« Courts - New York judges may sue for raises | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 6 NFP) »

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Ind. Courts - More on the sealing of records in the Clerk of the Courts Office

The ILB has posted a number of entries on sealed cases. A good wrap-up is provided by this ILB entry from July 12, 2007.

A very big concern is that when an entire case is sealed, the case must least be listed in the Clerk's docket, with at a minimum a notation that the case has been sealed. Otherwise, there is no way for the public to know that the case is in the system. Another concern may be that cases are "sealed" arbitrarily and not listed at all.

This morning the ILB received several communications from reader who does a lot of appeals. With permission, here are some quotes:

I am a faithful reader of your blog and have been watching the discussions closely about the Appellate Courts' Clerk's Office. I practice regularly in the Court of Appeals and have had up to this point no problems with the Clerk's Office. I read most of the opinions handed down by the Court, so I've read the Court's multiple footnotes about cases that have been "lost" in the Clerk's office. Usually the Court warns that attorneys need to keep on top of our cases by checking the online appellate docket regularly. Which I do. However, recently the Clerk's office has begun "sealing" cases that deal with juvenile delinquency matters and TPR/CHINS matters. No big deal, except for two things: (1) they do not inform the attorneys of record when they do this; and (2) they have begun completely removing any information about the case from the online docket, even the case's very existence.

Case in point: I am currently working on an appeal in a juvenile delinquency case. Over a week ago, I filed a motion for extension of time within which to file my brief * * *. I then heard nothing about my motion. Because my brief was due tomorrow and concerned that something might have happened, I contacted a staff attorney at the Court of Appeals and was told my motion had already been granted, but that he could not give me details about the Order. However, he assured me the information would be posted on the online docket quickly. I checked the online docket yesterday afternoon and found that the Order still had not been posted, only my motion. I arrive at work this morning to check again; only this time, there is no record of the case. I search my last name, the client's last name, the old cause number, and the new cause number...nothing. I finally call the Clerk's office and am told that the case is sealed, so I will no longer be able to access information about the case online.

What seems particularly odd to me is that juveniles' names are initialed in all of our filings, in the opinion itself, and on the online docket in order to maintain their anonymity. Why would there be a further need to completely remove the online docket information? Furthermore, how are we as attorneys supposed to make sure our cases are "transmitted" to the Court of Appeals in a timely fashion if we cannot check their progress on the online docket?
More:
What is weird is that when they began "sealing" the cases online, there used to be a notation when you looked the case up on the online docket that it was "sealed." Now there is no record of the case at all. It just makes no sense, considering that the opinion issued in these cases will all be posted online for all to read, so why would the docket, which really contains very little useful information to anyone other than the parties, not be allowed to be posted at all?

The first time one of my cases was sealed, I called the Clerk's office to inquire and was told that one of the parties must have requested it. Uh, no. That would have required a filing of some sort, I would imagine. And as the attorney of record, I didn't receive anything.
More:
I just checked one of my old TPR cases I did from earlier this year. Completely missing from the docket. No record found. Yet that case was not sealed the entire time I was progressing through the Court. And interestingly, the opinion issued and posted online used the parties' names (since they were adults) but changed the child's name to initials. Why would that case need to be sealed? Yet while searching for that TPR case, I found other TPR cases that were NOT sealed.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 2, 2008 10:09 AM
Posted to Indiana Courts