We granted an application for appellate review which contained the issue of whether documents and recorded testimony presented to a grand jury carrying out its statutory civil responsibility to inspect or investigate any county office or its operations are “court records” available for public inspection under Uniform Superior Court Rule 21. We conclude that such material is not a “court record” and affirm the judgment of the trial court. During its September 2006-March 2007 term, the Gwinnett County grand jury reviewed the dissolution of the county’s Office of Internal Audits and the transfer of responsibilities from that office to a newly-formed Performance Analysis Division. See OCGA § 15-12-71b2.1 The grand jury issued and made public presentments and recommendations to the county. OCGA § § 15-12-71b3; 15-12-80.2 Subsequently, Gwinnett County made a request under the Open Records Act to the Gwinnett County district attorney and the superior court clerk, seeking copies of certain materials used by the grand jury in its civil investigation concerning the dissolution of one county office and the transfer of responsibilities to the newly-created county office. When the county officials declined to produce the material, Gwinnett County filed a petition in superior court pursuant to the Open Records Act and Uniform Superior Court Rule 21 for production of “the transcripts or DVD recordings of testimony, minutes documents, reports, exhibits, and all manner of things related to the Grand Jury Committee’s investigation of Gwinnett County’s Internal Audit Function and the Presentments issued and published as a result of that investigation.” The trial court denied the petition for production of documents on the ground that the grand jury materials requested were not court records subject to public inspection and disclosure under USCR 21. It determined that “only those presentments made in open court at the conclusion of the Grand Jury’s investigation in March 2007 are court records, and thus public records, which may be disclosed to Gwinnett County.”3 This Court granted Gwinnett County’s application for appellate review of the trial court’s decision. See In re Motion of Atlanta Journal-Constitution , 269 Ga. 589 502 SE2d 720 1998 construing appeal procedure of USCR 21.4.
USCR 21, adopted by this Court and the Council of Superior Court Judges, states that “all court records are public and are to be available for public inspection unless public access is limited by law or by the procedure set forth below.” The rule embodies the right of access to court records which the public and press in Georgia have traditionally enjoyed, and presumes the public will have access to all court records. Green v. Drinnon , 262 Ga. 264 1 417 SE2d 11 1992. A body of case law has developed around Rule 21, with only a handful of decisions focused on whether an item constitutes a “court record.” In one of its first decisions involving Rule 21, this Court held that the public’s “presumptive right of access” to all court records “includes pre-judgment records in civil cases, and begins when a judicial document is filed.” Atlanta Journal & Constitution v. Long , 258 Ga. 410 3 369 SE2d 755 1988. We have since held that the term “court records” includes an official court reporter’s tape of remarks made by a judge in open court. Green v. Drinnon , supra, 262 Ga. at 265. In two other cases, the appellate court noted the issuance of Rule 21 protective orders. See Bowers v. Shelton , 265 Ga. 247, 248 n.3 453 SE2d 741 1995 the trial court issued a Rule 21 protective order covering those portions of court filings containing confidential information from a tax liability investigative file; and BankWest v. Oxendine , 266 Ga. App. 771 598 SE2d 343 2004 the trial court granted a protective order under Rule 21 to a business marketing agreement filed in response to a declaratory judgment action. In each of these cases, Rule 21 was invoked to deny public access to material filed in civil litigation or to material created by an official court reporter while in attendance in open court and which reflected that which occurred during the court session. The material at issue in these cases fell within the public’s “presumptive right of access that includes pre-judgment records in civil cases, and begins when a judicial document is filed.” Atlanta Journal & Constitution v. Long , supra, 258 Ga. at 413-414.
