER RE USE OF RECORDING DEVICES IN COURT FACILITIES This Order rescinds and replaces prior Order No. 25-02, dated May 22, 2025. Photographing, videotaping, televising or otherwise recording any court proceeding is prohibited unless a written request (form MC-500) has been filed at least five (5) days before the hearing date (unless goo
Reviewer note: Transcribed 2026-10-12 (California T4 Glenn build 2026-10-12) by eye from BenchPath custody ca/t4/ca-glenn/docs/general/order-re-use-recording-devices-court-facilities-gcsc-2025-so-2_0.pdf (462020 bytes, sha256 ed54212b320de9fe6eed255f4118983b031de979d0392187972e22f5ba53e364; 2 pages; page images, no text layer): read on the page images rendered at 200 dpi; checked against RapidOCR on the pages (the scan carries no text layer of its own), never published: every 6-word window looked up, and of the 5 spans the reading does not hold, 3 split into pieces the reading holds (the filing stamp between the order number and the court's heading, the page break, and the handwritten date and signature between the last paragraph and the printed name) and 2 read again on the page images (two machine misreadings - “MC-51O” for the form number MC-510 and “ist” for the raised “1st”) (vision/check-log.txt). Not part of the text: the pleading line numbers and the running footer (“Re: GCSC 2025-SO-02”, “Page 1 of 2”, “Page 2 of 2”); the caption's empty box and its column of parentheses; the clerk's filing stamp (“SEP 22 2025”); the date written by hand on the date line (“9/22/2025”) and the Presiding Judge's signature; the citations' italics and raised letters (set inline: “Cal.4th”, “1st”); a speck over the hyphen of “co-sponsored” (not a character). Carried as printed: “the administration justice”. The transcription's closing note, which describes the pages, is not published. Review note: The order rescinds and replaces Order No. 25-02, dated May 22, 2025, which the court does not post (none was captured); it prints “the administration justice” (carried as printed). The Third-Party Use of Court Facilities Policy it cites is the Judicial Council’s; the court’s own policy of that name (effective April 1, 2025, held) governs civics education events in its facilities.
Standing order of the 109th Judicial District Court for every pending or later-filed case in Andrews, Winkler and Crane Counties: any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in a case must, before using AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the court's certification form stating that all language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analysis created or contributed to by generative AI were verified as accurate by a human through traditional (non-AI) legal sources, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for their or their co-counsel's failure to comply. Effective immediately; in effect until rescinded or replaced.
Standing order of the 109th Judicial District Court for every pending or later-filed case in Andrews, Winkler and Crane Counties: any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in a case must, before using AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the court's certification form stating that all language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analysis created or contributed to by generative AI were verified as accurate by a human through traditional (non-AI) legal sources, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for their or their co-counsel's failure to comply. Effective immediately; in effect until rescinded or replaced.