Opinion ID: 1581877
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Privacy Committee Recommendations and Access Committee Charge

Text: A number of the proposed amendments regarding the treatment of confidential information that is included in court records began with the recommendations of the Committee on Privacy and Court Records (Privacy Committee), established in November 2003. While this Court recognized the advantages of greater access to court records by electronic means, it had become aware of the potential for abuse if otherwise confidential information was available online. The Privacy Committee was charged with providing recommendations to the Court regarding electronic access to court records in Florida. [2] In August 2005, the Privacy Committee submitted its report and recommendations. [3] The Court solicited comments and held three public hearings on the recommendations. The Court received helpful comments from, among others, various media groups and the clerks of court. After consultation with the Court, in June 2006, then Chief Justice Pariente and Chief Justice-Elect Lewis issued an administrative order partially implementing the Privacy Committee's recommendations. [4] By separate administrative order, the Access Committee was created to further study and implement a number of the Privacy Committee's recommendations, [5] including the recommendations concerning rule 2.420 at issue here. [6] The Privacy Committee had concluded in its report, and the Court agreed, that the Florida judicial branch should have a goal of providing the public with electronic access to nonconfidential court records when appropriate conditions are met. [7] The Access Committee was created to assist in establishing those necessary conditions, one of which was the need to narrow the scope of subdivision (c)(8) of rule 2.420 to a finite set of public records exemptions that are appropriate for court records and are identifiable. The ability to identify a finite set of public records exemptions that apply to court records under the rule was critical to the larger task of allowing electronic access to court records. [8] Accordingly, the Access Committee was charged with reviewing rule 2.420 and proposing amendments to the rule consistent with the Privacy Committee's recommendations. [9]