No Right to Access Judicial Records or Investigations in Washington

The Washington Supreme Court ruled that state open records laws do not extend to judicial records or investigations into allegations of judicial misconduct.  

The case centered on a February 2008 public records request seeking records and correspondence related to the resignation of Federal Way Municipal Court Judge Colleen Hartl. While the city provided some documentation, it refused to release the correspondence of the presiding judge relating to the investigation.   

For more on this decision, click here. 

AP wins suit over chief justice's e-mails

A Kanawha County Circuit judge ruled that the West Virginia Supreme Court chief justice's e-mails concerning public business fell under the state FOIA laws. Arguments that the justices don't fall under the FOIA laws because of separation of powers were dismissed.

Five e-mails sent by West Virginia Supreme Court Chief Justice Elliott “Spike” Maynard to Massey Energy chief Don Blankenship show the justice was concerned with a Democratic challenger’s candidacy ahead of a primary that he ultimately lost.

The e-mails were released today, one day after a Kanawha County Circuit judge sided with the Associated Press, which sued the Supreme Court to have the messages released under the state’s Freedom of Information Act.

Judge Duke Bloom ruled yesterday that judicial officers are not exempt from the state’s open-records laws. Bloom’s order gave the Supreme Court 10 days to release the documents.

More here.

Plea deals may no longer be public in Utah

The Daily Herald argues why public access to plea agreements are necessary as well as why retaliation fears are exaggerated:

We urge the federal court in Utah to refrain from adopting a new rule that would close public access to any plea agreements that reveal whether a defendant is cooperating with authorities.

The rule would strike at the heart of the public's right to know what has happened in a criminal case. It would diminish public trust in the judicial system and potentially lay the groundwork for abuse.

And it's unnecessary. The proposal addresses a fear that may be a mere chimera.

More here.

Secret Divorce Filings, And the Former Law Partners Who Grant Them

In early February, (Speaker of the House) Glenn and Susan Richardson walked into the Paulding County Courthouse, filed for an uncontested divorce and got their case sealed from public view.

The handling of the divorce raised questions as to whether the speaker of the state House received preferential treatment from Judge James Osborne, who was not initially assigned the case but signed the order placing it under wraps. The judge, once the speaker's law partner, is now weighing a request to unseal the divorce file. He said Thursday that he has treated the Richardsons' request like any other.

he case is being closely watched, particularly by divorce lawyers across the state. They say if the speaker succeeds in keeping the file sealed, it could lead to an avalanche of requests to close the files of other broken marriages.

"If they carve out an exception for him, I guarantee you we'll all be trying to seal divorce records," said John Lyndon, a family law attorney in Athens. "There's no doubt about it."

Lyndon has had mixed results sealing divorce records and said judges more often than not refuse to do it. When successful, he said he gives clients this caveat: "If challenged, I wouldn't expect it to hold up."

More here.

OKlahoma Judicial Access Update

Thanks to a reader for this update:

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has withdrawn its order restricting public access to court records.

The decision Tuesday came after complaints from lawyers, free-speech advocates, law enforcement, court clerks, journalists and companies that perform background checks that the restrictions, intended to prevent identity theft, were too far reaching.

The new rules, which were to take effect June 10, would have required removal of personal information such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and other data from court filings. The rules also would have prohibited the posting of court pleadings on the Internet.

The Supreme Court, in a brief statement from the office of Chief Justice James R. Winchester, said it was withdrawing the order to allow time for further study and consideration of the issue.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Opinion A Blow To Access...

I'm needing to get a copy of this opinion, which sounds pretty grim...

Oklahomans' access to court records on the Internet will be limited by rules adopted Tuesday by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

The court said individual pleadings and other recorded documents filed in state court actions shall not be publicly displayed on the Internet. People wanting to see this information can go to the courthouse and view it.

The court said it issued the rules in order to balance the rights of privacy of individuals who use Oklahoma's court system and public access to court documents. The rules affect operations of the state's district courts.

These rules regarding privacy and public access to court documents will be effective June 10.

The rules also say people filing cases should omit personal identifiers such as Social Security numbers, taxpayer identification numbers, names of minor children, dates of birth, financial account numbers and home addresses.

Omitting these things from documents was called "outrageous overreaching” by Joey Senat, past president of FOI Oklahoma and an Oklahoma State University journalism professor specializing in freedom of information.

More here.

More here, including a great debunking of the identitfy theft FOI issue...

Oklahoma Court Plan Greatly Curtails Online Access

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.

More here.