« Ind. Decisions - Madison school treasurer sentenced to 48 months following her guilty plea to embezzling more than $1,100,000 | Main | Courts - More on: Justice Dept. no-bid contracts with John Ashcroft and the Indiana twist »

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Courts - Oklahoma Supreme Court "cuts off online access to records"

This could be ILB "pretty astonishing" #2 for the week. #1 was Monday's story on Elliot Spitzer.

Ron Jenkins of the AP reports:

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has adopted rules cutting off public access to court records now available on the Internet.

When the rules go into effect on June 10, online access to court documents in the Supreme Court and district courts would be limited to court dockets only.

"The individual pleadings and other recorded documents filed of record in state court actions shall not be publicly displayed on the Internet," according to an order signed by Chief Justice James R. Winchester and four other justices.

The order, released on Tuesday, described the new rules as an effort to balance the rights of privacy of individuals and public access.

Besides eliminating Internet access, the order puts new restrictions on what information the public can access from legal documents filed with court clerks.

When I first read this story I wondered, what does "court dockets only" mean. So I accessed the Court's opinion, In Re: Privacy and Public Access to Court Dockets, online. Paragraph V reads:
Restricting Website Access To Court Records. The Clerk of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, each district court clerk, and the Project Manager of the Oklahoma Court Information System are directed to immediately limit internet public access to court dockets only. The individual pleadings and other recorded documents filed of record in state court actions shall not be publicly displayed on the internet. Court documents may be viewed at the courthouse unless otherwise prohibited by law. This policy may be reviewed by this Court in the future.
Surely that does not include opinions, I wondered? And what about any pleadings? But then I read the dissent, starting with paragraph 2:
What I disagree with is the instantaneous restriction of public access to current public court documents online. The Court made this decision with input only from the court clerks, others directly affected by the decision -- the bar, the bench, the legislature and the public were not consulted. Courts have a responsibility to balance the risk of harm that may be rendered by the disclosure of sensitive information with the need for a "fully open" court record. Evidently the basis of the decision is that until all 77 counties are online and able to provide access to the information, none of them should be able to provide it. I disagree with this rationale and would have at the very least asked that this issue be addressed in cooperation with the Bar Association and with an opportunity for public comment. This public information which was previously available to the bench, bar, and litigants has been removed from viewing without any consideration for, or consultation with, lawyers and judges who use the information on a daily basis to do their jobs more efficiently or from public litigants attempting to seek legal redress. * * *

Para. 4. In this computerized, internet age, courts, with the help and the direction of legislatures, are taking fiscal responsibility by reducing paperwork, reducing copying costs, moving towards electronic filing and electronic transfer of records, and providing the public greater and easier access to information to which it is entitled. Court records are migrating from paper form to electronic form where information may be disseminated in bulk, accessed over the internet, or both. In a step towards this responsibility, the Court recently increased court costs by $15.00 to provide for improved computerization of all 77 county clerk dockets. However, as a result of the Court's order, not only is the Court taking a giant, thirty year leap backwards to a time when the personal computer was nonexistent, the public is now paying for access to a system which is made inaccessible by the order.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 12, 2008 03:59 PM
Posted to Courts in general