July 2, 2009
Public Access Rules Now in Effect
New rules on public access to court records (Sup. R. 44-47) took effect Wednesday, and staff attorneys from the Supreme Court of Ohio have been offering training sessions around the state.
Still, several common misconceptions persist, and the Court today highlighted these on a central clearinghouse for information about the rules at www.supremecourt.ohio.gov.
“These rules are designed to ensure that Ohioans continue to have open and ready access to court records,” said Supreme Court Administrative Counsel Allan Asbury. “The rules were carefully crafted for more than two years in a process that involved extensive public input and revisions. We will continue to be available to court staff and interested members of the public who have questions about these rules as they are implemented.”
Important points to understand about the new access rules:
- Court records are presumed to be public, unless they fall within a specific exemption.
- The rules do not require additional personnel or extra costs for the courts. And in the majority of circumstances redacting personal identifiers from court filings does not require additional time or expense on the part of litigants.
- A court or clerk does not have to maintain a separate or dual-filing system for those documents that are exempt from public access. The method by which a clerk or court maintains its filing system is left up to the court or clerk.
- A court of clerk is not required to redact personal identifiers from orders or other items issued by the court. The duty to redact personal identifiers applies to parties filing documents with the clerk or submitting them to the judge for the record.
- As has been the case under the Public Records Act (which many courts had already voluntarily complied with), a court or clerk may deny access to a court record only if the record is specifically exempt from public access under the rules.
- People may continue to seek access to records at the courthouse. A court or clerk must make court records available by direct access.
The rules were designed by the Supreme Court Commission on the Rules of Superintendence, chaired by Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger, and based in part on the report and recommendations of the Privacy and Public Access Subcommittee of the Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on Technology and the Courts, a subcommittee that included members of the public and the media.
The rules were published over the course of two years. More than 70 individuals and organizations participated in the extensive public comment periods, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, the Cleveland Bar Association, the Legal Aid Society of Southwest Ohio, the Ohio Judicial Conference and the Ohio State Bar Association. The commission revised and improved the rules after careful consideration of all comments.
The rules include:
- A statement that court records are presumed open to public access.
- A list of those court records which are exempt from public access.
- A process by which a court may restrict public access to a case document that is not already exempt from public access. The court may limit public access to a case document or information in a case document upon request by a party to the case or a person who is the subject of information in the case document only after finding by clear and convincing evidence that the presumption of public access is outweighed by a higher interest.
- A process by which any person may request access to a case document or information in a case document that has previously been granted limited public access. The court may permit public access if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the presumption of allowing public access is no longer outweighed by a higher interest. Currently when an entire record is sealed, no part of the record is accessible to the public, nor can it be petitioned to be accessible.
- A provision requiring the partial redaction or omission of personal identifiers, i.e. personal information that might contribute to identity theft, such as Social Security and financial account numbers, from a case document before the document is submitted to a court or filed with a clerk of court. The rules also state that a court or a clerk of court may provide a form for the recording of personal identifiers omitted from a case document. The court and clerk of court would continue to have full access to this information while the parties would access the information upon motion. (Click here to access the form to list the personal identifiers redacted from case documents filed with the Supreme Court.)
- Definitions of court record, case document, administrative document, case file and other terms.
The Court created a central clearinghouse for information and training opportunities on its Web site. Look for the button on the right of the home page that says “New Rules on Public Access to Court Records.”
Supreme Court attorneys have conducted training sessions since April via the Internet about the new rules. These sessions – ideal for clerks and court administrators at both the frontline and management levels who have responsibility for the management of case documents and administrative documents – included a history and explanation of the rules, and the instructors will also entertain questions from the participants.
Trainings will continue upon request.
Contact: Chris Davey or Bret Crow at 614.387.9250