In Re Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420

68 So. 3d 228, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 414, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 1573, 2011 WL 2637473
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJuly 7, 2011
DocketSC10-2242
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 68 So. 3d 228 (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, 68 So. 3d 228, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 414, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 1573, 2011 WL 2637473 (Fla. 2011).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for consideration amendments to Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420" (Public Access to Judicial Branch Records). We have jurisdiction 1 and amend the rule as suggested by the Florida Courts Technology Commission’s Subcommittee on Access to Court Records (Access Subcommittee) to include presentence investigation reports and attached psychological and psychiatric evaluations as an additional category of records that the clerk must automatically maintain as confidential pursuant to rule 2.420(d)(1)(B) of the Rules of Judicial Administration. A party seeking to maintain as confidential psychological or mental health evaluations not included in rule 2.420(d)(1)(B) must utilize the procedures set forth in rule 2.420(d)(3).

This case involves amendments to recently adopted Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(d) (Procedures for Determining Confidentiality of Court Records) and the companion form (Notice of Confidential Information within Court Filing). See In re Amendments to Fla. Rule of Jud. Admin. 2.420 & Fla. Rules of App. Pro., 31 So.3d 756 (Fla.2010) (adopting procedures that allow the clerk of court to readily identify and screen from the public confidential information filed with the court and that refine the procedures for sealing and unsealing court records). The amendments are an offshoot of In re Implementation of Committee on Privacy & Court Records Recommendations, — So.3d -, 2011 WL 2566360 (Fla.2011) (involving rule amendments to minimize the amount of unnecessary personal information filed with the court) (“minimization case”). The amendments add presentence investigation reports (PSIs) and any psychological or psychiatric evaluations attached to PSIs to the list of information in court records that the clerk must automatically maintain as confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1)(B).

The amendments to rule 2.420(d)(1)(B) were originally suggested by the Access Subcommittee in its response to a comment filed in the minimization case by the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee (CPR Committee). See In re Implementation of Committee on Privacy & Court Records Recommendations, No. SC08-2443 (Fla. response filed Nov. 1, 2010); In re Implementation of Committee on Privacy & Court Records Recommendations, No. SC08-2443 (Fla. comment filed May 12, 2010). A minority Access Subcommit *229 tee report filed in the minimization case urged that all pretrial mental health evaluations should be included in the rule 2.420(d)(1)(B) list. See In re Implementation of Committee on Privacy & Court Records Recommendations, No. SC08-2443 (Fla. minority report filed Nov. 1, 2010). Because rule 2.420 was not at issue in the minimization case, this case was created to consider the Access Subcommittee’s suggested amendments to that rule 2 and the amendments were published for comment.

Comments in support of the suggested amendments were filed by the Task Force on Substance Abuse and Mental Health Issues in the Court (Task Force) and the Florida Public Defender Association (FPDA). The Task Force also urges us to further amend the rule to include pretrial and post-trial psychological and psychiatric evaluations and reports. The FPDA adopts the views expressed in the minority Access Subcommittee report and by the Task Force. The Access Subcommittee filed a response to the comments, taking the position that mental health evaluations and reports filed in criminal cases (other than those contained in PSIs) are not appropriate for inclusion in the list of information the clerk must automatically treat as confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1)(B). It explains that the Legislature would have to expressly make mental health evaluations filed with the court exempt from public access before those evaluations can properly be added to that list. 3

Rule 2.420(d)(1)(B) lists the nineteen categories of information in court records that the clerk of court must automatically designate and maintain as confidential. In our opinion adopting the new rule, we explained that the rule contains a narrow list of public records exemptions that are appropriate in the court context and are readily identifiable by the clerk of court. See 31 So.3d at 765. In that opinion, we also made clear that other types of information filed with the court that may be confidential but are not included in the subdivision (d)(1)(B) list must be the subject of a case by case judicial determina *230 tion of confidentiality before the information can be treated as confidential. Id.; see also Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(d)(3) (requiring person filing document with court that contains information that may be confidential but is not listed in subdivision (d)(1) to file motion for determination of confidentiality of court records). The proponents of adding all mental health evaluations and reports filed in a criminal case to the subdivision (d)(1)(B) list acknowledge that the statutes 4 relied upon for their inclusion do not clearly express that those evaluations and reports are confidential in the context of public access to court records. Therefore, we defer to the Access Subcommittee on the issue and add only PSIs 5 and any psychological or psychiatric evaluations attached to PSIs 6 to subdivision (d)(1)(B). We also add the new category to the notice of confidential information within court filing form included in the rule.

However, we decline to suspend application of rule 2.420(d) in criminal cases until the Legislature can address the issue of confidentiality of mental health evaluations and reports, as suggested by the Task Force. We also decline to authorize clerks of court to continue to seal mental health evaluations filed in criminal cases, pending a judicial determination, on the authority of administrative orders issued in the various circuits, as also urged here. Rule 2.420 provides the procedures for sealing court records. And, as the Access Subcommittee points out, permitting local introduction of blanket exemptions to the rule would undermine the uniform procedures adopted by the Court and could result in litigation.

Accordingly, we amend the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration as reflected in the appendix to this opinion. New language is indicated by underscoring; deletions are indicated by struck-through type. The amendments shall become effective immediately upon the release of this opinion.

It is so ordered.

CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

APPENDIX

RULE 2.420. PUBLIC ACCESS TO JUDICIAL BRANCH RECORDS

(a)-(c) [No change]

(d) Procedures for Determining Confidentiality of Court Records.

(1) The clerk of the court shall designate and maintain the confidentiality of any information contained within a court record that is described in subdivision (d)(1)(A) or (d)(1)(B) of this rule. The following information shall be maintained as confidential:

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
68 So. 3d 228, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 414, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 1573, 2011 WL 2637473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amendments-to-florida-rule-of-judicial-administration-2420-fla-2011.