In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420

124 So. 3d 819, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 199, 2013 WL 1234993, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 543
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedMarch 28, 2013
DocketNo. SC11-2466
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 124 So. 3d 819 (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, 124 So. 3d 819, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 199, 2013 WL 1234993, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 543 (Fla. 2013).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for consideration an out-of-cyele report filed by the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee (RJA Committee) proposing a number of amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 (Public Access to Judicial Branch Records) that are intended to clarify the rule and refine the procedures for determining the confidentiality of court records. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.140(e). We adopt the majority of the amendments as proposed, make minor modifications to several proposals, and decline to adopt only one proposed new subdivision.1

BACKGROUND

Amendments Made in Case Nos. SC07-2050 and SC10-2242

In In re Amends, to Fla. Rule of Jud. Admin. 2420 & Fla. Rules of App. Pro., 31 So.3d 756 (Fla.2010), the Court added new subdivision (d) (Procedures for Determining Confidentiality of Court Records) to rule 2.420, which governs public access to judicial branch records. Subdivision (d) provides a procedure that allows the clerks of court to readily identify and screen from the public confidential information filed with the court. Adopting a procedure that ensures the confidentiality of a narrow set of readily identifiable court records was a necessary prerequisite to this Court’s ongoing effort to provide the public with electronic access to court records. Id. at 757. The new subdivision also provides a procedure to ensure that confidential information that is not automatically screened from public view by the clerk will be the subject of a determination of confidentiality by the court. Id. at 763. The procedures for sealing and unsealing court records also were refined. Id. at 757. The goal of these comprehensive amendments to rule 2.420 was 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. Id. at 758.

As relevant here, subdivision (d)(1) of rule 2.420 sets forth the procedure for the clerks of court to automatically designate and maintain certain court records as confidential. The records listed in subdivisions (c)(7) and (c)(8) that must be automatically designated confidential by the clerk are limited to a “finite set” of statutory and rule exemptions listed in subdivision (d)(1)(B). Id. at 765. As originally adopted, subdivision (d)(1)(B) contained nineteen categories of automatically confidential information. Id. at 765. Subdivision (d)(2) currently requires a filer of confidential information to provide the clerk of court with a written notice that identifies the applicable category of automatically confidential information and the specific location of the confidential information within the document being filed. Subdivision (d)(3) requires a filer to seek a judicial determination of confidentiality as to court records the filer believes are confidential under the rule but are not designated as automatically confidential under subdivision (d)(1)(B).

In In re Amends, to Fla. Rule of Jud. Admin. 2420, 68 So.3d 228 (Fla.2011), the Court amended subdivision (d)(1)(B) of rule 2.420 and its companion notice form to add presentence investigation reports and [821]*821attached psychological and psychiatric evaluations as the twentieth category of automatically confidential information. Id. In that opinion, the Court emphasized that “[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).” Id. The Court also specifically declined a request to add all mental health evaluations and reports filed in criminal cases to the list of automatically confidential information. Id. at 230.

This Case

In this case, the RJA Committee reported various problems in implementation of the amendments to rule 2.420. The RJÁ Committee determined that some problems arose from the apparent failure on the part of filers and clerks of court to follow the rule as written. According to the Committee, most of the problems with compliance with the rule either have been resolved or should be resolved after filers and clerks become more accustomed to the operation of the rule and further education is made available. However, the RJA Committee determined that further amendments are warranted in’ order to clarify some of the provisions of the rule and to further refine the procedures for determining the confidentiality of court records. The committee vote on the majority of the proposed amendments was 20-4:.2 The Board of Governors of The Florida Bar unanimously approved all the proposals.

After the proposals were filed, the Court published them for comment. Comments were filed by Brevard County Clerk of Court Mitch Needelman and the Florida Public Defender Association (FPDA). The RJA Committee filed a response to the comments. After the response was filed, the Florida Courts Technology Commission and its Subcommittee on Access to Court Records (collectively “Access Subcommittee”) filed an agreed to motion to intervene, file a comment, and appear at oral argument in this case. That motion was granted. The Access Subcommittee’s comment opposes FPDA’s request that the Court add all mental health evaluations and reports in criminal cases to the list of automatically confidential information under rule 2.420(d)(1)(B). The Court heard oral argument on the proposals and FPDA’s request;

After considering the filings in this case, as well as the matters discussed at oral argument, we adopt the majority of the amendments as proposed. We discuss below the more significant amendments as well as the modifications we make and the proposal we decline to adopt.

We thank the RJA Committee and the members of RJA Subcommittee B for providing proposals that will facilitate compliance with this important rule. We also thank the numerous non-committee members who assisted the subcommittee'with this effort, as well as those who filed comments. As pointed out by the RJA Committee, we also acknowledge that because of the unavoidable complexity of the procedures for determining confidentiality of court records, future amendments to rule 2.420 likely will become necessary. However, we encourage attorneys, clerks of court, and judges to take advantage of educational opportunities that are designed to help them understand their respective responsibilities under the rule.

[822]*822AMENDMENTS

New subdivision (b)(6) (Definitions; “Filer”) is added to rule 2.420, as proposed. The new subdivision defines the terra “filer,” as used in the rule, as “any person who files a document in court records,” and specifically excludes “the clerk of court or designee of the clerk, a judge, magistrate, hearing officer, or designee of a judge, magistrate, or hearing officer” from the definition. The term “filer” also is added to other subdivisions of the rule. New subdivision (d)(5), discussed below, now requires the court to put the clerk of court on “notice” of confidential information in a document filed by the court.

Several significant amendments are made to subdivision (d) (Procedures for Determining Confidentiality of Court Records).

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

Related

In Re AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 2.420
153 So. 3d 896 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
124 So. 3d 819, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 199, 2013 WL 1234993, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amendments-to-florida-rule-of-judicial-administration-2420-fla-2013.