2022 Report of the Judicial Conference of the United States

on the Adequacy of Privacy Rules Prescribed

Under the E-Government Act of 2002

PREPARED FOR THE 

U.S. SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

June 2022
1

2022 REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

ON THE ADEQUACY OF PRIVACY RULES PRESCRIBED

UNDER THE E-GOVERNMENT ACT OF 2002

June 2022

The E-Government Act of 2002 directed that rules be promulgated, under the Rules 

Enabling Act, “to protect privacy and security concerns relating to electronic filing of documents 

and the public availability ... of documents filed electronically.” Pub. L. No. 107-347, 

§ 205(c)(3)(A)(i). Pursuant to this mandate, the “privacy rules” – Appellate Rule 25(a)(5), 

Bankruptcy Rule 9037, Civil Rule 5.2, and Criminal Rule 49.1 – took effect on December 1, 2007. 

Subject to specified exemptions, the privacy rules require that filers redact from documents 

filed with the court (1) all but the last four digits of an individual’s social-security number (“SSN”)

or taxpayer-identification number; (2) the month and day of an individual’s birth; (3) all but the 

initial letters of a known minor’s name; (4) all but the last four digits of a financial-account 

number; and (5) in criminal cases, all but the city and state of an individual’s home address. In 

recognition of the pervasive presence of sensitive personal information in filings in actions for 

benefits under the Social Security Act, and in proceedings relating to an order of removal, to relief 

from removal, or to immigration benefits or detention, the privacy rules exempt filings in those 

matters from the redaction requirement but also limit remote electronic access to those filings.

Section 205(c)(3)(C) of the E-Government Act directs that, every two years, “the Judicial 

Conference shall submit to Congress a report on the adequacy of [the privacy rules] to protect 

privacy and security.” Pursuant to that directive, the Judicial Conference submitted reports to 

Congress in 2009 and 2011. This third report covers the period from 2011 to date.1

The report proceeds in four parts. Part I discusses amendments, relevant to the privacy 

rules, that have been adopted since 2011. Part II notes pertinent topics currently pending on the 

rules committees’ dockets. Part III recounts deliberations in which the rules committees 

considered whether additional rule amendments were necessary, but decided that question in the 

negative. Part III.A focuses on access to cooperation-related documents in criminal cases. Part 

III.B discusses the existing privacy rules’ redaction requirements. Part III.C notes other privacyrelated proposals considered but not adopted by the rules committees. Part IV concludes.

I. Privacy-Related Rule and Form Amendments Adopted Since 2011

Since 2011, the Rules Committees have considered a number of rule and form amendments

that are relevant to privacy issues. This subpart discusses the instancesin which those deliberations 

resulted in amendments: to then-Bankruptcy Forms 9 and 21 in 2012; to Appellate Form 4 in 2013 

and 2018; to Bankruptcy Rule 9037 in 2019; and to Appellate Rule 25(a)(5) (this amendment is 

on track to take effect in 2022 absent contrary action by Congress). The amendments to the 

Bankruptcy Forms – discussed in Part I.A – implemented, rather than altered, the privacy policies 

set by the Bankruptcy Rules. The amendments to Appellate Form 4 – discussed in Part I.B – did 

not alter the privacy policies set by Appellate Rule 25(a)(5), but narrowed the scope of sensitive 

personal information that Form 4 requires an applicant to provide in the first place. The 

1 Future reports will be made in 2024 and every two years thereafter.
2

amendments to Bankruptcy Rule 9037 and Appellate Rule 25(a)(5) – discussed in Parts I.C and 

I.D, respectively – represent modest changes to those privacy rules. Part I.E discusses how privacy 

concerns shaped the content of Rule 2 in the new set of Supplemental Rules for Social Security 

Actions Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (which are on track to take effect in 2022 absent contrary action 

by Congress).

A. 2012 Amendments to then-Bankruptcy Forms 9 and 21

In 2012 the Bankruptcy Rules Committee considered a suggestion by the Judicial 

Conference’s Committee on Court Administration and Case Management (“CACM”) for

additional Rule and Form amendments to protect the privacy of debtors’ social security numbers. 

Specifically, CACM proposed that Bankruptcy Rule 2002(a)(1) be amended to remove the 

requirement that the debtor’s full SSN be included in the notice to creditors.

The Bankruptcy Rules Committee considered this suggestion but concluded – based on 

studies performed by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (“AO”) – that creditors needed 

access to debtors’ SSNs and thus that it was not advisable to amend Rule 2002 as suggested by 

CACM. However, the Committee decided that warnings should be added to two forms: Form 9, 

which at the time was the form for the notice of meeting of creditors, and Form 21, which at the 

time was the form for the debtor’s “Statement of Social-Security Number(s).” The amendment to 

Form 9 warned creditors not to file Form 9 with their proofs of claim. The amendment to Form 

21 warned the debtor not to file Form 21 in the public case file, and stated that the form had to be 

submitted separately and not included in the court’s public electronic records. Those amendments

were adopted without publication (because they simply reflected existing policy) and took effect 

December 1, 2012.

Effective December 1, 2015, Forms 21 and 9 were superseded by Forms 121 (“Statement 

About Your Social Security Numbers”) and 309 (notice to creditors), which contain similar 

warnings.

B. 2013 and 2018 Amendments to Appellate Form 4

Appellate Rule 24 requires a party seeking to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in the 

court of appeals to provide an affidavit that, inter alia, “shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 

... the party’s inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs.” (Likewise, a party seeking to 

proceed IFP in the Supreme Court must use Form 4. See Supreme Court Rule 39.1.) Appellate 

Form 4 (Affidavit Accompanying Motion for Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis) had 

previously been amended in 2010 so that it requested only the last four digits of the applicant’s 

SSN.

In 2013, Form 4 was amended to respond to criticisms that two of its questions sought 

information (about payments for attorney and non-attorney services) that were unnecessary to the 

IFP determination. The amendment replaced the two questions at issue with a new, more 

streamlined question that asked about money spent for expenses or attorney fees in connection 

with the lawsuit. In 2018 the Form was further amended so that it no longer requests any portion 

of the applicant’s SSN.
3

C. 2019 Adoption of New Bankruptcy Rule 9037(h)

At the request of CACM, the Bankruptcy Rules Committee studied how to handle

documents that were previously filed with a bankruptcy court without first redacting personal 

information as required by Bankruptcy Rule 9037. The Bankruptcy Rules Committee developed 

what would ultimately become new Bankruptcy Rule 9037(h), which sets a procedure for seeking 

redaction of documents after they have been filed. Knowing that there is a value to uniformity 

across the sets of privacy rules, the other advisory committees considered whether to propose 

similar amendments to the other privacy rules. They concluded, however, that while there was a 

need for the proposed new rule in bankruptcy cases, there was no similar need for such a provision 

in other types of cases. Accordingly, the other advisory committees decided not to propose similar 

amendments to the other privacy rules. New Bankruptcy Rule 9037(h) became effective in 2019. 

D. 2022 Amendment to Appellate Rule 25(a)(5)

In 2018 the General Counsel of the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board proposed that actions 

for benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act be treated the same, under the privacy rules, as 

actions for benefits under the Social Security Act. Because benefits actions under the Railroad 

Retirement Act are filed directly in the federal courts of appeals, the Appellate Rules Committee 

took up this suggestion. Noting the close parallels between the Social Security and Railroad 

Retirement systems, the Appellate Rules Committee decided to propose amending Appellate Rule 

25(a)(5) to provide that the Civil Rule 5.2(c) provisions limiting remote electronic access to Social 

Security benefits actions also apply to Railroad Retirement Act benefits review proceedings. That 

amendment has been reported to Congress and, absent contrary action by Congress, will take effect 

on December 1, 2022.

E. 2022 Adoption of Rule 2 of the Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions 

Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)

Also on track to take effect on December 1, 2022, if Congress takes no contrary action, is 

the new set of Supplemental Rules for Social Security Actions Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The 

Supplemental Rules set a simplified procedure for actions seeking review of benefits decisions by 

the Commissioner of Social Security. Rule 2(b)(1)(B) requires the complaint in such an action to

state “the name and the county of residence of the person for whom benefits are claimed,” while 

Rule 2(b)(1)(C) requires the same information about “the person on whose wage record benefits 

are claimed.” As published for public comment, these rules had also required the complaint to 

state the last four digits of the SSN of the relevant person(s). Due to privacy concerns expressed 

during the public comment period, the latter requirement was deleted, and instead a requirement 

was added to Rule 2(b)(1)(A) that the complaint include “any identifying designation provided by 

the Commissioner with the final decision.” The identifying-designation requirement will 

accommodate the Social Security Administration (“SSA”)’s upcoming implementation of the 

practice of using unique alphanumeric identifiers for each notice it sends, and will enable the SSA 

to identify the administrative proceeding to which the complaint refers without the necessity of 

including a portion of the SSN in the complaint.
4

II. Potential Privacy-Related Rules Amendments Currently Under Consideration

Currently pending on the rules committees’ dockets are three topics for possible 

amendments that relate to the balance between privacy and public access to information filed with 

the court. Two of those topics concern financial information filed by litigants, though one topic –

addressed in Part II.A – concerns the treatment of such information after it is filed and the other 

topic – addressed in Part II.B – concerns the scope of the information required to be provided in 

the first place. Part II.A discusses the Criminal Rules Committee’s study of Criminal Rule 49.1 

and financial affidavits filed by criminal defendants seeking representation pursuant to the 

Criminal Justice Act (“CJA”). Part II.B discusses ongoing deliberations concerning applications 

to proceed IFP in civil cases. Part II.C notes proposals to adopt a rule addressing the sealing and/or 

redaction of court filings.

A. Potential Amendment to Criminal Rule 49.1

The Criminal Rules Committee has begun to evaluate whether any change to Criminal Rule 

49.1 is needed to address a reference – in the 2007 Committee Note to that Rule – to CACM’s 

March 2004 “Guidance for Implementation of the Judicial Conference Policy on Privacy and 

Public Access to Electronic Criminal Case Files.” The Committee is evaluating whether the 

guidance, as outlined in the Note, is consistent with caselaw concerning rights of public access to 

information contained in criminal defendants’ CJA applications. The Committee’s work on this 

matter is very preliminary at present. If the Criminal Rules Committee were to conclude that an 

amendment to Criminal Rule 49.1 is warranted, the other advisory committees would then consider 

whether parallel amendments to the other privacy rules would be appropriate.

B. Potential Amendments Concerning Applications to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (“IFP”)

The Appellate Rules Committee is considering suggestions to revise Appellate Form 4 

(concerning applications to proceed IFP). The basic suggestion is that Form 4 could be 

substantially simplified while still providing the courts of appeals with enough detail to decide 

whether to grant IFP status. The Appellate Rules Committee is developing possible amendments 

to Form 4 but is not yet ready to seek permission to publish them for public comment. The Civil 

Rules Committee is closely following the Appellate Rules Committee’s work on this topic. The 

Civil Rules do not themselves currently include a Rule or Form that addresses IFP applications, 

and the Civil Rules Committee is also exploring whether other entities, such as CACM, might 

usefully address the topic instead.

C. Proposals to Adopt a Rule on Sealing of Court Filings

 The Civil Rules Committee has before it proposals to adopt a rule setting standards and 

procedures governing the sealing and/or redaction of court filings. The Committee has referred 

these proposals to its Discovery Subcommittee for initial evaluation. In the course of its initial 

consideration, the subcommittee learned that the AO’s Court Services Office is undertaking a 

project to identify the operational issues related to the management of sealed court records. The 

goals of the project will be to identify guidance, policy, best practices, and other tools to help 

courts ensure the timely unsealing of court documents as specified by the relevant court order or 

other applicable law. Input on this new project was sought from the Appellate, District, and 
5

Bankruptcy Clerks Advisory Groups and the AO’s newly formed Court Administration and 

Operations Advisory Council. In light of this effort, the subcommittee determined that further 

consideration of suggestions for a new rule should be deferred to await the result of the AO’s work.

III. Potential Privacy-Related Rules Amendments Considered But Not Adopted

The rules committees have considered a number of other potential rule amendments that 

relate to the balance between privacy and public access. This part summarizes instances in which 

the rules committees considered potential amendments but, after study, concluded that no rule 

amendment was warranted. Part III.A discusses work on issues relating to cooperation- and plearelated documents in criminal cases. Part III.B notes the committees’ periodic study of compliance 

with the existing privacy rules and the adequacy of those rules. Part III.C briefly notes other topics 

considered for rulemaking but ultimately not pursued. 

A. Cooperation-Related Documents

For a number of years, the Standing Committee, the Criminal Rules Committee, and other 

bodies within the federal judiciary worked with other interested parties to consider the problem of 

the risk of harm to cooperating defendants from disclosure of certain materials and whether 

procedural protections might alleviate this problem. The Judicial Conference’s 2011 privacy rules

report highlighted the issue of electronic public access to plea and cooperation agreements as a 

topic warranting careful study by district courts. A 2016 study by the Federal Judicial Center 

(“FJC”)2 found that survey respondents reported a significant number of instances of harm or 

threats of harm to government cooperators, as well as that court documents (such as plea 

agreements) and inferences from docket features (such as gaps in the docket or sealed documents)

were reported as sources of information about cooperation.

Over the ensuing years, the Criminal Rules Committee and the Standing Committee were 

closely involved in discussions aimed at balancing the interest in protecting cooperators against 

retaliation, on one hand, and rights of access to court records, on the other. Relevant access rights 

that were considered included those of the public and the press as well as those of criminal defense 

counsel who need information on defendants’ cooperation in other cases in order to assess the 

fairness of a proffered plea deal. 

Based in part on the FJC study, CACM recommended in 2016 that the rules committees

consider amendments to the Criminal Rules that would address concerns about the availability of 

cooperation-related information. The Standing Committee referred CACM’s suggestion to the 

Criminal Rules Committee, which appointed a Cooperator Subcommittee and tasked it with 

studying the FJC’s findings and the recommendations by CACM. Meanwhile, the Director of the 

AO formed a Task Force on Protecting Cooperators to consider changes that could be made apart 

from amending the Criminal Rules. Those participating in the Task Force’s work included 

members of CACM, the Criminal Rules Committee, and the Standing Committee, representatives 

from the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and the Department of Justice, and a federal defender.

2 See Margaret S. Williams et al., Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report Prepared for the Court 

Administration and Case Management Committee, the Committee on Defender Services, and the Criminal Law 

Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States (FJC 2016).
6

The Criminal Rules Committee’s Cooperator Subcommittee took up the Standing 

Committee’s charge of drafting potential amendments to the Criminal Rules that would implement 

CACM’s suggestions, and formulated such a set of possible amendments to Criminal Rules 11, 

32, 35, 47, and 49. The Cooperator Subcommittee also drafted a possible new Criminal Rule 49.2 

that would have limited remote electronic access to criminal case files. After thorough discussion, 

however, the Cooperator Subcommittee, and in turn the Criminal Rules Committee and the 

Standing Committee, decided not to propose these rule amendments for adoption. All participants 

shared the serious concern over the need to address the threat of harm to cooperators. However, 

the rules committees determined that rule amendments were not the best way to do so. Some 

participants expressed concern that the potential rule amendments would decrease the transparency 

of judicial proceedings; and some participants suggested that the changes wrought by such 

amendments would be broader than necessary. Participants also noted that recommendations by 

the Task Force held the promise of addressing the problem of cooperation-related information 

through other means, such as through actions by the BOP and through changes to the case 

management/electronic case filing (“CM/ECF”) system. 

In 2018 the Task Force rendered an interim report recommending changes that BOP could 

make to diminish retaliation against cooperators housed in BOP facilities, and a final report that 

recommended changes in filing and docketing practices in CM/ECF, changes to the amended 

judgment form, and training for justice-system participants in how to handle cooperator 

information. The Task Force noted that these changes did not require any changes to the Criminal 

Rules, and it did not recommend any rule amendments. After the Task Force provided its 

recommendations to the Director of the AO, the AO Director asked CACM and the Criminal Law 

Committee, as appropriate, as well as the BOP, to review the Task Force’s recommendations for 

potential implementation. The AO Director also circulated the report to the judges and district and 

circuit clerks of all federal district courts and courts of appeals.

B. Evaluation of Existing Redaction Requirements

The privacy rules’ redaction requirements have been reviewed by the rules committees on 

a number of occasions since the 2011 privacy rules report. A 2015 study by the FJC provided one 

occasion for review of the rules’ operation. Subsequent proposals for amendments to the Civil 

and Appellate privacy rules were considered in 2015-2016 and 2018. These deliberations, 

however, did not result in proposals for amendments to the privacy rules.

As noted in the 2011 privacy rules report, the FJC in 2010 conducted a survey of federal 

court filings to ascertain how often unredacted SSNs appeared in those filings.3

 In 2015, the FJC 

reported the results of its follow-up study on the same topic.4

 The follow-up study searched 

3,900,841 documents filed during a one-month period in late 2013 and found that 5,437 (or less 

than 0.14 percent of the documents) included one or more unredacted SSNs. This is a greater 

percentage than was found in the 2010 study; but the 2015 study explained that the difference was 

due to an improvement in search methodology. In the 2015 study (unlike in the 2010 study), the 

researchers reprocessed the documents using optical character recognition (“OCR”), which 

3 See Memorandum from George Cort & Joe Cecil, Research Division, FJC, to the Privacy Subcommittee of the 

Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, Social Security Numbers in Federal Court 

Documents (April 5, 2010).

4 See Joe S. Cecil et al., Unredacted Social Security Numbers in Federal Court PACER Documents (FJC 2015).
7

enabled them to spot SSNs in documents that were originally filed in non-text-searchable format. 

The researchers noted that, because OCR had not been used for the 2010 study, that study had 

failed to reflect the full incidence of unredacted SSNs. They observed that a comparison of the 

two studies’ findings, taking into account the difference in methodologies, “suggests that the 

federal courts have made progress in recent years in reducing the incidence of unredacted Social 

Security numbers in federal court documents, especially in bankruptcy court documents.”5 The 

Standing Committee discussed the FJC’s findings at its January 2016 meeting; it concluded that 

no amendments to the privacy rules were warranted, but that the rules committees would stand 

ready to consult with CACM in the latter’s ongoing efforts to implement the existing privacy rules.

In 2015-2016, the Bankruptcy, Civil, Criminal, and Appellate Rules Committees 

considered a proposal that the privacy rules be amended so as to direct the redaction of the entirety 

of an individual’s SSN or taxpayer-identification number. The proponent argued that for many 

SSNs, the portion of the SSN other than the last four digits can be deduced from other sources of 

data. In considering this suggestion, participants noted that the rules committee had considered 

this particular question when formulating the existing privacy rules, and that the rules committees 

had decided not to direct redaction of the last four digits because of the need for that information 

in bankruptcy proceedings and the value of a uniform approach across all the privacy rules. Based 

on continued agreement with that analysis, the advisory committees decided not to propose 

amendments to the privacy rules. The Appellate Rules Committee did, however, proceed with 

what would become the 2018 amendment to Appellate Form 4 (discussed in Part I.B, above).

In 2018, CACM raised a privacy concern regarding sensitive personal information made 

public in judicial opinions in Social Security and immigration cases. Noting that judicial opinions 

are not subject to Civil Rule 5.2(c)’s limits on remote electronic access, see Civil Rule 5.2(c)(1)(B),

CACM’s chair wrote to the chief judges and circuit and district clerks of the federal district courts 

and courts of appeals to suggest that courts consider redacting all but the first name and last initial 

of any nongovernment parties when writing opinions in such cases. In addition, CACM asked the 

Standing Committee to consider whether to adopt amendments to the privacy rules to address this 

issue. The Standing Committee referred this suggestion to the Civil and Appellate Rules 

Committees. Those committees discussed CACM’s suggestion at their fall 2018 meetings and 

decided not to propose a rule amendment. Participants in the committee discussions expressed 

hesitation at the prospect of drafting rules that would tell courts how to write their opinions, and 

noted that the problem might be effectively addressed by changes in local court practices in 

response to CACM’s suggestion.

C. Other Proposals

It remains to briefly mention four other items, relevant to the privacy rules, that did not 

result in proposals to amend the rules. 

In 2012 and again in 2015-2016, the Bankruptcy Rules Committee decided not to amend 

Bankruptcy Rule 2002’s requirement that the notice to creditors include the debtor’s SSN. The 

Bankruptcy Rules Committee concluded in 2012 that creditors needed the full SSN in order to 

identify debtors. In response to a 2015 suggestion on the same topic, the Bankruptcy Rules 

Committee engaged in further study to gauge whether creditors were still reliant on having full 

5 Id. at 11.
8

SSNs. These inquiries confirmed the need to retain the full SSN on the notice to creditors. 

However, the form for the notice to creditors was amended in 2012 to feature a warning that the 

notice to creditors should not be filed with the court.6

In 2016-2017, the Civil, Criminal, and Appellate Rules Committees considered whether to 

adopt a provision similar to new Bankruptcy Rule 9037(h) that would address the process for 

seeking redactions in previously-filed documents; but the advisory committees concluded there 

was no need to adopt such a provision outside the bankruptcy context. Bankruptcy Rule 9037(h) 

took effect in 2019.7

In 2015-2016, the advisory committees considered a proposal that the rules be amended to 

provide that affidavits in support of applications to proceed IFP should be presumptively filed 

under seal. None of the advisory committees felt that rulemaking action on this topic was 

warranted. However, the Appellate Rules Committee did proceed with an amendment that 

narrowed the information requested by Appellate Form 4.8 And a subsequent project to study the 

scope of disclosures required for IFP applications is ongoing in the Civil and Appellate Rules 

Committees.9

In 2018, the Civil and Criminal Rules Committees considered a suggestion by the National 

Association of Professional Background Screeners that the Civil and Criminal Rules be amended 

to require that parties who are natural persons file a “confidential disclosure statement” (containing 

the person’s full name and date of birth) with the court clerk. The suggestion was that this 

information, once filed, could be input into the court’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records 

(“PACER”) system so that PACER users could search by a party’s name and birth date. The Civil 

and Criminal Rules Committees decided not to proceed with such an amendment. Participants in 

the committees’ discussions observed that the proposed amendment did not seem to serve any 

purpose that lay within the scope of the rules. 

IV. Conclusion

In the years since the Judicial Conference’s second report to Congress on the adequacy of 

the privacy rules, the rules committees have included considerations about the privacy and security 

of personal information in their study of multiple proposals to revise the privacy rules and other 

rules. As noted in Part I, a number of those proposals have borne fruit in amendments to particular 

rules or forms. Part II surveyed pending proposals that may touch upon privacy-related issues. As 

evidenced in Part III’s discussion of deliberations that did not result in proposals to amend the 

rules, it is often the case that goals relating to the privacy and security of information filed with 

the court may be served through non-rules-based approaches that work together with the existing 

privacy rules. The rules committees will continue to work with other entities within and outside 

the judicial branch to monitor and address issues of privacy and security in the light of modern 

access to electronically-filed court documents.

6 See Part I.A.

7 See Part I.C.

8 See Part I.B.

9 See Part II.B.