Supreme Court of Florida
____________
No. SC06-2136
____________

IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION 2.420—SEALING OF COURT RECORDS AND
DOCKETS.
[April 5, 2007]
PER CURIAM.
At the request of the Court, the Florida Bar’s Rules of Judicial
Administration Committee (RJA Committee) has filed an out-of-cycle report
proposing procedures for sealing court records. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.140(f).
This report addresses highly serious concerns first identified by Florida news
media reports about hidden cases and secret dockets, sometimes called
“supersealing.” These reports identified practices that, however unintentional,
were clearly offensive to the spirit of laws and rules that ultimately rest on
Florida’s well-established public policy of government in the sunshine. We have

jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. As explained below, the public’s
constitutional right of access to court records must remain inviolate, and this Court
is fully committed to safeguarding this right.
The Florida Constitution mandates that the public shall have access to court
records, subject only to certain enumerated limitations, see art. I, § 24, Fla. Const.,
and this Court has adopted rules of procedure recognizing this right of public
access to court records. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420. These rules identify a
narrow category of court records where public access is automatically restricted by
operation of state or federal law or court rule, see Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(7)(8), such as in child dependency cases. See, e.g., § 39.0132(3)-(4), Fla. Stat.
(2006); Fla. R. App. P. 9.146(f). Otherwise, our rules strongly disfavor court
records that are hidden from public scrutiny. The rules provide only a limited veil
that is restricted to a second category of court records where a set of carefully
defined interests are involved. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9); see also
Barron v. Fla. Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 1988).
With these principles in mind, the Court today adopts on an interim,
emergency basis the amendments to rule 2.420 set forth herein. These
amendments provide a procedural vehicle for making circuit and county court
records in noncriminal cases confidential under rule 2.420(c)(9), on the one hand,

2

and for unsealing court records that have been made confidential under that rule,
on the other hand. The following are among the procedures we adopt:
1. A request to make court records in noncriminal cases confidential
must be made by written motion.
2. A public hearing must be held on any contested sealing motion and
may be held on certain uncontested sealing motions.
3. A sealing order issued by a court must state with specificity the
grounds for sealing and the findings of the court that justify sealing.
4. All sealing orders must be published to the public.
5. A nonparty may file a motion to vacate a sealing order.
6. A public hearing must be held on any contested motion to vacate a
sealing order and may be held on certain uncontested motions to vacate.
7. A court may impose sanctions on any party who files a sealing
motion without a good-faith basis and without a sound factual and legal
basis.
8. Most significant for our purposes here, by mandating that the case
number, docket number, or other identifying number of a case cannot be
made confidential, the removal from public view of all information
acknowledging the existence of a case is expressly not allowed.

3

These procedures, which are intended for use in noncriminal cases, are
adopted in the same spirit of openness and transparency that has informed the
Court’s case law and rules of procedure throughout its modern history. 1 Their
adoption reaffirms our courts’ commitment to ensuring that the public has proper
access to court records and case information, and this will prevent a recurrence of
the practices that gave rise to the present concerns. The procedures we adopt today
are not the Court’s final statement in this area. Given the importance of this issue,
the Court will continue to work with the appropriate committees to achieve
uniform statewide procedures to address all aspects of this issue. Specifically, as
for criminal case records, we refer the matter back to the appropriate committees
for additional study. We also refer to the appropriate rules committees the issue of
whether procedures similar to those adopted here are needed to address requests to
seal appellate court records.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In response to media reports concerning hidden cases and secret dockets, the
Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers (FACCC), at the Court’s
invitation, suggested amendments to the following rules: Florida Rules of Judicial

1. See, e.g., In re Amendments to Fla. Rules of Jud. Admin.—Pub. Access
to Jud. Records, 608 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 1992); Barron v. Fla. Freedom Newspapers,
Inc., 531 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 1988); Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v. Lewis, 426 So. 2d 1
(Fla. 1982).
4

Adminstration 2.051 (renumbered 2.420 2 ), Public Access to Judicial Branch
Records, and 2.075 (renumbered 2.430 3 ), Retention of Court Records, and Florida
Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.692, Petition to Seal or Expunge. After the Court
reviewed the proposals, Chief Justice Lewis notified the RJA Committee and the
Criminal Procedure Rules Committee (CPR Committee) that the Court would like
those committees to consider the proposals and to file out-of-cycle proposed rule
amendments on an expedited basis to address the concerns raised by the media.
Further, the Chief Justice, on behalf of the Court, directed the chief judges of the
circuit courts to promptly take the following action: (1) establish a procedure for
reviewing sealed cases or sealed court records in their circuits similar to the
procedures already established in certain circuits; (2) submit a report explaining the
status of their review of such cases or records; and (3) describe the steps taken, or
to be taken in the immediate future, to address this issue.
The chief judges subsequently filed their reports. Those reports indicate that
the corrective action taken by the chief judges, which included the issuance of
administrative orders, has addressed and remedied the immediate public concern
about the sealing of court records or dockets. The procedures implemented,
however, vary from circuit to circuit. This lack of uniformity underscores the
2. See In re Amendments to Fla. Rules of Jud. Admin––Reorganization of
Rules, 939 So. 2d 966, 1005 (Fla. 2006).
3. See id. at 1006.
5

urgent need for adoption of a uniform statewide rule. Pursuant to this goal, the
RJA Committee filed its report proposing new rule 2.420(d), Request to Make
Circuit and County Court Records Confidential. 4 The committee approved the
proposal by a vote of twenty-five to zero. The Executive Committee of The
Florida Bar Board of Governors approved it by a vote of nine to zero. The Court
scheduled oral argument and published the proposal for comment in the December
15, 2006, edition of The Florida Bar News. Comments were filed by several
entities. 5
After the CPR Committee was granted an extension of time in which to file
its report, the Chief Justice, on behalf of the Court, asked that committee to also
consider whether a rule of criminal procedure is needed to address a related
concern about a reported practice of altering court records to protect confidential
informants. Just prior to oral argument in this case, the CPR Committee filed its
report recommending adoption of the RJA Committee’s proposed amendments to
rule 2.420 with several changes suggested by the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys
Association (FPAA), as explained below. Alternatively, the CPR Committee
4. The RJA Committee concluded that any change to rule 2.430, Retention
of Court Records, is secondary to the issue at hand and should be considered later.
5. Comments were filed by the following entities: Florida Media
Organizations (FMO); Diane M. Matousek, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Volusia
County; Attorney Don Fountain; the Florida Supreme Court Committee on Access
to Court Records (Access Committee); the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys
Association (FPAA); and the Florida Public Defender Association, Inc. (FPDA).
6

recommends that the Court return this matter to the committee for consideration of
new Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.693, which would govern requests to make
records confidential in criminal cases and which was proposed by the Miami-Dade
State Attorney’s Office. Because the CPR Committee’s report contained no
separate proposed rule amendments, the report was treated as a comment in this
case. Oral argument in the present case was held on March 5, 2007.
LEGAL BACKGROUND
Pursuant to the policy of open government, Florida electors in 1992 adopted
article I, section 24, Florida Constitution, sometimes called the Sunshine
Amendment, effective July 1, 1993, which applies to all branches of state
government, including our courts, and provides as follows in relevant part:
SECTION 24. Access to public records and meetings.—
(a) Every person has the right to inspect or copy any public
record made or received in connection with the official business of
any public body, officer, or employee of the state, or persons acting
on their behalf, except with respect to records exempted pursuant to
this section or specifically made confidential by this Constitution.
This section specifically includes the legislative, executive, and
judicial branches of government and each agency or department
created thereunder . . . .
....
(d) All laws that are in effect on July 1, 1993, that limit public
access to records or meetings shall remain in force, and such laws
apply to records of the legislative and judicial branches, until they are
repealed. Rules of court that are in effect on the date of adoption of
this section that limit access to records shall remain in effect until they
are repealed.
Art. I, § 24, Fla. Const. (emphasis added).
7

Anticipating adoption of the Sunshine Amendment, the Court, effective
October 29, 1992, adopted Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.051, 6 which
was recently renumbered rule 2.420. 7 Rule 2.420 provides as follows in relevant
part:
RULE 2.420 PUBLIC ACCESS TO JUDICIAL BRANCH
RECORDS
(a) Scope and Purpose. Subject to the rulemaking power of the
Florida Supreme Court provided by article V, section 2, Florida
Constitution, the following rule shall govern public access to the
records of the judicial branch of government. The public shall have
access to all records of the judicial branch of government, except as
provided below.
....
(c) Exemptions. The following records of the judicial branch
shall be confidential:
....
(7) All records made confidential under the Florida and United
States Constitutions and Florida and federal law;
(8) All records presently deemed to be confidential by court
rule, including the Rules for Admission to the Bar, by Florida
Statutes, by prior case law of the State of Florida, and by the rules of
the Judicial Qualifications Commission;
(9) Any court record determined to be confidential in case
decision or court rule on the grounds that [the Barron factors 8 are
satisfied].
6. See In re Amendments to Fla. Rules of Jud. Admin.––Pub. Access to Jud.
Records, 608 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 1992).
7. See In re Amendments to Fla. Rules of Jud. Admin.––Reorganization of
Rules, 939 So. 2d 966, 1005 (Fla. 2006).
8. The factors, which are derived from the holding of Barron v. Florida
Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So. 2d 113, 118 (Fla. 1988), are set forth in rule
2.420(c)(9) as follows:

8

Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420 (emphasis added).
Rule 2.420 recognizes a narrow category of court records where public
access is automatically restricted by operation of state or federal law or court rule.
See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(7)-(8). For records in this category, the State
itself, through law and court rule, has identified specific privacy or government
interests that clearly outweigh the public’s right to know. These interests have

(9) Any court record determined to be confidential in case
decision or court rule on the grounds that
(A) confidentiality is required to
(i) prevent a serious and imminent threat to the fair, impartial,
and orderly administration of justice;
(ii) protect trade secrets;
(iii) protect a compelling governmental interest;
(iv) obtain evidence to determine legal issues in a case;
(v) avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties;
(vi) avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters
protected by a common law or privacy right not generally inherent in
the specific type of proceeding sought to be closed;
(vii) comply with established public policy set forth in the
Florida or United States Constitution or statutes or Florida rules or
case law;
(B) the degree, duration, and manner of confidentiality ordered
by the court shall be no broader than necessary to protect the interests
set forth in subdivision (A);
(C) no less restrictive measures are available to protect the
interests set forth in subdivision (A); and
(D) except as provided by law or rule of court, reasonable
notice shall be given to the public of any order closing any court
record.
Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9).

9

been identified through the democratic process either in the Legislature or through
the Court’s public rule-making process. Rule 2.420 also identifies a separate
category of court records where parties can assert a narrow set of carefully defined
interests that may justify the closing of all or part of the record. See Fla. R. Jud.
Admin. 2.420(c)(9). In these circumstances, courts may enter a sealing order only
if reasonable public notice of the order is given so that the media and other third
parties can exercise their right to challenge the propriety of the order once issued.
These individualized sealing orders must meet the test first defined in Barron and
subsequently codified in rule 2.420. 9
The subject of the present case, new rule 2.420(d), Request to Make Circuit
and County Court Records in Noncriminal Cases Confidential, applies only to the
latter category of court records. Court records that fall within the former category
currently are being studied, in a separate matter, by the Court’s Committee on
Access to Court Records (Access Committee). 10
NEW SUBDIVISION (d), REQUEST TO MAKE CIRCUIT AND
COUNTY COURT RECORDS IN NONCRIMINAL CASES
CONFIDENTIAL

9. See supra note 8.
10. See Committee on Access to Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No.
AOSC06-27 (Aug. 21, 2006) (on file with Clerk, Fla. Sup. Ct.).

10

The Court adopts proposed new subdivision (d) of rule 2.420 as submitted
by the RJA Committee with the changes noted herein. The RJA Committee
acknowledged at oral argument that the new subdivision was designed for use in
civil, not criminal, cases, and we so limit its scope. We change the title and certain
language in the subdivision to reflect the rule’s limitation to noncriminal cases.
The major provisions of new subdivision (d), Request to Make Circuit and County
Court Records in Noncriminal Cases Confidential, are summarized below.
Subdivision (d)(1) provides that a request to make records confidential under
subdivision (c)(9) must be made via written motion. The parties may not merely
submit an agreed-upon order. The motion must be captioned “Motion to Make
Court Records Confidential” and must identify with particularity the records to be
made confidential and the grounds. The clerk must treat all court records subject
to such a motion as confidential pending resolution of the motion. To discourage
litigants from using the motion to achieve temporary confidentiality, the moving
party must certify that the motion is being made in good faith. The movant also
must certify that the motion is supported by a sound factual and legal basis, as
suggested by Florida Media Organizations (FMO).
Hearings on an initial motion are addressed in subdivision (d)(2), which
provides that the court must hold a hearing on any contested motion and that the
court may in its discretion hold a hearing on an uncontested motion. Because the

11

mere filing of a motion has the effect of making materials confidential, a hearing
must be held within thirty days after the filing of the motion. The hearings are
open to the public, although a party may seek to hold all or a portion of the hearing
in camera if necessary to protect any of the interests listed in subdivision (c)(9)(A).
The moving party is responsible for ensuring that a record of the hearing is made.
Prior public notice of the hearing is not automatically required, though the court in
its discretion may require such notice. 11
The content of a sealing order is addressed in subdivision (d)(3), which
seeks to eliminate confusion in clerks’ offices regarding the intent of sealing orders
by requiring that an order granting a sealing request must contain as much detail as
possible. This must be done without revealing the information that is being made
confidential. Details include case type, grounds for seeking confidentiality,
parties’ names or pseudonyms, whether the progress docket is to be confidential,
the court records that are to be confidential, and the names of persons who are
permitted access. The order also must contain specific findings that the degree,
duration, and manner of confidentiality are no broader than necessary to protect the
interests listed in (c)(9)(A), and that there are no less restrictive measures available

11. None of the committees or commentators has urged that public notice of
the mere filing of a closure motion should be a requirement under this subdivision;
this is consistent with existing precedent in this area. See generally Fla. R. Jud.
Admin. 2.420, Comm. Commentary, 1995 Amendment (iterating the relevant law
in this area and citing relevant precedent).
12

to protect those interests. It also must direct the clerk to publish the order. These
requirements are intended to ensure that sealing orders that are agreed upon by the
parties are not entered until the court has independently verified that sealing is
indeed warranted.
Public notice of a sealing order is addressed in subdivision (d)(4), which sets
forth the procedures for court clerks to follow in giving public notice of a sealing
order. The clerk must post a copy of the order on the clerk’s website and in a
public location in the courthouse within ten days following entry of the order. The
order must remain posted in both locations for at least thirty days, as urged by
FMO. Current subdivision (c)(9)(D), which is a brief, general statement providing
that reasonable public notice of a sealing order must be given, is deleted and
supplanted by this new subdivision (d)(4).
The procedure by which a nonparty may challenge a sealing order is set
forth in subdivision (d)(5). The procedure is similar to the procedure for
requesting that court records be made confidential. The request to vacate a
confidentiality order must be made in writing and provide as much detail as
possible regarding the bases for relief. Because there will be times when party
names are made confidential, the rule provides a procedure whereby the court will
be responsible for serving a challenge motion on the parties. A hearing must be
held on a contested challenge motion, and the court in its discretion may hold a

13

hearing on an uncontested motion. Challenge hearings must be open to the public,
though a party may seek to hold a portion or all of the hearing in camera if
necessary to protect the interests listed in subdivision (c)(9)(A). The movant must
ensure that a record of the hearing is made.
With respect to subdivision (d)(5), FMO proposes that the proponent of
closure should bear the burden of establishing the propriety of closure in all such
proceedings, including in any subsequent proceedings to vacate closure orders.
The Access Committee proposes that, on a motion to vacate, the burden of proving
each of the elements of closure should remain on the proponent of closure in those
cases where no prior adversarial hearing took place. We note, however, that under
the new subdivision, regardless of whether a closure motion is contested or not, the
court must state with specificity its grounds for closure under subdivision (c)(9)(A)
and also must make specific findings supporting its ruling with respect to the
(c)(9)(B) and (C) factors. Accordingly, we agree with the RJA Committee that it is
reasonable to accord such an order a presumption of correctness and to require that
the movant seeking to vacate such an order bear the burden of showing that the
order is unsound.
Because a motion to make records confidential has the effect of making
materials temporarily confidential merely by its filing, subdivision (d)(6) provides
that if a motion is not made in good faith and supported by a sound legal and

14

factual basis the court may impose sanctions upon the movant. And finally,
subdivision (d)(7) provides that court records made confidential under this rule
must be treated as confidential during any appellate proceedings. 12
CONCLUSION
We hereby adopt the amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial
Administration as set forth in the appendix to this opinion. New language is
indicated by underscoring, and deletions are indicated by struck-through type. The
court and committee commentary are offered for explanation only and are not
adopted as an official part of the rules. The amendments shall become effective
immediately upon issuance of this opinion and shall supersede any conflicting
procedures established by administrative order. Because the RJA Committee did
not focus on the sealing of court records in criminal cases and because the CPR
Committee asked that this matter be returned to that committee if the Court
declines to adopt FPAA’s proposals, 13 the Court adopts new subdivision (d) on an

12. Because new subdivision (d) applies only to noncriminal cases and
because the issue of a procedure for use in criminal cases will be further addressed
by the committees, the Court declines at this time to adopt proposed new
subdivision (d)(8), which provides that requests to seal or expunge criminal history
records must be made in accordance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
3.692.
13. Both the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association (FPAA) and the
Florida Public Defender Association (FPDA) propose that the new subdivision, in
order to protect confidential informants, should provide that sealing orders in
criminal cases must be kept confidential and not posted. The CPR committee
15

interim basis and returns this matter to both rules committees to work together to
propose rule amendments to address the sealing of court records in criminal cases.
We also ask the RJA Committee to work with the Appellate Court Rules
Committee to consider the need for rules governing requests to seal appellate court
records.
We note that any procedures that the Court adopts, whether today or in the
future, to address this issue are only as good as the manner in which they are
applied and enforced. In this respect, Florida’s trial courts and court clerks are the
first line of action. We are confident that trial judges and clerks of court will
remain ever vigilant of the courts’ longstanding presumption in favor of open
records. See Barron, 531 So. 2d at 118 (“First, a strong presumption of openness
exists for all court proceedings. A trial is a public event, and the filed records of
court proceedings are public records available for public examination.”).
We thank the chief judges of the circuit courts for promptly taking the steps
necessary to ensure that the public has proper access to court records in their
respective circuits. We also extend our sincere appreciation to the Rules of
Judicial Administration Committee, the Criminal Procedures Rules Committee, the
Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers, and the commentators for
their insight and assistance in addressing this important matter.
agrees with this position. Because new subdivision (d) as adopted is limited to
noncriminal cases, however, we decline to adopt the proposals.
16

We conclude with an observation. This Court would never have learned of
the concerns we seek to address here had it not been for the media. For that,
Florida’s media are to be commended. The pioneering broadcast journalist
Edward R. Murrow is reported to have observed that the two things that truly
distinguish a free society from all others are an independent judiciary and a free
press. In this instance, the free press has shown its value to the people of Florida
by helping the judiciary identify and quickly correct unintended practices that
tended to undermine public trust and confidence in our courts.
It is so ordered.
LEWIS, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and
BELL, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
Original Proceeding – Florida Rules of Judicial Administration
Gary Devenow Fox, Chair, Rules of Judicial Administration Committee, Miami,
Florida, William C. Vose, Chair, Florida Bar Criminal Procedure Rules
Committee, Orlando, Florida, Scott M. Dimond of Dimond, Kaplan and Rothstein,
P.A., Miami, Florida, and John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, J. Craig Shaw,
Bar Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida,
for Petitioner
Carol Jean LoCicero and Deanna K. Shullman of Thomas and LoCicero, PL,
Tampa, Florida on behalf of Florida Media Organizations; Carol M. Touhy,
Deland, Florida on behalf of the Honorable Diane M. Matousek, Clerk of the
Circuit Court, Seventh Judicial Circuit; Arthur I. Jacobs, General Counsel, Florida
Prosecuting Attorneys Association, Jacobs and Associates, P.A., Fernandina
Beach, Florida and Penny H. Brill, Assistant State Attorney, Eleventh Judicial
17

Circuit, Miami, Florida on behalf of the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys
Association; John Eddy Morrison, Assistant Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial
Circuit, Miami, Florida, Robert Dewitt Trammell, General Counsel for Florida
Public Defender Association, Inc., and Nancy Daniels, Public Defender, Second
Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, Florida on behalf of Florida Public Defender
Association, Inc.; W. Hampton Keen of Lytal, Reiter, Clark, Fountain and
Williams, LLP, West Palm Beach, Florida on behalf of Don Fountain, Jr.; the
Honorable Judith L. Kreeger, Circuit Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Chair,
Committee on Access to Court Records, Miami, Florida on behalf of Supreme
Court Committee on Access to Court Records,
Responding with comments

18

APPENDIX
RULE 2.420.

PUBLIC ACCESS TO JUDICIAL BRANCH RECORDS

(a)-(b) (No Change)
(c) Exemptions. The following records of the judicial branch shall be
confidential:
(1) – (8) (No Change)
(9) Any court record determined to be confidential in case decision or court
rule on the grounds that
(A) confidentiality is required to
(i) – (vii) (No Change)
(B) the degree, duration, and manner of confidentiality ordered by the court
shall be no broader than necessary to protect the interests set forth in subdivision
(A); and
(C) no less restrictive measures are available to protect the interests set forth
in subdivision (A); and
(D) except as provided by law or rule of court, reasonable notice shall be
given to the public of any order closing any court record.
(10) (No Change)
(d) Request to Make Circuit and County Court Records in Noncriminal
Cases Confidential.
(1) A request to make circuit and county court records in noncriminal cases
confidential under subdivision (c)(9) must be made in the form of a written motion
captioned “Motion to Make Court Records Confidential.” A motion made under
this subdivision must:
(A) identify the particular court records the movant seeks to make
confidential with as much specificity as possible without revealing the information
19

to be made confidential; and
(B) specify the bases for making such court records confidential.
Any motion made under this subdivision must include a signed certification by the
party making the request that the motion is being made in good faith and is
supported by a sound factual and legal basis. The court records that are subject to a
motion made under this subdivision must be treated as confidential by the clerk
pending the court’s ruling on the motion. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing,
the court may not make confidential the case number, docket number, or other
number used by the clerk’s office to identify the case file.
(2) Except when a motion filed under subdivision (d)(1) represents that all
parties agree to all of the relief requested, the court must, as soon as practicable but
no later than 30 days after the filing of a motion under this subdivision, hold a
hearing before ruling on the motion. Whether or not any motion filed under
subdivision (d)(1) is agreed to by the parties, the court may in its discretion hold a
hearing on such motion. Any hearing held under this subdivision must be an open
proceeding, except that any party may request that the court conduct all or part of
the hearing in camera to protect the interests set forth in subdivision (c)(9)(A). The
moving party shall be responsible for ensuring that a complete record of any
hearing held pursuant to this subdivision be created, either by use of a court
reporter or by any recording device that is provided as a matter of right by the
court. The court may in its discretion require prior public notice of the hearing on
such a motion in accordance with the procedure for providing public notice of
court orders set forth in subdivision (d)(4) or by providing such other public notice
as the court deems appropriate.
(3) Any order granting in whole or in part a motion filed under subdivision
(d)(1) must state the following with as much specificity as possible without
revealing information made confidential:
(A) The type of case in which the order is being entered;
(B) The particular grounds under subdivision (c)(9)(A) for making the court
records confidential;
(C) Whether any party’s name is to be made confidential and, if so, the
particular pseudonym or other term to be substituted for the party’s name;

20

(D) Whether the progress docket or similar records generated to document
activity in the case are to be made confidential;
(E) The particular court records that are to be made confidential;
(F) The names of those persons who are permitted to view the confidential
court records;
(G) That the court finds that: (i) the degree, duration, and manner of
confidentiality ordered by the court is no broader than necessary to protect the
interests set forth in subdivision (c)(9)(A); and (ii) no less restrictive measures are
available to protect the interests set forth in subdivision (c)(9)(A); and
(H) That the clerk of the court is directed to publish the order in accordance
with subdivision (d)(4).
(4) Except as provided by law or court rule, notice must be given of any order
granting a motion made under subdivision (d)(1) as follows. Within 10 days
following the entry of the order, the clerk of court must post a copy of the order on
the clerk’s website and in a prominent, public location in the courthouse. The order
must remain posted in both locations for no less than 30 days.
(5) If a nonparty requests that the court vacate all or part of an order issued
under subdivision (d)(3), the request must be made in the form of a written motion
that states with as much specificity as possible the bases for the request. The
movant must serve all parties in the action with a copy of the motion. In the event
that the subject order specifies that the names or addresses of one or more parties
are to be made confidential, the movant must state prominently in the caption of
the motion “Confidential Party — Court Service Requested.” When a motion so
designated is filed, the court shall be responsible for providing a copy of the
motion to the parties in such a way as to not reveal the confidential information to
the movant. Except when a motion filed under this subdivision represents that all
parties agree to all of the relief requested, the court must hold a hearing before
ruling on the motion. Whether or not any motion filed under this subdivision is
agreed to by the parties, the court may in its discretion hold a hearing on such
motion. Any hearing held under this subdivision must be an open proceeding,
except that any party may request that the court conduct all or part of the hearing in
camera to protect the interests set forth in subdivision (c)(9)(A). The movant shall
be responsible for ensuring that a complete record of any hearing held under this
subdivision be created, either by use of a court reporter or by any recording device
21

that is provided as a matter of right by the court.
(6) If the court determines that a motion made under subdivision (d)(1) was not
made in good faith and supported by a sound legal and factual basis, the court may
impose sanctions upon the movant.
(7) Court records made confidential under this rule must be treated as
confidential during any appellate proceedings. In any case where an order making
court records confidential remains in effect as of the time of an appeal, the clerk’s
index must include a statement that an order making court records confidential has
been entered in the matter and must identify such order by date or docket number.
(d e) Judicial Review of Denial of Access Request. Expedited review of denials
of access to records of the judicial branch shall be provided through an action for
mandamus, or other appropriate appellate remedy, in the following manner:
(1) – (2) (No Change)
(e f) Procedure. Requests and responses to requests for access to records under
this rule shall be made in a reasonable manner.
(1) – (3) (No Change)
Committee Commentary
[1995 Amendment.] (No Change)
2002 Court Commentary
(No Change)
2005 Court Commentary
(No Change)
2007 Court Commentary
New subdivision (d) applies only to motions that seek to make court records in
noncriminal cases confidential in accordance with subdivision (c)(9).

22

2007 Committee Commentary
Subdivision (d)(2) is intended to permit a party to make use of any courtprovided recording device or system that is available generally for litigants’ use,
but is not intended to require the court system to make such devices available
where they are not already in use and is not intended to eliminate any cost for use
of such system that is generally borne by a party requesting use of such system.

23