In Re Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420

31 So. 3d 756, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 180, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 405, 2010 WL 958075
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedMarch 18, 2010
DocketSC07-2050
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 31 So. 3d 756 (In Re Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420, 31 So. 3d 756, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 180, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 405, 2010 WL 958075 (Fla. 2010).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for consideration three sets of proposed amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420, the rule that governs public access to judicial branch records. 1 A thorough understanding of these proposals is critical to ensure the integrity of court records as we move inevitably into the electronic age. The amendments we adopt address procedures for the clerks to identify a narrow set of records as confidential, procedures for sealing and unsealing records, specific procedures targeted at criminal cases, and related appellate procedures.

The first set of amendments is proposed by the Committee on Access to Court Records (Access Committee). Those amendments provide a mechanism to protect confidential information in court records from public view. Enacting a procedure that ensures the confidentiality of a narrow set of court records is a necessary prerequisite to the Court’s ongoing effort to provide the public with electronic access to court records. While there are enormous benefits to electronic access to court records, the Court has an ongoing concern that we not sacrifice the important goal of protecting those records that are confidential.

The other proposals deal specifically with the issue of sealing and unsealing court records both in criminal and civil cases. The proposals refine the procedures developed in 2007 for sealing and unsealing noncriminal trial court records and specifically include procedures targeted at criminal and appellate court records. In conjunction with these proposals, the Court also considers related amendments to the Rules of Appellate Procedure, which *758 clarify that requests to seal appellate court records are governed by rule 2.420 and provide for review of court orders granting access to judicial branch records and proceedings, in addition to orders denying access.

We adopt the majority of the proposals, with only minor modifications. The goal of the comprehensive amendments to rule 2.420 is to balance the public’s constitutional right to access to court records with the courts’ responsibility to protect from public access court records that are confidential. The amendments also bring our court system closer to providing the public with electronic access to court records.

BACKGROUND

Privacy Committee Recommendations and Access Committee Charge

A number of the proposed amendments regarding the treatment of confidential information that is included in court records began with the recommendations of the Committee on Privacy and Court Records (Privacy Committee), established in November 2003. While this Court recognized the advantages of greater access to court records by electronic means, it had become aware of the potential for abuse if otherwise confidential information was available online.

The Privacy Committee was charged with providing recommendations to the Court regarding electronic access to court records in Florida. 2 In August 2005, the Privacy Committee submitted its report and recommendations. 3 The Court solicited comments and held three public hearings on the recommendations. The Court received helpful comments from, among others, various media groups and the clerks of court. After consultation with the Court, in June 2006, then Chief Justice Pariente and Chief Justice-Elect Lewis issued an administrative order partially implementing the Privacy Committee’s recommendations. 4 By separate administrative order, the Access Committee was created to further study and implement a number of the Privacy Committee’s recommendations, 5 including the recommendations concerning rule 2.420 at issue here. 6

The Privacy Committee had concluded in its report, and the Court agreed, that the Florida judicial branch should have a goal of providing the public with electronic access to nonconfidential court records when appropriate conditions are met. 7 The Access Committee was created to assist in establishing those necessary conditions, one of which was the need to narrow the scope of subdivision (c)(8) of rule 2.420 to a finite set of public records exemptions that are appropriate for court records and are identifiable. The ability to identify a finite set of public records exemptions that *759 apply to court records under the rule was critical to the larger task of allowing electronic access to court records. 8 Accordingly, the Access Committee was charged with reviewing rule 2.420 and proposing amendments to the rule consistent with the Privacy Committee’s recommendations. 9

Development of Procedures for Sealing Court Records

While the Access Committee was developing its proposed amendments to rule 2.420, the Court issued an opinion in the initial “sealing case,” In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2420 — Sealing of Court Records & Dockets, 954 So.2d 16 (Fla.2007). There, in response to Florida news media reports of “hidden cases and secret dockets,” the Court adopted new rule 2.420(d) 10 to provide a procedure for seeking to seal noncriminal trial court records under rule 2.420(c)(9) 11 and for seeking to unseal those records. 954 So.2d at 17.

Because the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee (RJA Committee) had *760 focused only on the sealing of noncriminal court records, the Court declined to adopt suggested procedures that would have broadly required that all sealing orders in criminal cases be kept confidential and not posted in order to protect confidential informants. See id. at 23 n. 13 (declining to adopt proposals by the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association and the Florida Public Defender Association to keep sealing orders in criminal cases confidential in order to protect confidential informants). Rather, the Court asked the RJA Committee to work with the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee (CPR Committee) “to propose rule amendments to address the sealing of court records in criminal cases.” 954 So.2d at 23. By follow-up letter, the committees were asked to specifically address the concerns raised about the need to protect confidential informants. The Court also asked the RJA Committee to work with the Appellate Court Rules Committee (ACR Committee) “to consider the need for rules governing requests to seal appellate court records.” Id.

In October 2007, the RJA Committee filed its report and proposals, encompassing the work of the three rules committees. The proposals, which were endorsed by the CPR Committee, included new procedures for sealing criminal trial court records. The RJA Committee offered, with the endorsement of the ACR Committee, a brief commentary to rule 2.420 to address the sealing of appellate court records.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 So. 3d 756, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 180, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 405, 2010 WL 958075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amendments-to-florida-rule-of-judicial-administration-2420-fla-2010.