The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those with disabilities and should be used for no other purpose. These are not legal documents, and may not be used as legal authority. This transcript is not an official document of the Florida Supreme Court.
In re: Inquiry into Sealed Court Records
SC06-2136
THE NEXT CASE ON THE
CALENDAR THIS MORNING
CONCERNS AMENDMENTS TO THE
RULE OF JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION, COURT
RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS.
I THINK PROBABLY THE WAY WE
WILL PROCEED TO GIVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO ALL OF THE
INDIVIDUALS TO MAKE THE
PRESENTATION SEEM TO WORK
BEST DURING OUR LAST ORAL
ARGUMENT WHETHER -- RATHER
THAN INTERRUPTING AS WE GO
ALONG.
WE WILL ADDRESS THE
QUESTIONS AT THE END OF THAT
PRESENTATION PERIOD.
THAT WILL GIVEN A
OPPORTUNITY TO ASK ANY
QUESTIONS THAT YOU WANT.
WE HAVE ONLY FIVE MINUTES
PER PERSON.
AND WE WILL STICK TO THAT
STRICTLY.
AND THEN THE QUESTION WILL
COME OUTSIDE OF THAT.
SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO
PROCEED MR. DIMOND, YOU WILL
START.
>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT
I'M SCOTT DIMOND.
I HAVE THE PLEASURE OF ERPT
THE JUDICIAL AT MINUTE
STRAEUGS COMMITTEE WITH THE
ARGUMENT FOR PROPOSED 2.240.
LET ME CLARIFY THE FIVE
MINUTE ON THE QUESTION WAS
AS TO HOW THOSE RESPOND
IMAGE.
YOU ONLY HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
WE'LL HAVE QUESTIONS ANY
DIRECTED TO YOU AS REGARDS.
>> MY PROPOSAL THIS MORNING
IS TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF
OUR RESPONSE TO THOSE
COMMENTS.
SAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME IN
REBUTTAL TO ADDRESS THE
CONCERNS.
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED ME TO
SUBMIT THE PROPOSAL THIS
MORNING.
I THOUGHT I HAD THE MOST
KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE SUBJECT
AND WOULD THEREFORE MAKE THE
PRESENTATION.
I WILL SPEND A MOMENT WITH
THE COURT'S PERMISSION
GIVING AN OVERVIEW OF THE
RULE AND UNDERSTAND HOW THE
STRUCTURE WORK AND RESPOND
TO INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS.
I THINK THAT WILL BE HELPFUL
IN UNDERSTANDING HOW THE
COMMENTS RESPOND TO THE
RULE.
VERY BRIEFLY, THE RULE THAT
WITH PROPOSE IS AN EFFORT TO
ENSURE THERE'S A PROCEDURE
OR BY THE EXISTING
SUBSTANTIVE RULES REGARD
CONSTITUTIONALITY ARE THEN
APPLIED PROPERLY IN THE
COURTS.
AS YOU ARE AWARE THERE WAS A
CONCERN HAS BEEN RAISED BY
THE MEDIA WITH REGARD TO THE
SUPERSEALING OF FILES IN
CERTAIN CIRCUITS AROUND THE
STATE.
THE CONCERN WAS IN EFFECT
THE EXISTENT RULES WOULD NOT
BE PROPERLY APPLIED.
THE COMMITTEE'S EFFORT WAS
TO CREATE A PROCEDURE WHERE
THERE'S CERTAINY WITH HOW
THE RULES SHOULD BE APPLIED.
THE ORDER THAT SEALS THE
RECORD WOULD HAVE SOME
DEGREE OF RELIABILITY
BECAUSE --
>> THE COMMITTEE'S
STANDPOINT HOW WOULD YOU
ARTICULATE WHAT WAS
HAPPENING ON THE GROUND.
THAT GAVE ALL OF US THAT
GREAT CONCERN?
IN OTHER WORDS WOULD YOU
RESTATE FOR US HERE SO THAT
WE HAVE REALLY A GOOD HANDLE
ON THAT WHAT THE COMMITTEE
PERCEIVE TO BE THE PROBLEM.
THAT WAS OUT THERE THAT
WE'VE HAD ALL A STRONG
REACTION.
1KWR50 IN THE BROADEST SENSE
THE PROBLEM THE ORDER WOULD
BE ENTERED WITHOUT PROPER
SCRUTINY.
NOT ONLY SEEM PARTICULAR
PARTS OF THE FILE BUT SEAL
THE EXISTENCE OF THE FILE
THE NAME AND THE RECORD
NUMBER AND LOCATOR AND WHAT
THE COMMITTEES CONCERN WAS
THAT PRESUMEBLY THAT WAS
HAPPENING BECAUSE SOME
PROCEDURAL STEPS WERE NOT
OCCURRING.
THE SECOND CONCERN IS THAT
CERTAIN ASPECT OF THE
SEALING SHOULD NEVER HAVE
HAPPENED.
IRRESPECTIVE OF PROCEDURE AN
ENTIRE FILE SHOULD NEVER BE
SEALED.
YOU SHOULD NEVER LOSE
RECORDS OF THE EXISTING FILE.
ANY SIMILAR REPORTS I'VE
READ SUGGEST THAT IT WASN'T
THAT THE RULES HAD A
LOOPHOLES.
BUT THE CURRENT RULES
WEREN'T BEING FOLLOWED.
>> IT'S CLEAR, I THINK THAT
THE CURRENT SUBSTANTIVE
RULES WERE NOT BEING FILED.
I THINK THE SUBSTANTIVELY
YOU ARE NOT SUBMIT FORD THE
TILE.
BUT THERE'S NO PROCEDURE
ESTABLISHED BY THE RULES FOR
THE SEALING OF THE RECORDS.
NOT THAT THE PROCEDURE WAS
BEING VIOLATED.
THERE SIMPLY WAS NO
PROCEDURE.
BY THE SAKE TOKEN THE
ELIMINATION OF THE FILE
COMPLETELY FROM THE DOCKET
THAT WAS GOING AGAINST
SUBSTANTIVE RULES BECAUSE OF
NO PROVISION IN FLORIDA LAW
AND THERE'S A STRONG RULE OF
LAW THAT STATES THAT YOU
CANNOT PROHIBIT PUBLIC
ACCESS AND OBVIOUSLY THAT'S
AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION.
TO A CERTAIN EXTENT OUR
EFFORT WAS TO BALANCE THE
CONCERN OF PRIVATE LITIGANT
WHO SEEKS CONSTITUTIONALITY
FOR A GOOD REASON WITH THE
CONCERNS ABOUT PUBLIC
ACCESS.
THE RULE THAT WE'VE
ESTABLISHED AND INTENDED
SORT OF AS A BALANCING ACT
TO MAKE SURE, THAT A YOU
STKROEPBT THE SUPER SEALING
AT ALL WHEN YOU DO HAVE
COURT ORDER THAT SEALS, A
PORTION OF THE FILE THAT IT
CAME OUT PROPER PROCESS AND
APPLY THE LAW CORRECTLY.
WE ARE REALLY TALKING --
>> WE'RE REALLY TALKING
ABOUT FILES AND RECORDS THAT
ARE NOT BY THEIR NATURE
CONVERSATIONAL.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RECORDS
OR PORTIONS OF RECORDS WHERE
SOME PARTY FEEL A NEED TO
HAVE THEM CONFIDENTIAL EVEN
THOUGH NAY ARE NOT
CONFIDENTIAL.
>> THAT'S RIGHT, YOUR HONOR.
THERE'S A PROVISION OF THIS
RULE.
WE DEAL WITH 2.240-C 9
THAT'S THE PROCEDURE WHEREBY
A PARTY CAN ASK THAT
SOMETHING BE DEEMED
CONFIDENTIAL FOR A VARIETY
OF FACTORS.
C-AND OTHER FACTORS OF THE
RULE ESTABLISH CONFUSEALITY
OF CERTAIN TYPES OF MATERIAL
WITHOUT HAVING A PARTY ASK
FOR IT.
IT'S AUTOMATIC IN EFFECT.
AND WHEN WE TALK A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT THE CRIMINAL
ISSUES HERE, WHETHER SOME OF
THESE RULES NEW TOWED BE
CHANGED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE
FOR INSTANCE OF CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMANT.
ONE OF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT
THE IDEA THAT'S CONFIDENTIAL
SHOULD BE PROTECTED DOESN'T
NEED TO COME UNDER C-9
THERE'S NO MOTION THAT NEEDS
TO BE FILED.
SOME MEMBERS FELT THAT WAS
AUTOMATIC BY OPERATION OF
LAW FOR OTHERS ASPECTS OF
THE RULE.
OUR RULE HERE TODAY THE
PROPOSAL ONLY DEALS WITH THE
PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF A
REQUEST BY A PARTY TO SEAL
MATERIALS.
NOT MATERIALS THAT ARE
SEALED AS A MATTER OF HA.
LET'S TAKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE
CLASSIC ONE WOULD BE
DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE.
WHICH IT IS NOT
CONFIDENTIAL.
THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE THE
SUBJECT OF A MOTION.
UNDER LAW AS IT EXISTED OR
THE PROCEDURE IS EXISTED
BEFORE --
>> TPHOEUPL -- I'M NOT A
FAMILY LAW PRACTICE
DIVISIONER.
THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.
>> A MOTION WAS BEING MADE
FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO SEAL
AND THEN THEY SAID I WILL
SEAL THE CASE AND THEN THE
WHOLE -- NOT ONLY THE CASE
GETS SEALED BUT THE
REFERENCE --
>> PRECISELY.
>> BUT I THOUGHT THERE WAS
ALSO A SITUATION AND THIS
WHY I HAVE GOTTEN CONFUSED.
WHERE THERE WAS STILL SOME
PROCEDURE THAT WAS GOING ON.
ADOPTION OR DISCRIMINATION
FOR PARENTAL RIGHT THAT
THOSE FILES WHICH BY STATUTE
OR CONFIDENTIAL WERE SOMEHOW
THOSE WERE ALSO BEING SUPER
SEALED.
DID YOU LOOK INTO THE
DIFFERENCES?
WHAT IS BEING -- WHAT WAS
DONE AND WHETHER THE CAME
FROM CASES THAT WERE NOT BY
THEIR NATURE BY STATUTE
CONFIDENTIAL.
WERE THEY BOTH SITUATIONS
THAT THE PROBLEM WAS
OCCURRING?
>> I SUSPECT THAT THERE WAS.
THE ONLY AS SUSPECT THAT THE
RULE THAT DEALS SPECIFICALLY
WITH FILES THAT ARE SEALED
BY OPERATION OF LAW IS THE
PROVISION THAT SPECIFIES
THAT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES
THE COURT COULD ENTER AN
ORDER DEALING WITH CASE
NUMBER OR OTHER IDENTIFYING
ASPECT OF THE DOCKET.
OUR COMMITTEE AND OUR
SUBCOMMITTEE DID NOT ADDRESS
THE OTHER ASPECT OF THE RULE
BUT RATHER AS WE UNDERSTAND
OUR TASK WAS TO WHEN IT WILL
TKPWAPTS COME IN AND ASK FOR
SOMETHING TO BE SEALED
THERE'S A MECHANISM FOR
DOING THAT.
I NOTICE YOU SAID IF THEY DO
IN A CASE WHERE IT'S NOT
CONTESTED.
THAT IS BOTH PARTIES WANT
THE FILE SEALED THE JUDGE IN
HIS OR HER DISCRETION IN ANY
EVENT THE JUDGE WILL TAKE
THE ORDER.
I'M CONCERNED THAT A LOT OF
THE CASES AND HIGH PROFILE.
THE JUDGE -- WHAT IS GOING
TO GET THE JUDGE'S
IMPRESSION OF HOLDING THE
HEARING THE JUDGE HAS TO
ENTER THIS ORDER THAT'S HAS
SUBPARTS WON'T IT LEAD TO
THE ORDER BEING ENTERED ON A
PROFORMA BASIS.
>> THEY DID SPECIFICALLY
ADDRESS.
THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION
IN SUBCOMMITTEE ABOUT THIS.
ABUSES PRIMARILY CAME FROM
SUBMITTING AN AGREED ORDER
BY JUDGE.
THESE FILES ARE SEALED AND
THE COURT SIGNED OFF BECAUSE
THERE'S AGREEMENT OF THE
PARTY.
THE RULE WE'VE STEINED GOES
AFTER THAT PARTICULAR TYPE
OF ABUSE AND SEVERAL
DIFFERENT WAYS.
FIRST OF ALL IRRESPECTIVE OF
AGREEMENT OF THE PARTY THERE
NEED TO BE A MOTION FILED
THE LAYS OUT IN DETAIL NOT
ONLY WHAT IS THOUGHT TO BE
SEALED BUT THE LEGAL AND
FACTUAL BASIS FOR THAT
SEALING.
SO BEFORE ANY ORDER IS
ISSUED THERE'S A MOTION IN
FRONT OF THE COURT THAT LAYS
OUT THE DETAIL THAT WAS
NEVER OBLIGAT ARE RRY IN THE
PAST.
THE COURT ASKED TO MAKE A
INCLUSION OF LAW AND STATE A
WHOLE SERIES OF THINGS IN
THE ORDER THAT WERE NEVER
OBLI TPW ATORY IN THE PAST.
>> IMUNDERSTAND THAT.
I I'M I'M JUST THINKING A
ABOUT THE PROCESS.
WITH THE JUDGES ON THE
COMMITTEE, I'M JUST
CONCERNED, AGAIN THAT THIS
IS STILL GOING TO END UP
BEING SOMETHING WHERE THIS
IS SUBMITTED ORDER AND THE
JUDGE JUST BECAUSE OF THE
NATURE OF THE WAY.
>> ULTIMATE I WILL I THINK
THE SUBCOMMITTEE FELT THAT
IF THERE WAS AGREEMENT OF
THE PARTIES AND THEY LAID
OUT THE DETAIL AND SUBMITTED
TO COURT THE COURT DIDN'T
HAVE THE OWN CONCERNS AND
QUESTIONS DIDN'T HAVE
REASONS TO BE BOTHERED BY
WHAT IS BEING ASKED TO DO.
IF AS IF THE HEARING HELD
WOULD BE PRO FORMA EXERCISE.
EVERYONE WOULD SHOW UP AND
SAY JUDGE WE AGREE WE
SUBMITTED OUR MOTION AND
INDICATED OUR REASON FOR
SEALING AND WHILE THE COURT
HAS PARTICULAR KWES WHICH IT
HAD THAT'S THE END OF THE
HEARING.
BY GIVING THE COURT
DISCRETION TO HOLD THE
HEARING WE ELIMINATE THAT
UNNECESSARY PROCEDURE BUT IN
CASES WHERE AGREEMENT OF THE
PARTIES AND EVEN ALL THESE
POINTS ARE LAID OUT IN THE
MOTION AND IN WRITING AND IN
DETAIL THE COURT HAS
QUESTIONS AND HAS CONCERNS
THE RULE GIVES THE JUDGE
FLEXIBILITY --
>> I THINK WHERE THE
QUESTION IS GOING ON THE
FRONT END ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE
IN THE NATURE OF AN
ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDING THAT
QUESTION IS NOT THE PRODUCT
ON ADVERSARIAL TESTIMONY.
I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE
QUESTION IS GOING.
IS THAT A CONCERN OF THE
COMMITTEE?
THAT I THINK THE UNDERLYING
QUESTION IS THIS CONCERN YOU
ARE FILL IN THE BLANKS AND
IT'S A BALL GAME AS BEFORE.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT IS
REALLY THE QUESTION.
>> YOU KNOW THE COMMITTEE
RECOGNIZED THAT NO RULE WILL
BE WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO BE
ABUSED.
AND HERE IF EVERYTHING YOU
ASK THE COURT -- IF WE MADE
HEARING OBLIGATORY I THINK
YOU WOULD HAVE THE PROBLEM.
THE COURT PREPARED THE SIGN
AND ORDER WITH OUT
CONSIDERATION FOR THE MOTION
AND WHAT'S WRITTEN ON THE
PIECE OF PAPER YOU MAY HAVE
ABUSE.
WE DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS A
BETTER WAY TO DO THAT IN IN
VAST MAJORITY OF CASES
THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
ONE OF OUR PRINCIPLES
UNDERLYING THE RULE IS THE
ASHUPL -- ASSUMPTION THE
COURT WILL NOT ENTER
DETAILED FINDING WITHOUT
HAVING EUFPB,,
>> THAT IS IMPORTANT.
I MEAN, THAT IS WHAT IS ON
THIS YOU SHALL SURE, ARE YOU
SAYING PRESENTLY WHEN YOU
LOOKED AT IT, THAT MOTIONS
ARE NOT BEING TRIALED TO
SEAL INFORMATION ON
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT, HOW
DOES THAT HAPPEN?
>> WELL, THE COMMITTEE AND
CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE TOOK DISCUSSIONS
THAT SOME OF THE INFORMATION
IS ALREADY CONFIDENTIAL.
I AM NOT A CRIMINAL
PRACTITIONER AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE DIDN'T GO INTO
THAT DETAIL WHEN IT WAS
DRAFTING THESE RULES.
>> MY QUESTION IS: IS THE
ADOPTION OF THE RULE GOING
TO COST OR CAST DUT ON THE
EXISTING PROPERTY?
>> I WOULDN'T THINK SO, YOUR
HONOR, AGAIN, BUS THIS RULE
IS SUBDIVISION THAT ONLY
APPLIES WHAT HAP HAPPEN TOS
IF STROU OUT OF YOUR WAY.
IF SOMETHING IS MADE
CONFIDENTIAL, THIS RULE WILL
NEVER COME UP, IT WILL NEVER
BE IMPLICATED BECAUSE
PROCEDURE WOULDN'T BE
NECESSARY ARE.
THAT WAS THE VIEW OF SOME
COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
>> OTHER THAN THE FIRST
PHRASE OF SUBDIVISION D 1
WHICH SAYS REQUEST TO SEAL
SHALL BE IN I WRITING AN
DIRECTED TO PRESIDING JUDGE,
THERE IS NO REAL INDICATION
IN YOUR PROPOSED RULE THAT
IT APPLIES ONLY TO
SUBDIVISION C 9 TO C 8 TYPES
OF CEILING, SHOULD THAT AT
LEAST BE AN ADDITIONAL
PROVISION THERE THAT SAYS
THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL APPLY
TO REQUEST MAINEDER SECTION
C 9.
>> WE FELT THAT GIVEN THE
STRUCTURE OF THE RULE, GIVEN
THE WAY THE LANGUAGE WE USE
TO IDENTIFY THIS IS HOW
FIRST SENTENCE THAT YOU JUST
QUOTED, THAT IT WOULD BE
CLEARED.
TO THE EXTENT YOUR HONOR
THOUGHT IT WASN'T, SRN LIT
MAY BE APPROPRIATE WHEN WE
INDICATE THE PURPOSE OF THIS
WAS DONE IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE WAS TO PROVIDE THAT
MECHANISM TO MAKE THAT
CLEAR, AGAIN, IF YOU READ
THROUGH THE RULE VERY
CLEARLY STATES UNDER C 8 AN
ELSEWHERE, THESE ARE
CONFIDENTIAL.
THEN IT SAY AS REQUEST TO
MAKE CONFIDENTIAL THE COURT
RECORD MUST BE DONE THE
FOLLOWING WAY, SO AGAIN, I
DON'T THINK THE SUBCOMMITTEE
FELT IT WAS NECESSARY TO DO,
THAT IF THERE WAS ANY
CONCLUSION, THEY WON A BE
APROPOSED TO KNOW WHY IT IS
HERE AN WHY WE'RE DOING
THAT.
THE SECOND ISSUE, YOUR
HONOR, WITH REGARD TO THE
CRIMINAL ASPECTS, HE
COMMITTEE FELT THAT EVEN IF
THE CONFIDENTIAL IN FORM ANT
INFORMATION IS NOT SEALED
AUTOMATICALLY BY OPERATION
OF LAW, THE PROCEDURE THAT
WE HAVE IDENTIFIED TAKES
INTO KEEP IT THE CONCERNS
THAT WERE RAISED BY THE
PROSECUTOR'S ASSOCIATION AND
THE DEFENDANT'S ASSOCIATION,
THAT IS THAT THE RULE DOES
NOT REQUIRE YOU TO PUT ANY
PARTICULAR INFORMATION IN
THE MOTION, IN FACT, BOTH
THE MOTION, THE ORDER ARE
SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED AS
STATING ONLY WITH AS MUCH
DETAIL AS IS POSSIBLE
WITHOUT REVEALING THE
CONFIDENCES THAT YOU ARE
ATTEMPTING TO AVOID, AGAIN,
THE CONCEPT HERE WAS TO
EJECT INTO FLEXIBILITY INTO
THE PROD PROCEDURE, WHEREBY
IF THERE IS SOMETHING YOU
CAN'T SAY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO
SAY IT.
THE COMMITTEE FELT AS RULE
AS WRITTEN PROVIDES ENOUGH
FLEXIBILITY TO DO THAT.
I THINK THE COMMITTEE WAS
CONCERNED WITH THE IDEA THAT
ALL CRIMINAL MATTERS ARE
EXCEPT FROM THE FILING FROM
THE MOTION AND THE ORDER
WHEN IN FACT THE CONCERN MAY
HAVE BEEN PARTICULARLY PARTS
OF MATTERS WITH REGARD TO
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS AND
MAYBE OVERBROAD APPROACH
DEALING WITH THAT CONCERN.
ALL RIGHT.
FINALLY, THE IDEA THAT THE
RULE AGAIN IS SOMEWHAT
FLEXIBLE, THE INITIAL MOTION
COULD BUY OPERATION OF THE
EXISTING RULE BE CONFIDENCE,
BECAUSE ON THE MOTION
ITSELF, YOU ASK THAT THE
MOTION BE CONFIDENTIAL, THEN
BY OPERATION OF THIS RULE
AUTOMATICALLY UPON THE
FILING IT WOULD BE, SO THE
FRONT END OF THAT CONCERN IS
ADDRESSED BY THE PROCEDURE.
THE BACK END, THE IDEA THE
ORDER WOULD BE CONFIDENTIAL
IS NOT.
IT CLEARLY STATES THE ORDER
IS TO BE MADE PUBLIC IF YOU
WERE CONCERNED ABOUT, THAT
THAT WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE IN
ORDER TO ADDRESS THE CONCERN.
>> WOULDN'T IF THERE IS SOME
NEED UNDER, IN SOME
ORGANIZED CRIME
INVESTIGATION OR SOME TYPE
OF INVESTIGATION OR REMAIN
CONFIDENTIAL THAT THERE IS
ANY COURT PROCEEDING AT ALL,
WOULD BE THIS RULE RUN INTO
A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
THERE WERE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE THAT WERE
CONCERNED.
IF THE STATE IS SUCH THAT BY
THE MERE FILING OF ANYTHING
IN A CRIMINAL CASE, YOU ARE
TIPPING OFF THE BAD GUY,
THEN, YES, OUR PROCEDURE
WOULD NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS
THAT, IF THAT WERE TRUE.
I DONE KNOW THAT TO BE TRUE
AGAIN.
OUR COMMITTEE WAS CLOSED TO
CIVIL PRACNITION NEXT, WE
WERE HESITANT TO STEP TOO
DEEP TRY THE CRIMINAL
ASPECTS.
WE WERE NOT FA THAT FAMILIAR
WITH IT.
BY THE COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE
IT WAS NECESSARY AND THOSE
CRIMINAL PRACTITIONERS FELT
YOU IT ADDRESSED IT.
THIS CONCERN IS WELL-TAKEN
IF IT IS TRUE BY NEAR FUTURE
OF THE FACT THAT ANYTHING
THAT HAS HAPPENED ON THE
ISSUE IN THE CASE IS
ADEQUATE TO TIPOFF THE
PEOPLE WHO ARE LOOKING.
>> OF COURSE, WE KNOW, THERE
HAS BEEN A GREAT DEBATE IN
THE FEDERAL LEVEL ABOUT THIS
TYPE.
>> AND SOME OF OUR THOUGHTS,
BUT THE COMMITTEE IS 100%
CONVINCED THAT IS CRUCIAL
ISSUE AN WE'RE ABSOLUTELY
CONCERNED THAT WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS ARE
PROTECTED AND OUR REACTIONS
TO THE PROPOSAL NOT OUT OF
DISRESPECT FOR THE CONDITION
TENT THEY COULD ADEQUATELY
ADDRESS IT, AGAIN, EVERYONE
AGREEED THIS WAS CRUCIAL
ISSUE, AGAIN, BY MERE
EXISTENCE OF ANY ORDER
DEALING WITH ANY
CONFIDENTIAL ASPECT
APPEARING; HOWEVER, OBLIQUE
THAT ORDER IS, THAT CONCERN
IN OF ITSELF AND THE RULE AS
WRITTEN WOULDN'T ADDRESS
THAT.
>> YOU SAID YOUR COMMITTEE
IS COMPRISED PRIMARILY OF
CIVIL PRACTITIONER, FIRST OF
ALL, THE COMMITTEE, I KNOW
THE COURT, YOU KNOW, THANKS
EVERYBODY FOR THE DILIGENT
WORK THAT WAS DONE, SO
ANYTHING I AM SAYING IS NOT
MEANT TO BE CRITICISM, BUT
WHEN YOU SAY THAT, I ASKED
YOU ABOUT ADOPTION, YOUR
CIVIL PRACTICE THAT DEALS
WITH FAMILY LAW, MY CONCERN
IS THAT IF WE DON'T LOOK AT
THIS AS FAR AS THIS HOW THIS
WOULD OPERATE IN EACH TYPE
OF, YOU KNOW, EACH OF THE
CASES THAT EXISTS, WE ARE
EITHER GOING TO BE OVERPROUD
OR OVER INCLUSIVE OR
UNDERINCLUSIVE, SO IT IS NOT
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE LOOK AT
WHAT IS OUT THERE WHICH WE
HAVE THAT REPORT FROM EACH
OF THE CIRCUITS AS TO WHAT
THE CASES WERE SUPER SEALED
BUT TO SEE THEN TO TAKE A
CIVIL CASE WHERE THERE HAS
BEEN A TRADE SECRET.
THAT IS ONE THING, THAT IS
SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AGAIN,
BUT WHEN IT GETS TO THE
OTHER AREAS THAT ARE JUSTICE
CANTERO SAID, MY CONCERN IS
THAT WE NOW MAY HAVE THE
SITUATIONS WHERE THOSE FILES
ARE EITHER, YOU KNOW, WE
NEED TO HAVE PROCEDURES FOR
THOSE FILES AS WELL.
YOU ARE SAYING DIDN'T REALLY
CONSIDER THOSE SEALED BY
OPERATION OF LAW.
WELL, WE DIDN'T ONLY BECAUSE
IN EFFECT, THERE IS NOTHING
TO BE DONE.
THOSE FIRES ARE DEEMED
CONFIDENTIAL.
THE RULE SAID, THE LAW OUT
THERE.
>> BUT I THINK SOME OF THE
ABUSE, NOT IN THE CRIMINAL
AREA, BUT SOME OF THE OTHER
AREAS CAME FROM CASES THAT
MIGHT HAVE BEEN CONFIDENTIAL
BY OPERATION OF LAW.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT HE TO
BE TRUE, YOUR HONOR.
AGAIN, OUR COMMITTEE SAT
DOWN, WE PRUNLD EAR FAIRLY
TIGHT SCHEDULE.
WE DECIDED WHAT WE WERE
GOING TO DO IS ESTABLISH A
PARTY COMES TO THE COURT TO
ASK THEM TO SEAL MY FILE, I
GOT DIVORCED I WANT IT OFF
THE PUBLIC RECORD, THIS IS
THE PROCEDURE.
>> CAN YOU ADDRESS THE
BURDEN OF PROOF WHEN WHEN
SOMEONE COMES IN THAT A
RECORD BE UNSEALED.
WHO SHOULD HAVE THE BURNED
OF PROOF INTHE PERSON
REQUESTING OR THE ORIGINAL
PARTY REQUESTING THE
SEALING?
>> THE COMMITTEE FELT THAT
THE ANSWER TO THAT IS THE
PARTY SAEK SEEKING TO UNSEAL
LIKE ANTICIPATE OTHER ORDER
ISSUED BY COURT, THERE BE A
PRESUMPTION OF VA VALIDITY
AS A RESULT OF THE SPREAD
DURE.
THE REASON THE POSITION WAS
WHAT WE THOUGHT TO BE APLAUED
ASSUMPTION, THAT IN FACT, IF
AN ORDER WAS ISSUED WITHOUT
HAVING PUBLIC NOTICE OR
WITHOUT HAVING A HEARING
AMONG PARTY, INADEQUATE
CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO
THE ORDER BUT BY ITS NATURE,
YOU CAN'T GIVE THAT ORDER
LIABILITY THAT YOU NORMALLY
WOULD BECAUSE THIRD PARTIES
WERE IN THE ALLOWED TO COME
TO PROCEEDING TO MAKE AN
ARGUMENT OR THERE WAS NOT AN
ORAL ARGUMENT INED A
ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDING.
THEY COMMITTEE FELT THERE IS
A HIGH BURDEN UNDER THE LAW
FOR MAKING THE RECORD
CONFIDENT, NOW, WE FEEL LIKE
WE CAN IMPOSE A HIGH BURDEN
PROCEED DRALLY AS WELL,
THERE IS A LOT OF HOOPS AS
YOU READ DETAILS OF A NEW
PROCEDURE, WE FELT IF AN
ORDER IS YOU SHALL ARE
ISSUED AS RESULT OF THAT
HIGH BURDEN PROCEED DRALLY,
THAT ORDER SHOULD BE IN THE
SAME CONCEPT OF
RELIABILITIES ON THE OTHER
JUDICIAL ORDER IF A THIRD
PARTY WANTS TO COME IN AND
CHALLENGE IT THEY SHOULD
HAVE BURDEN OF PROVING THERE
WAS SOMETHING WRONG.
>> TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION,
IN THE INITIAL DECISION-MAKING
PROCESS, YOU DON'T ARE THE
TRADITIONAL ADVERSARIAL
NATURE, IF IT IS AN AGRED
UPON, IF EVERYBODY IS
PRESENG IT TO THE JUDGE IN
THAT FASHION, WE HAVE NEVER
REALLY THRUSTS JUDICIAL
OFFICERS AS TO BECOME
INVOLVED IN THE ADVERSARIAL
NATURE, SO WE DON'T HAVE
ANOTHER SIDE TESTING IT, I
THINK THAT IS WHERE WE IS
GOING, WHERE THE CONCERN IS,
THEN AT THE TEND, AFTER IT
IS DONE, THEN SOMEBODY ELSE
HAS AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN, I
THINK THAT IS WHERE THE
QUESTION IS.
>>> THIS GETS INTO THE
ISSUE.
THEIR PROPOSAL WAS IN EFFECT
SOMETHING OF A COMPROMISE,
IF THE INITIAL ORDER RESULTS
AFTER THE PUBLIC NOTICE
BEING ISSUED.
AFTER ADVERSARIAL HEARING IT
SHOULD BE PRESUMED
RELIABILITY, IF SOMEBODY
WANTS TO CHALLENGE IT, THEN
IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
OUR COMMITTEE NEVER HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THAT.
THERE WAS THAT REPORT THAT
CAME OUT AFTER THE LAST
MEETING SO I CAN TELL YOU IS
HOW I FEEL AND HOW I FEEL
ABOUT IT, THAT IS, I THINK,
THERE IS TO EXTENT WERE YOU
LOOKING FOR THAT COMPROMISE,
YOU FEEL THERE WAS SOMETHING
UNRELIABLE ABOUT AN ORDER
ISSUE WITHOUT PUBLIC NOTICE,
THEN, THAT MAKES SOME SENSE
EXCEPT I WOULD DRAW THE LINE
IN A DIFFERENT PLACE.
I WOULDN'T SAY THAT IT WAS
NECESSARILY TO SHIFT
PRESUMPTION ONLY WHERE THERE
HAS NOT BEEN A HEARING AND
PUBLIC NOTICE, BUT RATHER,
WHERE THERE HAS NOT BEEN A
HEARING, I GAIN, THE FACT
THAT YOU BROUGHT IN
NON-PARTIES TO MAKE THE
ARGUMENT MEANS WHAT YOU ARE,
YOU HAVE ANOTHER PROPOTENT
OF OPENNESS COMING TO THE
PROCEED DOINGING, I IF I
THINK IF YOU ARE GOING TO
HAVE UNDERLYING ARGUMENT
EVEN WITHOUT THEM BEING
THIRD PARTY, YOU WILL HAVE A
PROPOR NENT OF OPENNESS,
THEIR CONCERN IS, THE ORDER
THAT ISSUES IS UNREABLE, NO
ONE IS TAKING A SIDE OF
PUBLIC OPENNESS, MAKING THAT
ARGUMENT FROM THE COURT.
THAT CONCERN IS ADDRESS FIRE
DEPARTMENT THERE IS A
HEARING BECAUSE NOW YOU GOT
BOTH SIDES PRESUMABLY ONE IS
IN FAVOR OF SEALING, ONE IN
THE FAVOR OF OPENNESS.
THE OTHER ONE HAS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER
THOSE ARGUMENTS THE FACT YOU
DIDN'T SEND TO THIRD PARTIES
WHO CAN COME IN, ALSO, NOT
REPRESENTING PARTIES TO THE
CASE, MINE YOU, BUT JUST THE
CONSENT OF OPENNESS.
IT DOESN'T STRIKE ME THAT
WOULD YOU NEED TO SATISFY
THAT IT HAPPENED, AGAIN, IN
MOST CASES, IT IS NOT GOING
TO BE NECESSARY TO ISSUE
PUBLIC NFERTS AFTER THE SEAL
OF ASPECT OF THE RECORDS.
>> IF THEY COMMITTEE REALLY
CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT
THERE SHOULD BE PUBLIC
NOTICE AT THE BEGINNING?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> WHAT WAS THE REAL REASON?
IT SEEMS TO ME, IF WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT OPEN
GOVERNMENT AND THE PEOPLE'S
RIGHT TO ACCESS THE PUBLIC
RECORD, WHY NOT AT THE VERY
BEGINNING, YOU KNOW, GIVE
PUBLIC NOTICE WHEN SOMEONE
WANTS TO SEAL A RECORD THAT
IS NOT OTHERWISE ALREADY
CONFIDENTIAL.
>> TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION,
YOUR HONOR, THE COMMITTEE
PROBABLY ADDRESSED THAT
QUESTION IN EVERY
SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, THERE
WERE A HALF DOZEN OF THEM.
THAT ISSUE CAME UP AGAIN AND
AGAIN BECAUSE WE THOUGHT
THAT WAS THE REAL
BATTLEGROUND HERE.
ANY EFFORT TO SEAL ANSWER
ASPECT OF THE FILES FESSARY.
WE DISCUSSED IT AGAIN AND
AGAIN.
THE COMMITTEE 10 TO 1, 9 TO
1, 12 TO 1 GENING ON WHO WAS
THE CALL FELT THAT WAS
UNNECESSARY.
FIRST OF ALL, THERE IS
ALREADY AN EXISTING CONCEPT
UNDER THE RULES.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE 1998
AMENDMENT, THIS DECISION IS
EFFECTING THE EXISTING
RULES.
IT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT
PUBLIC NOTICE IS NOT
NECESSARY, IT IS NO LEGALLY
REQUIRED CAN PROPOSE A GREAT
BURDEN.
AS A RESULT, THEY THOUGHT IT
WAS A COME BER SOME
PROCEDURE, THAT BATTLE WAS
FOUGHT.
THEN, WHEN WE BROUGHT IT UP
AGAIN, THE PARTIES FELT THAT
MOST CASES IT WAS NOT
NECESSARY.
IN MOST CASES, YOU WILL BE
IMPOSING A BURNED ON PEOPLE
WHO DIDN'T NEED A BURDEN
OVER A COMMON VARIETY OF
THINGS, ALSO, I THINK,
THERES WITH A CONCERN THAT
BY THE SAME TOKEN THAT BE
PERMISSIBLE, THAT THE COURT
WOULD BE ALLOWED EX-POLICEBLY
IN THE RULE TO BE ALLOWED TO
POST PUBLIC NOTICE WHERE THE
REQUEST WARRANTED IT, SO THE
COMMITTEE BUILT THAT IN TO
NEXT POLICE SIT VEXABILITY
FOR THE REPORT TO DO IT BUT
NOT TO MAKE IT OBLIGATORY
KEEPING INTRADIGS OF THE LAW
OF THE PRIOR RULE HAVING
BEEN CONSIDERED NOT MAKE IT
OH BLIT GA TORY AND THE
OVERWHELMING VIEW THAT THAT
NOT BE NECESSARY THAT YOU
NOT BE REQUIRED TO POST
PUBLIC NOTICE.
>> IS THERE PROCEED UNDER
THE OTHER SUBDIVISION AND
THE ONES BEFORE WHERE A
NON-PARTY SEEKS TO UNSEAL A
COURT RECORD THAT IS SEALED
BY OPERATION OF LAW, THE
ARGUMENT MAY BE THIS DOES
NOT FALL UNDER THAT STATUTE.
>> TO MY KNOWLEDGE, YOUR
HONOR, NO PROCEDURE ANYWHERE
FROM THAT CHALLENGE, IT
WOULD BE GOFF PERSON TOED BY
INTERVENERS OR OTHER
EXISTING LAW.
IT WAS OUR GOAL TO
SPECIFICALLY COD FY THE
PROCEDURES TO ALLOW A
CALENDAR TO COME IN.
ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD
LIKE TO SAY, WHEN THIS
INITIAL PROPOSAL WAS MADE
PUBLIC AN PUBLISHED FOR COME
MEN TARRY, THEY WERE
FAVORABLE BECAUSE THE MEDIA
WAS PLEASED TO SEE ALL OF
THE SAFE CARDS WE IMPOSED IN
A WORLD WHERE THEY HAD BEEN
DONE.
THE FACT WE COD FY THE
ACCOUNT OR MADE IT CLEAR
THAT SOMEBODY CAN COME IN
AND CHALLENGE THE FACT WE
CAN SPECIFICALLY COD FY THE
CONCEPT UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES NOTICE TO THE
PUBLIC WOULD OUT.
>> AGAIN, UNDER YOUR
PROPOSAL.
THIS WOULD APPLY TO C 9 WE
WOULD BE LEFT WITHOUT ANY
KIND OF PROCEDURE FOR THE
OTHER KINDS OF SEALINGS.
>> AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, THAT
IS NOT BECAUSE OUR COMMITTEE
LOOKED AT THE WHOLE ROOL
RULE GIVEN THE RATHER
LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME
AVAILABLE US TO, WHAT CAN WE
DO IN SIX WEEKS THAT IS
USEFUL TO LITIGANTS IN THE
STATE?
THAT WHAT IS IS WHAT WE DID.
>> I REALIZE YOU ARE IN YOUR
REBUTTAL, YOU BROUGHT UP
SOMETHING THAT I WANTED TO
ASK YOU ABOUT.
THE COURT CLERKS, I MEAN,
SOME ISSUES THAT OCCURRED
CAME, THINK, BECAUSE MAYBE
THERE WAS MISCOMMUNICATION
ABOUT WHAT THE ORDER MEANT
OF THE TRIAL JUDGE.
THEY, THE COURT CLERKS ASKED
THAT THERE BE PROCEDURE
CLERK CLARIFICATION OF ORDER
MAKING COURT RAILROADEDS
CONFIDENTIAL, YOU CONCLUDED
THAT THERE WAS NOT A NEED
FOR THAT, BUT THE RULE
DOESN'T BAR A CLERK FROM
SEEKING CLARIFICATION
WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A
MOTION OR NOTICE.
ISN'T IT BETTER TO HAVE A
PROCEDURE?
IN OTHER WORDS, RATHER THAN
SAYING, YOU ARE GOING TO
HAVE THE CLERK TALK TO THE
JUDGE ABOUT WHAT DID YOU
MEAN BY THIS?
WOULDN'T IT BE BETTER TO
HAVE AN OPEN PROCEDURE FOR
THE CLERK TO SAY, DID YOU
MEAN THIS OR THAT?
YOU KNOW, JUST SOMETHING
THAT IS THEN OF RECORD?
>> YOUR HONOR, WE DIDN'T
DISCUSS THAT AT LENGTH.
FOR TWO REASON, WE ARE
RESPONSIBLE NOT TO ACCEPT
THAT.
ONE THAT IS WE DIDN'T THINK
IT WAS NECESSARY.
TWO IS, WE THOUGHT THERE WAS
SOMETHING ACTUALLY BAD ABOUT
REQUIRING IT.
TO DRES THE NECESSARY
ASPECT.
ONE OF THE REASONS, ONE OF
THE THINGS REPORTED BACK AS
TO WHY IT WAS HAPPENING, A
LACK OF COMMUNICATION, THE
ORDER WAS DETAILED TO CONVEY
THE CONFUSION, THAT IS THE
REASON WE HEARD, THESE TWO
BECAUSE IN FACT THE CLERK
WAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT
GUIDANCE, OUR PROPOSED RULE
MAKES IT EX PLESS SIT WHAT
NEEDS TO BE IN THAT ORDER BY
ADDING DETAIL, WE WERE
HOPEFUL THAT ALL OF THE
CONFUSION WOULD BE
ANTICIPATED BECAUSE MORE WE
CAN THINK OF TO TELL THE
CLERK IN TERMS HOW YOU YOU
GO ABOUT SEALING IT.
WE DIDN'T FEEL IT WAS
NECESSARY, BUT AT THE SAME
TOKEN, THERE WAS CONCERN ON
THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
AMONG THE JUDGES TO
ESTABLISH THIS PROCEDURE,
YOU GOT TO FILE A MOTION,
THEY GOT TO GIVE NOTICE.
IN EFFECT, CREATE THE WHOLE
LEVEL OF PROCEDURE IN ORDER
TO GET WHAT MAY HAVE BEEN TO
GET A SIMPLE QUESTION
ANSWERED.
YOU ARE IMPOSING A HUGE
BURDEN.
D, YOU MAY IN EFFECT CHILL
THE QUESTION IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE.
LOOK, I WILL NOT FILE A
MOTION.
ABSOLUTELY BY THE SAME TOKEN,
THE COURT FELT IF THEY GOT
THE ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE IN
THE COURT ORDER THAT WE WERE
PROPOSING THEN THE INFORMAL
LINES OF COME HUN CASE,
ULTIMATELY TO REQUIRE EVERY
CLERK UNDER EVERY
CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE THERE IS
A QUESTION, IT IS GOING TO
BURDEN THE LITIGANTS.
SO AGAIN, THE CONCERN WAS
THAT THAT RULE WASN'T ONLY
UNNECESSARY BUT WAS NOT A
GOOD IDEA BECAUSE WE HAVE A
CHILLING EFFECT AND IMPOSE A
HUGE DEGREE OF BURDENEN IN
THE STIM.
>> WITH OUR HELP, YOU HAVE
ALMOST EXHAUSTED YOUR
REBUTTAL TIME.
>> THANK YOU.
>> OKAY.
>> GOOD MORNING, JUSTICE,
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT? I
MY NAME IS CAROL TOUHY.
I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF
REPRESENTING DIANE MATOUSEK
IN VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA,
I WOULD LIKE TO FIRST
ADDRESS ONE OF THE COMMENTS
THAT JUSTICE PARIENTE MADE
IN REGARD TO THE CLERK BEING
IN SUPPORT OF THE RULE AS IT
SPANS WITH THE RULES
COMMITTEE.
THE FACC, THE FLORIDA
ASSOCIATION OF COURT CLERKS
NEVER CONTACTED OUR OFFICE
IN REGARD TO THESE CHANGE,
ONCE WE RECEIVED THE REPORT
ARE THE RULES COMMITTEE,
PROPOSING THESE CHANGES WE
IMMEDIATELY CONTACTED FACC
TO EXPRESS THE TWO CONCERNS
THAT I AM GOING TO BE
ADDRESSING HERE BEFORE YOU
TODAY AND THE FACC BASICALLY
TOLD US THAT THEY HAD
ESTABLISHED A GOOD
RELATIONSHIP WITH THIS COURT
ARE PE RULES COMMITTEE, THAT
THEY WERE EMBARRASSED TO BE
ABLE TO COME BACK AND AMEND
OR REVISE THEIR PROPOSALS
THAT THEY SENT.
>> YOUR COMMENTS WILL NOT
DESTROY THAT RELATIONSHIP?
>> WE ARE STILL WORKING
TOGETHER TO TRY TO GET THIS
RESOLVED.
PLEASE, GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THE FIRST SECTION THAT WE
HAVE ISSUES WITH ARE D 1 B
IN WHICH WHEN THE RECORD IS
FILED THAT THE CLERK IS TO
TREAT IT AS CONFIDENTIAL ONE
OF THE ISSUES WE HAVE WITH
THAT IS IT DOES IMPOSE A
BURNED ON OUR OFFICE BECAUSE
A PLACE HOLDER WOULD HAVE TO
BE PUT IN THE FILE BASICALLY
SAYING, YES, DOCUMENT 44 IS
MISSING BECAUSE IT IS PENING
THIS MOTION FOR
CONFIDENTIALITY.
AND ALSO IF YOU LOOK AT
SECTION NUMBER 22 IN THAT.
IT PROSIDES THAT THE
HEARINGS FROM THESE THINGS
WOULD BE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
OTT ONLY THAT, BUT IT GIVES
THE TRIAL JUDGE DIGRESSION
TO ACTUALLY HAVE A PUBLIC
NOTICE GIVEN BEFORE THE
HEARING, SO ACTUALLY, WHAT
IT IS DOING IS SAYING, OKAY,
WE'LL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING,
WE CAN POTENTIALLY HAVE
NOTICE OF THIS PUBLIC
HEARING ON THIS CONFIDENTIAL
DOCUMENT BUT THE ONLY PERSON
RIGHT NOW WHO IS ACTUALLY
REQUIRED TO KEEP IT
CONFIDENTIAL IS THE CLARK'S
OFFICES.
WE DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT
CAN WORK.
IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE
PUBLIC HEARING ON
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT.
THEREFORE, IT SEEMS LIKE IT
WOULD BE BETTER COVERED
UNDER SOMETHING LIKE THE
DISCOVERY RULES IN WHICH
SOMEONE REQUEST AN IN-CAMERA
HEARING ON THIS
CONFIDENTIALITY AND THE
DOCUMENT ITSELF.
AND THAT WAY IT WON'T BE
GOING INTO A FILE IN A
SEALED ENVELOPE AND THERE
WILL NOT BE A PLACE HOLDER
AN ALSO IT WON BE SCANNED
INTO OUR SYSTEM WHICH WOULD
REQUIRE THE INTELLECTUAL
TECHNOLOGY PO PEOPLE TO GET
INVOLVED ALSO IF IT WERE NOT
FOUND TO BE CONFIDENTIAL.
>> LET ME ASK YOU A
QUESTION:
ON THE BURDEN OPINION, HOW
COMMON IS THIS FROM YOUR
KRRK'S EXPERIENCE THAT THE
MOTIONS WERE FILED?
>> WELL THE MOTIONS RIGHT
NOW ARE JUST BEING UNDER
THIS RULE.
WE PRETTY MUCH DON'T HAVE
MOTION FORCE CONFIDENTIALITY
UNLESS OF COURSE IT IS
SOMETHING UNDER DISCOVERY IN
WHICH SOMEONE WOULD FILE A
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT THEN
IT WOULD BE IMMEDIATELY
HEARD BY THE COURT THEN THEY
WOULD MAKE THE DETERMINATION
AS TO WHETHER SOMETHING WAS
DISCOVERABLE, BUT RATING
NOW, THERE IS NOT ANYTHING
THAT WOULD EXCEPT FOR THIS
PROPOSED RULE THAT WOULD
EFFECT OUR OFFICE.
>> IS THE CLERK IN ANY
POSITION TO KNOW HOW MANY OF
THESE ARE BEING FILED OR
WOULD BE FILED?
IN OTHER WORDS, HOW WOULD
THE CLERK'S OFFICE KNOW?
>> WE HAVE NO IDEA HOW MANY
MAY BE FILED BUT THE ISSUE
IS YOU, I BELIEVE, ONE OF
THE OTHER PARTICIPANTS,
MR. FOUNTAIN, HAD EXPRESSED
IN HIS COMMENTS, THAT THERE
COULD BE A POTENTIAL FOR
FRIVOLOUS FILINGS OF THIS
NATURE, IN ORDER TO HOLD UP
PROCEED DOOLINGS OF THINGS
OF THAT NI TURE.
WE THINK OF PROSPECT FOR
THESE MOTIONSS BEING FILED
MAY BE QUITE HEAVY.
>> SO WHAT US THE CLERK'S
PROPOSAL THEN?
IT SEEMS TO ME, IF YOU ARE
NOT GOING TO HAVE
CONFIDENTIAL, ONCE THE
MOTION IS FILED, THEN IT IS
SORT OF MAKES THE MOTION.
>> WELL, WHAT WE WOULD STATE
IS IF A PARTY --
>> WE WOULD STATE IF A PARTY
BELIEVE AS DOUM IS OF
CONFIDENTIAL, IF THEY SHOULD
HAVE HEARING PRIOR TO THE
FILING OF THAT RECORD IF
THEY DON'T DO IT, IF THEY
FILE THAT RECORD, IT BECOMES
PUBLIC RECORD THE SECOND IT
BASICALLY HITS OUR PHYSICAL
FILE AND OUR SCANNED
DOCUMENTS AND IF THEY FILE A
MOTION A WEEK LATER, THIS
DOCUMENT COULD HAVE BEEN
DISCOVERED DURING THAT WEEK.
>> YOU ARE REALLY TALKING
ABOUT GOING BACK.
WE WOULD BE HAVING CLOSED
HEARINGS TO DETERMINE DP THE
DOCUMENT IS CONFIDENTIAL?
>> WELL, WHAT WE ARE
BASICALLY SAYING IS WE
BELIEVE THIS RULE PUTS THE
CART BEFORE THE HORSE.
AND THAT IF A DOCUMENT IS
CONFIDENTIAL, IT SHOULD BE
DETERMINED BY THE COURT THAT
IT IS CONFIDENTIAL BEFORE
PIT IS EVEN FILED WITH OUR
OFFICE.
>> ISN'T THAT A PROBLEM OF
THE LITIGANTS THAT IS THAT
THE LITIGANTS ARE AWARE OF
THE FACT THAT SOMETHING IS
GOING TO BE A PUBLIC RECORD
FOR A PERIOD OF TIME BEFORE
THEY HAVE IT DECLARED
CONFIDENTIAL.
THAT IS THEIR PROBLEM, IS IT
NOT.
>> YES, THAT IS THEIR
PROBLEM.
>> ANSWER DISTINCTLY AS
POSSIBLE BECAUSE YOU ARE
BEYOND YOUR TIME.
>> BECAUSE OF THE MOTION, I
AM SORRY.
BECAUSE OF THE MOTION, ONCE
THEY FILE THAT MOTION, WE
HAVE TREAT IT AS CONFIDENCE,
SO WE WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE
THAT DOCUMENT FROM THE FILE
AN PUT IN THAT PLACE HOLDER
AND GO THROUGH THE CHANGES
THAT WOULD BE LABOR
INTENSETIVE AS WELL AS
TAKING IT OFF THE SCANNED
DOCUMENTS AND THINGS OF THAT
NATURE.
THE OTHER CONCERN WE HAD,
WILL ADDRESS IT QUICKLY, THE
NOTICE REQUIREMENT, AFTER
THE ORDER COMES OUT, THAT WE
ARE REQUIRED TO GIVE THE
NOTICE, THE RULES COMMITTEE
SAID THEY CONSIDERED THE
COST AND EXPENSIVE SOMETHING
LIKE THIS AND WE BELIEVE IT
WOULD BE MORE COST YOULY AN
EXPENSIVE ON OUR OFFICE TO
PROVIDE THIS NOTICE ON OUR
WEB SITE AN HIGHLY
ACCESSIBLE THROUGH OUR
COURTHOUSE RATHER THAN
HAVING THE LITIGANT
THEMSELVES THE COST OF THIS
KIND OF NOTICE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MR. KEEN?
>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT
MY NAME IS HAMPTON KEEP, AIM
APPEARING INDIVIDUALLY ON
BEHALF OF DON FOUNTAIN AND
MY LAW FIRM LYTAL, ARE
EITER, CLARK, FOUNTAIN AND
WILLIAMS.
WE OPPOSE TO RULE 2.240 AS
IT RELATES TO HANDLING OF
ALLEGED TRADE SECRETS FOUND
IN SUBSECTION C 9 A 2
BECAUSE THE PROPOSED RULES
WILL RESULT IN A HUGE AMOUNT
OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL TIME
AND USE OF JUDICIAL
RESOURCES AND VIRTUALLY
EVERY SINGLE PRODUCT
LIABILITY CASE.
>> IT IS DONE TO SATISFY
YOUR CONCERN?
>> TO SATISFY OUR CONCERNS,
YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD SUBMIT
THE COMMITTEE DO SEVERAL
THINGS.
ONE, YOU COULD OMIT TRADE
SECRETS FROM THE RULES AND
JUST TAKE THAT OUT OF THIS
CONTEXT, BUT WHAT WE WOULD
SUGGEST, YOUR HONOR, IS A
BETTER WAY, AN OPPORTUNITY
TO STREAM LINE THE DISCOVERY
PROCEDURE IN TRADE SECRET
CASES.
WE WOULD SUGGEST TO THE
COURT SEVERAL THINGS --
FIRST, THAT THE THERE BE A
STRINGENT RULE DEFINING WHAT
IS A TRADE SECRET.
AND UNDER THAT DEFINITION,
IF IT IS FOUND TO BE
VIOLATED AND THAT SOMEBODY
HAS PROPORTED A TRADE SEC
CENT BAD FAITH THAT NOT ONLY
THE CORPORATION BE
SANCTIONED OR PROPORTING AN
ALLEGED BAD TRADE SECRET BUT
TWO, THE LAWYER WHO GOES
ALONG WITH THAT ALSO BE
SANCTIONED.
>> YOU ARE GETTING INTO SOME
REAL SUBSTANTIALIVE
ANALYSIS.
>> YES, SIR.
I APOLOGIZE, I WAS READY FOR
THE QUESTION, BUT TO GET
BACKING INTO WHAT WE BELIEVE
IS A PANDORA'S BOX HERE IS
THAT THERE ARE GRAVE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES IF
THIS RULE IS PASSED.
WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN
BASED ON OUR 30 YEARS OF
LITIGATING PRODUCT LIABILITY
CASES, ANY RELEVANT DOCUMENT
THAT MAY BE ADVERSE TO THE
CORPORATION WILL BE DEEMED A
TRADE SECRET.
ONCE IT IS DEEMED A TRADE
SECRET, PROCEDURES THAT THE
PETITIONER HAS ALREADY SAID
A LOT OF HOOPS TO JUMP
THROUGH WILL BE IMPLY
INDICATED.
THAT WILL PERMIT THE
CORPORATION TO DELAY THE
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
UNTIL A HEARING YOU HAS BEEN
HAD ON THE DOCUMENT.
>> DO WE HAVE PROCEDURE FOR
THIS?
>> THE PROBLEM WITH THE
EXPEDITED PROCEDURE FOR
THIS, YOUR HONOR, FROM A
FACTFUL STANDPOINT, IT WILL
NEVER WORK.
RIGHT NOW IN THE 15th SIR
CURT, THE 11th CIRCUIT, THE
13th CIRCUIT, SEVERAL OTHER
CIRCUITS WHERE I PRACTICE
ROUTINELY TO GET A ONE-HOUR
SPECIAL SET HEARING WHICH IS
A TYPE OF HEARING AT A
MINIMUM, WOULD YOU NEED TO
RESOLVE A TRADE SECRET ISSUE
THAT THOSE HEARINGS CANNOT
BE SAID FOR 60 TO 90 DAYS.
>> WHAT DO YOU DO ON THE
DISCOVERY PROCESS IF THEY
CLAIM IT IS TRADE SECRET?
>> WHAT HAPPENS NOW, YOUR
HONOR, TYPICALLY, WE'LL FILE
A MOTION TO COMPEL, THEN,
WE'LL GO BEFORE THE COURT,
WE'LL SAY, YOUR HONOR, WE
CAN DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT
THE TRADE SECRETS LATER, IF
WE AGREE RIGHT NOW TO KEEP
THEM CONFIDENTIAL AND ONLY
SHARE THESE DOCUMENTS TO OUR
EXPERTS, WILL YOU LET US
HAVE THE DOCUMENTS IN THE
DEFENDANTS TYPICALLY WILL
REFUSE DO THAT UNLESS THE
COURT ORDERS IT, BUT THE
GOOD THING RIGHT NOW, AT
LEAST CAN I DO THAT AT A
HEARING AT 5 OR 10-MINUTE
HEARING TO GET IN BEFORE THE
COURT BECAUSE THE NAME OF
THE GYM ON THE CORPORATIONS
IS DELAY.
THEY WILL USE THIS RULE, THE
CORPORATE AMERICA AND THE
FOREIGN CORPORATIONS WILL
ABUSE THIS RULE, BUT NOT
SANCTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE
COURT?
SPECIFICALLY IN THE RULE?
>> THERE ARE IN THIS
PROPOSED RULE, BUT QUITE DAN
DIDDLEY, YOUR HONOR, THE
SANCTIONS ARE LAUGHABLE.
BECAUSE CORPORATE AMERICA
WILL GLADLY PAY A 2 OR
10,000 FINE INSTEAD OF
TURNING OVER THE DOCUMENT
THAT MAY CAUSE THEM MILLIONS
AS THAT DOCUMENT BECOMES
PUBLIC.
AND SOP WE BELIEVE THE RULE,
ALTHOUGH, IT MAY HAVE GOOD
INTENTIONS THE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES ARE SO GRAVE
THAT THEY WILL BE ABUSED BY
THE CORPORATIONS AND THE
PRODUCT LIABILITY REALM IN
ANY TRADE SECRET REALM SO WE
OPPOSE IT, YOUR HONOR.
>> WE UNDERSTAND IT WAS NOT
DESIGNED FOR THESE KINDS OF
ISSUES THAT IS NOT WHAT WE
ARE REALLY TALKING ABOUT?
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT
TO OUR ATTENTION, YOUR
HONOR.
>> YES, YOUR HONOR.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OKAY.
MISS LOCICERO.
>> YES, MISS CAROL LOCICERO
ON BOW HALF OF TELEVISION AN
NEWSPAPERS IN FLORIDA.
BECAUSE WE DEAL OFTEN WITH
THE MOTIONS TO SEAL, I THINK
IT MAY BE HELPFUL IF GOY
THROUGH THE PROCESS OF AT
LEAST OUR EXPERIENCE IN HOW
THIS NORMALLY OCCURS.
NORMALLY THERE IS A MOTION
TO SEAL FILES AND PERMITTED
UNDER THE RULE AN UNDER THE
CASE LAW PRIOR TO ANYTHING
THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS DONE,
SO THIS HAS BEEN SOMETHING
THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR
DECADES.
THE MOTION NORMALLY DOES NOT
SPECIFICALLY LAYOUT IN GREAT
DETAIL EXACTLY WHAT THE
REASON FOR CLOSURE IS AND WE
ARE OFTEN ARGUING IN THE
BLIND WHEN WE GO IN
REPRESENTING THE MEDIA ON
OPPOSING A MOTION TO SEAL.
OFTEN, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE
PARTIES ARE SAVVY OR IN HIGH-
PROFILE CASE WHICH US THE
KINDS OF CASES THAT NORMALLY
DRAW THE MEDIA TO PR PIS
TATE IN THESE PROCEED
DOOTION IN THE FIRST PLACE,
THAT UNDERLYING DOCUMENT IS
NOT YET FILED, SO IT IS NOT
IN THE COURT FILE.
BUT OFTEN WHAT DOES HAP PINS
THE COURT WILL HAVE AN IN-CAMERA
REVIEW WITHOUT THE PARTIES
PRESENT, SO THERE ARE NOT EX
PARTE PROCEED DOING ISSUE,
THE COURT IN CHAMBERS WILL
REVIEW THE DOCUMENT SUBMIT
IT ON THE HEARING.
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT
AFTER THE HEARING, THE
HEARING ARGUMENTS OF
COUNSEL, WHATEVER IS
PRESENTED IN THE MOTION,
LOOKING AT THE UNDERLYING
RECORD ITSELF, WHETHER THERE
IS A BASIS UNDER BARREN OR
LEWIS FOR SEALING THE
RECORD.
I THINK THE UNIVERSE OF
CASES THAT ARE FILED, THE
UNIVERSE OF CASES WHERE
MOTIONS TO SEAL ARE FILED
MUCH, MUCH SMALLER, THEN THE
UNIVERSE OF CASES WHERE TO
MOTIONS TO VACATE ARE FILED
AFTER CLOSURE ORDER IS IN
ENTERED IS EXTREMELY TINY, I
MEAN, OUR FIRM FILES MAYBE
ONE SUCH MOTION TO VACATE
EVERY COUPLE OF YEARS.
IT IS NOT A HUGE BURDEN TON
HAVE A HEARING ON THOSE
MOTIONS TO VACATE.
WITH RESPECT TOP THE
PROPOSED RULE ITSELF, WE
BELIEVE THAT THE RULE DOES A
LOT TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM
WITH CLERK'S OFFICES NOT
UNDERSTANDING WHAT WAS
CLOSED WHICH WAS A BIG
PROBLEM WITH THE SUPER
SEALERS IN OUR STATE.
BUT OUR CONCERN IS A CONCERN
THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED THIS
MORNING ABOUT AGREED
MOTIONS, THAT ARE NOT TESTED
BY HEARING WHERE THERE IS
NOT PUBLIC NOTICE AND WHERE
THERE IS A CLOSURE ORDER
ENTERED, THAT WE DON'T
BELIEVE THAT THAT KIND OF A
PROSPECT HONORS LEWIS OR
BARRON WHICH PUT AS HEAVY
BURDEN ON THE PROPOTENT OF
CLOSURE IN TO OBTAIN CLOSURE
ORDER.
>> BUT I YOU HAVE SAY RIGHT
NEW COULD HAPPEN?
YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT,
WHAT I AM HEARING, THE
PROBLEM OCCURRED BECAUSE IN
SOME SITUATION, THE CLERK'S
OFFICE WAS SEALING MORE THAN
NECESSARY, BUNDLER THE
PRESENT RULES AND AGREED
UPON ORDER COULD BE
SUBMITTED SO HOW IS IT,
ISN'T IT AN IMPROVEMENT FROM
WHAT EXISTED?
>> WELL, IT COULD HAPPEN.
DON'T KNOW THAT, I AM NOT
CONVINCED IT IS AN YOU
IMPROVEMENT BECAUSE IT
REALLY JUST KIND OF CODIFIES
THE SAME PROCESS THAT LED TO
PROBLEMS OCCURRING IN THE
FUTURE.
YES, THE ORDER MAY BE UNDER
THE RULE, UNDER THE PROPOSED
RULE MAY BE MORE DETAILED,
BUT AGAIN, WE ARE CONCERNED
THAT IT IS ALMOST A
BLUEPRINT FOR SAYING HOW TO
CLOSE, CLOSE THE ORDER WITH
PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS,
WHEN IN FACT, THERE HAS
NEVER BEEN A TESTING IN THE
FIRST PLACE, TO SAY THE
PARTIES CAN DO THAT, THAT
THIRD PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
ARE NOT AS IMPORTANT ON
CLOSING ISSUES THAT THE SORT
OF UNDERLYING PRESUMPTION, I
BELIEVE, OF THE COMMITTEE,
IGNORES THE STRICT STANDARDS
OF LEWIS AN BARRON ON THE
FACT THAT THE MEDIA HAS
OFTEN SERVED AS A SURROGATE
FOR THE PUBLIC, THE MEDIA IS
OF CONTINUE THE ONE THAT IS
MOST VERSED IN THE CASE LAW
RELEVANT TO THESE CLOSURE
ISSUE AND WILL PRESENT THE
SHURBS ISSUES OF THE PUBLIC
UNDER THE CASE LAW AND ALL
LIKELIHOOD MORE EFFECTIVELY
THAN THE PARTIES THAT JUST
ROUTINELY NOT BECAUSE THEY
DON'T WANT TO BUT THEY DON'T
DEAL WITH THESE ISSUES AS
MUCH AS THE MEDIA DO.
>> WHAT IS YOUR PROPOSAL FOR
PUBLIC NOTICE?
>> YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE TRIED
TO BE REASONABLE EVEN THOUGH
WE'RE NOT OFTEN PERCEIVED AS
BEING REASONABLE.
WE WROTE THE COMMITTEE ABOUT
PUBLIC AND OUR CONCERNS
ABOUT PUBLIC NOTICE WHEN WE
GOT DOWN TO FILING THE
COMMENT.
WE ATTEMPTED TO PROPOSE A
SYSTEM THAT WAS NOT
PRACTICAL, WE DID NOT ACT SK
FOR PRIOR PUBLIC NOTICE ON
EVERY MOTION TO SEAL AND
PERFECT WORLD, WE WOULD, OF
COURSE, HAVE, THAT WE ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT THE PUBLIC
NOTICE PROVISIONS IN THE
RULE BECAUSE WE DON'T THINK
THEY GO FAR ENOUGH.
THEY SHOULD, THAT WHEN A
CLOSURE ORDER IS EN ENTERED
IT SHOULD BE UP LONGER ON
THE COURT'S WEB SITE AND WE
PROPOSE THAT THERE BE A LINK
SIMILAR TO THE COURT'S HOME
PAGE THAT GETS YOU FROM THE
HOME PAGE INTO THE RISK OF
CLOSURE ORDERS TENERED TO SO
YOU CAN FINE THOSE ORDERS
MORE EASILY THAN TRYING TO
GO BACK TO SEARCH
INDIVIDUALLY IN A CASE
ALTHOUGH THEY SHOULD
OBVIOUSLY BE IN PROGRESS
DOCKET FOR INDIVIDUAL CASE,
BUT WE HAVEN'T PUSHED HARD
FOR PRIOR PUBLIC NOTICE THAT
WE THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT,
WE TRY TO, OUR PROPOSED RULE
ASKS FOR THE HEARING SHOULD
BE CONDUCTED BEFORE IN ALL
CASES BEFORE THE MOTIONS TO
SEAL ARE GRANTED, BUT OUR
PRIMARY CONCERN HAS BEEN THE
GOOD CAUSE STANDARD THAT IS
IMPOSED AS CLOSURE ORDERS
ARE ENTERED AND THE BURDEN
OF PROOF, OFTEN, IT IS ON
THE MOTION TO VACATION WHERE
THE FIRST TRUE TESTING OF
WHETHER A CLOSURES
APPROPRIATE OCCURS.
>> WOULD YOU TELL EXACTLY
WHAT IT THAT IS YOU WANT.
YOU
>> FOR NOTICE?
>> WHAT ONE SENTENCE WOULD
YOU SAY YOU WANT ADED TO TO
RULE THAT PROTECTS AS YOU
HAVE REQUESTED?
>> WELL, THE DE NOVO
HEARINGS ON MOTIONS TO
VACATE, THE BURDEN OF PROOF,
WE ASKED FOR EXPEDITED
HEARING PROVISIONS WHICH WE
THINK WOULD HELP A LOT.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>> MR. MORRISON.
>> GOOD MORNING.
>> GOOD MORNING.
ON BEHALF OF THE COURT OF
PUBLIC DEFERNL, PLEASURE TO
BE BACK BEFORE THE COURT.
THE ASSOCIATION IS ONE OF
THE FEW ORGANIZERS THAT HAVE
CLIENT ON BOTH SIDES OF
THIS, WE HAVE CLIENTS WHO
ARE INFORM NANLTS WHO VERY
MUCH WANT THINGS SEALED WE
HAVE CLIENTS WHO ARE RESTED
ON THE CASE AND NEED TO DO
AN INVESTIGATION TO FIND OUT
WHAT THE WITNESSES, WHAT THE
PEOPLE AROUND AND WHAT
HAPPENED THAT WAY.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE INTEREST
CAN BE RESOLVED.
THERE IS A WAY TO SOLVE
THESE, BUT YOU GOING TO
REQUIRE EVERYBODY TO SIT
DOWN AT ONE TABLE AND HAMMER
THIS OUT, THAT HAS NOT
HAPPENED YET.
>> WELL NOW, THE PROPOTENT
HAS SAID THAT THIS IS REALLY
NOT GETTING INTO THOSE AREAS
THAT ARE ALREADY PROTECTED
BY SOME LAW.
>> YOUR HONOR, I WILL TRUST
WHO I BELIEVE FOLLOWS ME TO
MORE THOROUGHLY EXPLAIN WHY
THE CA DOES NOT SOLVE THIS.
IT DOES, THERE ARE SOME
PROTECTIONS FOR IN IMPORTANT
ANT STUFF BUT REALLY IF YOU
SEE A PERSON WITH SERIOUS
CHARGES AND A PLEA AGREEMENT
AND OUT ON THE STREET, ONE
PLUS ONE PLUS ONE IS
CONFIDENTIAL AND THAT IS ALL
OF IT.
>> WELL, WAIT, SO DOES, IS
IT YOUR POSITION THAT THE
RULE AS DRAFTED WOULD APPLY
TO MOTIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT
CONFIDENTIAL IN FOR NANTS
REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL?
>> I AM NOT SURE.
THOSE -- I DON'T BELIEVE SO,
YOUR HONOR.
IS THE PLEA AGREEMENT, YOUR
HONOR, I AM SORRY.
I THIS IS SENTENCE.
IT IS THE SENTENCE THAT IS
WHAT IS I BELIEVE
PROSECUTORS WANT TO SEAL.
THEY WANT TO SEAL THE FACT
THAT THIS CASE HAS BEEN
RESOLVED.
THERE HAS BEEN A RESOLUTION.
>> THAT WOULD BE UNDER
PRESENT RULE SNAG THAT WOULD
BE UNDER THE PRESENT.
WHAT EXISTS NOW?
WHAT HAPPENS?
>> THE ONLY LAW I KNOW OF
NOW IS THE PUBLIC RECORDS
RULE.
>> THE PROSECUTOR, I MEAN,
THIS PUBLIC DEFERN, THERE IS
A PLEA DEAL.
YOU ARE TELLING ME THERE ARE
PLEAS THAT ARE SEALED FROM
PUBLIC, PE PUBLIC RECORD?
>> YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE QUITE
A DISAGREEMENT ON THIS.
THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE,
WE DID NOT KNOW BEFORE THE
ARTICLE CAME OUT ON NOVEMBER
18th, WHAT WAS HAPPENING.
THAT THESE, THESE CASES WERE
BEING SEALED.
THEY WERE BEINGED -- WE DID
NOT KNOW THAT.
WE KNEW THE CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMANTS THE POTENTIAL
SYSTEMS AGREEMENT THAT WAS
OBVIOUSLY BEING CLOSED BUT
THE REST OF IT, THE FACT
THAT THE RECORDS BEING
CHANGED, WE DID NOT KNOW
THAT.
IF THERE IS A PUBLIC
DEFENDER IN MY OFFICE THAT
KNEW THAT, THEY HAVE NOT
COME FORWARD AFTER THAT
ARTICLE.
AND WE HAVE TRIED OUR BEST
TO FIGURE OUT.
WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE
STATE IS DOING THESE ARE
QUESTIONS.
>> SINCE THE COMMITTEE
THOUGHT THEY WERE BASICALLY
ADDRESSING CIVIL CASE, IT
SOUNDS LIKE WE GOT A WHOLE
OTHER WORLD OUT THERE OF THE
CRIMINAL AREA, IT WOULD BE A
GOOD IDEA TO SEPARATE AND
SAY WHAT THIS RULE APPLIES,
PUT INTO HE EFFECT FOR
CIVIL, WHATEVER
MODIFICATIONS AN REALLY GET
EVERYONE SITTING DOWN AT THE
TABLE TO FIGURE OUT THIS
SITUATION.
>> IT MIGHT BE.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE CRIMINAL
RULES COMMITTEE HAS FAST
TRACKED THIS.
I BELIEVE HE RECEIVED A
REPORT ON THURSDAY.
WE RECEIVED IT FRIDAY
AFTERNOON.
THEY HAVE ADOPTED THE
PROSECUTOR'S ASSOCIATION
PROPOSAL.
WE FRANK DLI NOT KNOW ABOUT
THE FAST TRACK COMMITTEE
PROPOSAL.
WE WERE NOT THERE.
WE WERE NOT AT THAT TABLE.
THEY WERE ABLE TO GO IN AND
MAKE PRESENTATION.
WE WERE NOT.
FRANKLY, WE DON'T THINK THAT
IS FAIR.
WE IMMEDIATE TO BE ABLE THIS
TABLE, TOO.
>> WE WERE TO IN SOME WAY
INDICATE BIRTH OF WAS
MENTIONED THAT THIS WOULD BE
SOMEONE LIMITATION NOW TO
SOLVE THE PROBLEM WE'RE
DEALING WITH.
THIS CAME TO LIGHT A COUPLE
MONTHS AFTER THE FIRST RIVAL
SO WE ARE WORKING ON ONE AND
ANOTHER PROBLEM AT LEAST
POTENTIAL PROBLEM AROSE.
SO IF WE WOULD THEN PUT SOME
VERBAGE THAT WOULD INDICATE,
THIS IS FOR CIVIL CASE, LET
THE OTHER KES COMPLETE THEIR
WORK, LOOK AT THIS WITH
PARTICIPATION, WOULD THAT
SOLVE THE PROBLEM WITH WHAT
YOU ARE CONCERNED?
>> I BELIEVE THAT GETS MUCH
CLOSER TO WHAT WE HAVE EATER
WITH THE JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION RULES
COMMITTEE.
>> THEY WERE NOT INVOLVED IN
THE PROCESS.
THEY WERE WORK ON IT.
IN THE MIDDLE OF IT WHEN
THIS OTHER ISSUE AROSE.
>> AND I THINK, I THINK THIS
MAY, THAT GOES A LONG WAY TO
GETTING UP TO THE TABLE.
WE CAN WORK SOMETHING OUT.
>> I AM SORRY DIDN'T MEAN TO
INTERRUPT YOU.
>> I AM CONFUSED.
THE WAY I READ THE RULE AS
PROPOSED SUBSECTION D THE
TITLE SAYS THE REQUEST CIVIL
COURT RECORDS.
AIM WRONG?
EYE DON'T KNOW.
NO, YOUR HONOR, I ASSUME YOU
CAN READ ENGLISH.
>> MAYBE YOU HAVE A WRONG
COPY?
>> NO, ASUM.
THIS IS THE ONLY, THIS IS
THE ONLY RULE, THE ONLY
SPREAD DURE OUT THERE FOR
THOUSAND DO THIS.
IF THIS IS, IF IT IS NOT, IF
THIS PROCEDURE DOESN'T COVER
IT, THEN WHAT WE VIS A NO
LAW SITUATION.
THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE.
WHERE QUITE FRANKLY, THE
POSSIBLE DEVELOPER IS DOING
THINGS THAT QUITE HONESTLY,
WE DID NOT KNOW ABOUT.
I KNOW THEY BELIEVE WE KNEW
ABOUT IT.
>> MAYBE A DATE FOR THAT
DEBATE.
IT WAS READ TO YOU.
THAT SATISFIEDS YOUR
CONCERNS.
>> IF THE, IF THIS DOES IN
THE APPLY TO CRIMINAL, IT
SATISFIES THE CONCERNS THAT
I WOULD RESPECT THE COURT
SEND A LETTER BACK TO THE
CRIMINAL RULES COMMITTEE IF
THAT IS WHERE IT IS GOING TO
BE HELD SAYING WE HAVE GOT
TO HAVE THIS WITH EVERYBODY
AT THE TABLE.
THIS SIMPLY CANNOT BE JUST
--
>> CRIMINAL RULES COMMITTEE
WOULD NOT HAVE PUBLIC
DEFENDERS INVOLVED.
>> YOUR HONOR, ALL CAN I
TELL IS WE DID NOT KNOW
ABOUT THIS PROCESS.
I KNOW THIS COMMITTEE HEARD
ON FEBRUARY 6th THAT AFTER
WE HAD COME MENS NO ONE
CONTACTED.
I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT
HAPPENED.
I WISH I DID.
>> OKAY.
>> GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
MATE PLEASE THE COURT, I
CYST ANT STATE ATTORNEY IN
THE 11th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
ALONG WITH ARTHUR JK OBS
GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE
ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION.
>> IF CUE HELP US WITH THE
SITUATION, THE CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMANT VERSUS THE PLEA
AGREEMENT VERSUS WHERE THERE
IS A REQUEST TO EXPUNGE WHAT
DO PROSECUTORS POSITION IS
ON EACH OF THOSE THREE
AREAS.
>> LET ME START.
THE REQUEST DOESN'T INVOLVE
ANY CASES WHERE THEY NEED
REQUIRE THIS.
IT IS NOT REALLY OUR
SITUATION.
THAT IS GOVERNED BY THE A
SEPARATE RULE.
>> AND A STATUTE.
>> CORRECT.
>> THAT IS NOT OUR ISSUE
HERE.
>> THE PROPOSED RULE IN
SUBSECTION 2, SAYS REQUEST
TO SEAL OR EX PUNG SHALL
PROCEED ON THE RULE.
>> THAT IS CORRECT, YOUR
HONOR.
>> BASICALLY WHAT HAPPENS IN
11th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, THAT
IS WHAT I SPEAK OF.
THE OTHER SIR KITS AS WELL
WHAT HAPPENS IN CASE
INVOLVING ONGOING CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION WE HAVE TO
UNDERSTAND, WE ARE NOT JUST
TALKING ABOUT A CONFIDENTIAL
INFORM ANT, WE ARE TAUING
ABOUT UNDERCOVER POLICE
OFFICERS WHO WORK WITH THESE
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS SO
THEIR LIVES ARE AT STAKE AS
WELL AS THE CONFIDENTIAL
INFORM ANT'S LIFE IS AT
STAKE.
WHAT HAPPENS IS, THEY COME
TO AN AGREEMENT, THESE ARE
NOT EX PAR HE PROCEEDING
THERE IS A DEFENSE ATTORNEY
PRESENT SOMETIME AS PRIVATE
ATTORNEY, YOU SOMETIME AS
SPECIALLY PINTED PUBLIC
OFFENDER AND WHAT THEY DO IS
THEY COME TO AN AGREM AS TO
THOUSAND DEFENDANT CAN HELP
LAW ENFORCEMENT BY GOING
USUALLY BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE DOING SOME KIND OF
SUBSTANTIAL ASSISTANCE OR
OTHER TYPE OF UNDERCOVER
WORK WITH THE OFFICER TO
HELP CRIME.
I THINK, YOUR HONORS ARE
QUITE AWARE TODAY'S CRIMINAL
ORGANIZATIONS HAVE GONE
SOPHISTICATED WHICH IS ONE
OF THE REASONS WHY I GAVE A
COPY TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF
WHERE THEY ARE G HOW EASY IT
IS FOR THEM TO NOT ONLY SAY
WHO IS UNDERCOVER OFFICER
BECAUSE THEIR PICTURES ARE
ALSO PUT ON THAT WEB SITE,
SO THIS IS VERY, VERY
IMPORTANT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT
TO MAKE SURE NOT ONLY ARE
THEY PROTECTED AN INFORMANTS
ARE PROTECTED AS WELL.
WE BASICALLY GO IN WITH THE
JUDGE TO TELL THE JUDGE WE
HAVE COME TO AN AGREEMENT.
THIS IS WHAT THIS PARTICULAR
DEFENDANT NEEDS TO DO IN
ORDER TO GET A CERTAIN TYPE
OF SENTENCE AND IT IS
USUALLY THE SENTENCES
DEPENDENT ON WHAT TYPE OF
AGREEMENT, WHAT KIND OF COMP
OPERATION AND THE RESULT OF
THAT CORPORATION.
AFTER THAT HAPPENS IS THERE
IS REPORTED ON THE DOCKET
STATUS.
IT SAYS NOTHING MORE THAN
THAT.
THIS PARTICULAR DEFENDANT
HAS NOT BEEN SENTENCED.
THAT IS WHAT THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICE IS
INCORRECT ABOUT.
THIS PERSON HAS NOT BEEN
SENTENCED THEY HAVE TAKEN A
PLEA, THEY HAVE AGREED TO
PLEA.
THE COURT HAS ACCEPTED THE
PLEA, THAT HE IS NOT, HE-SHE
HAS NOT YET BEEN SENTENCED
BECAUSE THAT SENTENCE IS
VERY MUCH DEPENDENT ON HOW
THE CORPORATION IS.
THEY GO OUT TO THE
COMMUNITY, THEY DO WHATEVER
THEY NEED TO DO, THEN THERE
IS A STATUS, IT IS SET BACK,
IT US USUALLY A COUPLE
MONTHS, WE ARE NOT TALKING
ABOUT A VERY LONG PERIOD OF
TIME, IT IS URBBLY 2 TO 4 TO
6 MONS, THAT IS THE AVERAGE.
ALSO I WANT THE COURT TO
UNDERSTAND, WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT FEW CASE, I HAVE
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
CASES THAT WE FILE IN
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, THEY ARE
TALKING ABOUT NO MORE THAN A
DOZEN A YEAR.
PROBABLY LESS.
EYE GUESS THE QUESTION IS
WHAT REALLY COMES BACK TO
THE SENTENCING AFTER THE
SUBSTACKS, I THOUGHT THEIR
PROBLEM THAT IS THE SENTENCE
THAT IS NOW IMPOSED IS NOW
OF DEN?
>> NO.
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
THEY ARE 10% WRONG.
AT THAT COURT, ONCE THEY ARE
SENTENCED, THAT BECOMES
PUBLIC RECORD.
THE DOCK RECEIPT REFREKS.
IT FLECTS THE PLEA.
IT REFLECTS THE SENTENCE.
EVERYTHING IS PUT BACK ON
THE DOCKET THAT IS KEPT.
IT IS TEMPORARY SEALING.
I CAN NOT STRESS THE WORD
TEMPORARY MORE.
IT IS VERY TEMPORARY TIME
PERIOD THAT THIS PROCEDURE
IS KEPT OFF THE PUBLIC
DOCKET.
IT NEEDS TO BE KEPT OFF THE
PUBLIC.
THERE IS NO OTHER
ALTERNATIVE.
WE DON'T HAVE PROCEDURE PER
SE TO GET INTO THIS DOING
THIS?
WE REALLY HAVEN'T.
WHAT WE HAVE DONE SUNS THE
RULE CAME OUT, YOU KNOW, WE
KIND OF LIKE THE IDEA AND I
THINK THE PUBLIC WOULD
APPRECIATE THE IDEA IF WE
FILE A FORM IN MOTION TO
KIND OF FILING THE WAY THE
RULE IS SETTING FORTH OUR
REASONS GIVING IT TO THE
COURT AND THE COURT THAT
GIVES FORTH THOSE REASONS SO
WHEN IT IS OPEN LATER ON,
EVERYBODY CAN SEE HOW THEIR
GOVERNMENT WORKED.
AND SO WE HAD NO PROBLEM
UNDER CA OR C 9 WHICHEVER
PROVISION WE WANT TO GO, WE
ARE DOING THAT NOW.
WE'RE FILING MOTIONS, WE ARE
HAVING, THE COURTS ARE
ENTERING ORDERS.
FRANKLY BEFORE THIS CAME
OUT.
HA WAS NOT BEING DONE.
YOU ARE SAYING THIS WOULD
ACTUALLY THEN EVERYTHING
WOULD BE OPEN AT THE TIME OF
THE SENTENCE?
THAT IS THAT THE PUBLIC
WOULD KNOW THAT THIS PERSON
HAD GIVEN SUBSTANTIAL
ASSISTANCE AND UNDERCOVER
PERSON WAS AND ALL OF THAT.
>> AS WAS RIGHT NOW, WHAT IS
THE REASON?
THE ACTUAL TERMS OF THE
AGREEMENT MAY BE KEPT
CONFIDENTIAL, CERTAINLY IF
THE PERSON WAS CONVICTED
GIVEN A SENTENCE, YES, THAT
IS NU ON THE PUBLIC DOCKET
AS OF NOW.
>> HOW DO YOU DO THAT ALSO?
>> ISN'T THERE A DANGER?
I MEAN, IF THE DANGER
EXISTED BEFORE, THEN IF THAT
IS DISCLOSED LATER, DOESN'T
THAT OPEN UP THAT SAME RISK
AGAIN TO THE SAME PEOPLE?
>> IT DOES TO A CERTAIN
POINT.
THIS IS HOW IT WORKS,
ACTUALLY, YOUR COURT'S
CONSIDERATION IS SOMETHING
WE NEED TO CONSIDER I THINK
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ALSO
SHOULD.
THE FACT IT DOES REMAIN A
DOCKET CAN BE A PROBLEM AS
WELL.
WE ACTUALLY, SOMETHING WE
NEED TO RECONSIDER AS WELL.
WE WERE JUST TRYING AT THIS
POINT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO
CRIMINAL RULE PROCEDURE
GOVERNING THIS.
I BASS AFRAID WHEN YOU HAD
THIS JUDICIAL RULE, THEN THE
VERY OWN CONCERN, WITH IT A
MINUTE, YOU HAVE TO FILE THE
JUDICIAL RULE, WHICH IS A
REASON WHY WE PROPOSE THIS
LITTLE SMALL PROVISION FOR
THE CRIMINAL RULE, WHY IT IS
SO IMPORTANT THAT WE DO
THAT.
>> JUST REAL QUICK.
CHAPTER 11907 SAYS ANY
INFORMATION REVEALING THE
IDENTITY OF CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMANT OR SOURCE EXEMPT
FROM THIS.
WHY DOESN'T THAT PRODECT
UNDER CA?
>> WELL IT DOES PROTECT US
AS FAR AS KEEPING IT SEALED
BUT GAIN SOMETIMES THINGS
ARE HAVE TO GO UNDER.
I GUESS PART OF IT THINKING
WE WOULD LIKE TO BE OPEN AS
WE CAN WITHOUT HURTING
INFORMANTS WITHOUT HURTING
THE VERY, WE WANT THE PUBLIC
TO KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING.
WE ARE NOT TRYING TO HIDE
ANYTHING LATER ON.
I THINK THE PUBLIC HAS A
RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED
IN THE INVESTIGATION.
WHY IT WENT DOWN THAT
PARTICULAR ROUTE.
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
>> THANK YOU VERY AM.
>> JUDGE KREEGER.
>> YOUR HONOR.
GOOD MORNING.
GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL.
I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON
ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS, I
WOULD LIKE TO DROP BACK IF
YOU WILL.
LAST SUMMER, THIS COURT
PUNCHED OUT BUNCH OF WORK AS
PART OF THE OVERALL
TRANSITION TO DIGITAL
FILINGS AND RECORD KEEPING
AN ACCESS TO COURT RECORDS.
AND AS PART OF THAT BIG
OVERALL STRUCTURE, YOU
COMMITTED THE COMMITTEE THAT
I NOW CHAIR.
YOU PRICED OUT A GREAT DEAL
OF WORK WITH REGARD TO RULE
2.420 TO OUR COMMITTEE.
YOU GAVE US SOME OTHER WORK,
TOO, THAT HAD SHORTER
TURNAROUND DAY, SO WE TRIED
TO DO THAT FIRST.
I THINK WE DID.
NOW, WE ARE FULL STEAM AHEAD
ON THIS RULE.
OUR COMMITTEE IS RATH
REMEMBER MALL.
IT IS 13 MEMBERS.
BUT IT IS RATH REMEMBER
INCLUSIVE.
WE HAVE CLERKS.
WE HAVE COURT
ADMINISTRATION.
WE HAVE TRIAL JUDGES.
WE HAVE AN APEL ALT JUDGE,
WE HAVE LAWYERS.
TO THE EXTENT THAT THE
VIEWPOINTS ARE NOT REP ENTED
BY THE MEMBERSHIP ON THE
COMMITTEE, I CREATED SOME
DRAFT CHOICES AN BROUGHT
THEM IN TO WORK GROUPS
STRUCTURED TO HANDLE THE
COMMITTEE WORKS THEN AN
ATTEMPT TO GET THE KIND OF
OUTREACH THAT IN THIS IS NO
TO THE RULES OF JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
THEY WORK QUICKLY, BUT WE
WERE TRYING TO GET A MUCH
BROADER INPUT BECAUSE THE
WAY THAT YOUR COMMITTEE
PROCESS WORKS AS YOU VERY
WELL KNOW IS IT IS A
COLLABORATIVE EFFORT THAT
TAKES TIME AND THAT TAKES
OUTREACH.
SO WE WERE TRYING TO DO
THIS.
SO OUR WORK IS VERY MUCH
ONGOING.
IN THE COMMENTS WE SAW WITH
THE COURT, THERE WERE
PRINCIPALS THAT WE AGREED TO
AS OUR BASIC STARTING POINT.
I DON'T THINK I NEED TO
ELABORATE THEM HERE.
YOU HAVE THEM IN THE BRIEF.
>> JUSTICE KREEGER, YOU SAID
THAT THIS WORKS ONGOING.
OBVIOUSLY, THIS ISSUE CAME
UP WITH THE SUPER SEALING AN
IT CAUSED THE CHIEF AND THE
COURT A GREAT CONCERN.
ARE WE RUSHING THIS THROUGH
TOO MUCH?
>> YES, MA'AM.
>> WITH ALL DO RESPECT.
>> WHEN THE ISSUE CAME UP
THIS FALL, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
SENT A LETTER TO EVERY CHIEF
JUDGE IN THE STATED AND SAID
BASICALLY DO SOMETHING.
BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER,
I HAVE SEEN A NUMBER OF
THOSE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS,
THE CHIEF JUDGES HAVE
RESPONDED TO THE CHIEF'S
REQUEST AND I THINK THAT
SOMETHING THAT NEEDED TO BE
DONE WITH REGARD TO THE
DISCREET ISSUE OF THOSE
RELATIVELY FEW SUPER SEALED
CASES WHICH IS NOT TO
MINIMIZE THEIR IMPORTANCE
BUT I THINK THE QUICK FIX
THAT WAS NEEDED HAS BEEN
DONE.
WE CERTAINLY HAVE NOT READ
ANYTHING IN RECENT MONTHS
ABOUT NEWLY DISCOVERED MORE
SUPER SEALER CASES.
THAT IS WHY KRB --
>> THIS IS A CAVES SOME
COURTS JUST NOT FOLLOWING
THE RULES THAT WERE ALREADY
IN PLACE.
NEW RULES REQUIRED.
>> THEY WERE KIND OF
EXTRAORDINARY.
I MEAN MY PERCEPTION.
I AM NOT SPEAKING FOR MY
COMMITTEE.
MY PERCEPTION WAS THERE WAS
A LOT OF FINGER-POINTING.
THE CHIEF IS GOING, NO, IT
IS THE COURT.
AND HOW IT HAPPENED WE DON'T
KNOW.
THAT IT NOT HAPPEN AGAIN IS
CERTAINLY VERY IMPORTANT.
I THINK FOR THE NEAR FUTURE
THAT THINK ADMINISTRATION IT
ORDERS THAT ARE NOW IN PLACE
THAT WERE NOT IN PLACE LAST
SUMMER ARE TAKING CARE OF
THAT.
AND SO MY -- WHAT IS YOUR
CONCERN IF THE COURT ORDER
ADOPT THE RULE, HOW WILL IT
EFFECT WHAT THE COMMITTEE IS
DOING?
>> OKAY.
NUMBER ONE THAT IS IN
ADOPTING PROVISIONAL
MEASURES THAT ARE DONE KIND
OF QUICKLY OUR CONCERN IS
THAT THOSE THINGS SOMETIMES
END UP BEING CAST IN STONE
AND THEY ARE HARD TO CHANGE.
NUMBER TWO IS THAT PRECISELY
WHAT YOU POINTED OUT IN YOUR
QUESTIONS IN YOUR QUESTIONS
TO PRIOR COUNSEL IS THAT
SOME DISCREET THINGS ARE
BEING ADDRESSED, MECHANISM
IS BEING CREATED BUT WITHOUT
DOING THE BIG PICTURE WORK
THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
WITH REGARD TO ALL CASE
TYPE, NOW FOR EX ALE PEL,
WHEN THIS RECENT FLAP CAME
UP ABOUT THE CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMANT, THIS WAS ONLY THE
PAST FEW WEEKS.
I CALLED THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
FOR MY CIRCUIT THE 11th AND
ASKED HIM TO PLEASE COME TO
THE TABLE, I CALLED THE
STATE TORN'S OFFICE AND SAID
COME TO THE TABLE.
THE STATE ATTORNEY OFFICE
DID PROVIDE US INPUT AT THE
LAST MEETING BUT THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICE I AM SURE
WORKLOAD ISSUES DIDN'T BUT
WE WANT TO BRING THEM INTO
THE DISCUSSION.
WE ARE TRYING TO GET ALL OF
THE OUTREACH THAT WE CAN AT
THE SAME TIME ANOTHER PART
OF MY COMMITTEE'S TASK IS
VERY IMPORTANT TO THE WORK
AND THAT IS REREGARD THOUGH
C 8 AND THE C 9 INFORMATION
THAT YOU ALL HAVE BEEN
TALKING ABOUT.
PART OF THE CHARGE TO OUR
COMMITTEE IS DEALS WITH
CLASSIFYING INFORMATION AND
WE HAVE THE UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA JOHN MILL'S GROUP AT
WORK TRYING, WORKING ON,
SORTING OUT THE KINDS OF
INFORMATION BECAUSE
ULTIMATELY WE BELIEVE THAT
RULES SHOULD ADDRESS THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF CLERKS,
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF FILER,
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
COURT, UM, AND THEIR --
>> IS THE FOURTH CATEGORY OF
RESPONDERS?
PARDON ME.
I HAVE LOST IT.
>> THE FILERS, THE COURT,
THE THIRD PERSON, IL AM
SORRY, NON-PARTIES AN THAT
MAY DEPEND ON THE TYPE OF
INFORMATION THAT IT IS.
AS YOU VERY WELL KNOW, THERE
IS MORE THAN 1,000 TYPES OF
PROTECTED INFORMATION IN THE
FLORIDA STATUTES BUT THERE
THIS IS WHOLE QUESTION ABOUT
WHETHER THAT INFORMATION IS
PROTECTED WHEN IT IS IN THE
COURT RECORDS, WHETHER THAT
INFORMATION SHOULD A CLERK
BE REQUIRED.
>> YOUR BOTTOM LINE, I TAKE
IT, IF WE ARE GOING DO IT,
DO IT RIGHT, DO IT
COMPREHENSIVELY.
YOU SAID IT BETTER THAN I
COULD, SIR.
THAT IS PRECISELY OUR
REQUEST.
WE ARE DUE TO REPORT TO YOU
A YEAR FROM JUNE WITH THE
FINAL REPORT.
THIS COMING JUNE ON AN
INTERIM REPORT.
I HAVE EVERY REASON TO
BELIEVE THAT WE'LL BE ABLE
TO MEET THE DEADLINE, WE ARE
HARD AT WORK.
WE WANT TO KEEP DOING IT.
I DIDN'T THINK YOUR
COMMITTEE WAS CHARGED WITH
SPRO PROCEDURE FOR HOW CASES
GOT SEALED.
I AM STILL TRYING TO UNDER
UNDERSTAND, YET, I AM
CONCERNED BECAUSE OF SOME
OTHER COME MINTS ABOUT HOW
IT EFFECTS CASES THAT WE
NEVER INTENDED TO EFFECT BUT
OUR ARE YOU THEN GOING TO
LOOK AT THIS PARTICULAR RULE
AND MAKE OTHER SUGGESTIONS
ON THE RULES THAT THE RULES
OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
COMMITTEE HAS PROPOSED?
>> AS I UNDERSTAND THE RULE,
THE 0.2051, IT DOESN'T JUST
ADDRESS A DISCREET PIECE OF
INFORMATION THAT SOMEBODY
WANTS TO CLIMB AS
CONFIDENTIAL OR EX ENT OR
THAT IS CONFIDENTIAL OR
EXEMPT BUT IT IS THE WHOLE
THING.
I DON'T -- I DON'T THINK --
>> I AM HAVING TROUBLE
BECAUSE IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH
YOU ARE DOING SOME REAL GOOD
DETAILED KIND OF WORK.
AS I LOOK AT WHAT HAS BEEN
PROPOSED, IT IS REALLY A
STRUCTURE WITHIN WHICH
WHATEVER IT IS THAT YOU ARE
GOING TO DECIDE IS TO BE
PLACED.
SO THAT NOW WE MAY HAVE SOME
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS BUT IN
THE ALL OF THE SAME
THROUGHOUT THE STATE AND
THERE SOME THAT ARE STILL
JUST COMING IN ALSO.
I AM WONDERING WHY IS NOT
JUST A PROCEDURE POSTURE AT
LEAST TO CARRY US OVERLE
UNTIL WE GET MORE DEFINITIVE
THINGS RATHER THAN LEAVING
THIS TO BE WHATEVER IT IS
BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT IS THE
PROBLEM.
>> TO ME, IT IS PUTTING THE
CART BEFORE THE HORSE WITH
ALL DUE RESPECT.
>> TO HAVE IT IN PLACE?
>> NO, NO.
IS THE MECHANISM BUT WITHOUT
REALLY GETTING TO CARVING
OUT WHO IS RESPONSIBILITY IS
IT TO DO WHAT?
AND FRANKLY --
>> THIS CREATES, IT DOES
CREATE A RESPONSIBILITY
INITIALLY ON THE PARTY THAT
WANTS SOMETHING TO BE
CONFIDENTIAL?
>> I UNDERSTAND, BUT THERE
IS CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF
INFORMATION THAT IT MAY BE
THE COURT'S RESPONSIBILITY
OR THE COURT'S
RESPONSIBILITY.
>> NOT ADDRESSED YET.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> THE QUESTION COMES UP AS
WE HAVE A PROBLEM BECAUSE
PEOPLE ARE GOING IN,
STIPULATING FOR CLOSING
DOCUMENTS AN FOR WHATEVER
REASON, LIKE YOU SAID,
BECAUSE THERE IS
MISUNDERSTANDING, SO WHY
SHOULD WE LEAVE ON THIS
MISUNDERSTANDING IN PLACE,
NOT AT LEAST GET PROCEDURE
RAL STRUCTURE AND IF WE NEED
TO MAKE THIS WORK IN A
DIFFERENT WAY, I AM AT A
LOSS TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE
DON'T NEED PROCEDURE, THAT
IS WHAT PRODUCED THE MESS WE
GOT INTO.
>> WELL, I DON'T THINK THAT
PROCEDURE, I AM SPEAKING
INDIVIDUALLY NOW, NOT ON
BEHALF OF MY COMMITTEE, JUST
MY OWN OBSERVATION.
I DON'T THINK IF THE LACK OF
PROCEDURE INTO PLACE YOU AS
ONE WF YOU ALL INDICATED,
THINK IT WAS PEOPLE NOT
FOLLOWING THE RULES AND IT
IS NOT MY SPOT TO SAY WHO
WAS NOT FOLLOWING, WHO WAS
NOT DOING WHAT HE OR SHE WAS
NOT SUPPOSED TO DO BUT
SOMEBODY WAS DOING SOMETHING
THEY WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO
UNDER THE PRESENT STRUCTURE.
AND THAT IS WHY I DON'T KNOW
THAT QUITE OFFEN THE
MECHANISMS VERY, VERY RAPIDLY
DEALS WITH THAT PROBLEM.
I THINK YOU HAVE DEALT WITH
THAT PARTICULAR PROBLEM.
WE WANT TO CREATE A
MECHANISM, WE DON'T THINK --
WE THINK THIS IS PREMATURE.
NOW ON BEHALF OF MY
COMMITTEE, WE DID NOT
ADDRESS 25 POINTS OF
PROVISIONS OF THE MECK NIM
THAT MECHANISM THAT ARE
PREVENTED BY THE RULES OF
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
COMMITTEE BECAUSE WE HAVE A
BROADER TASK AN
SYSTEMICALLY, WE THOUGHT
ORGANIZATIONALLY WE THOUGHT
IT BETTER TO FIRST OF ALL
MAKE SURE EVERYBODY ON THE
COMMITTEE HAS SOME UND IR
STANDING ABOUT THE LEGAL
ISSUES
THIS ALL FITS INTO THE $$COURT'S
TRANSITION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TRANSITION, INTO A DIGITAL
AGE, BECAUSE THAT IS KIND OF
WHAT BROUGHT ALL OF THIS TO
THE SURFACE IS THIS MOVE FOR
COURT RECORDS, TO GO OUT ON
THE INTERNET.
THAT IS WHAT BROUGHT NOT THE
FALLS ABOUT THE SEALED RECORDS
-- BUT THE SUMMER CREATION OF
THE $$COMMITTEE'S WHICH WAS THE
CONTINUATION OF THE $$COURT'S
ONGOING -- MOVE TOWARDS
DIGITALIZE$$!!!!ING COURT RECORDS
THROUGH COMMITTEE STRUCTURE,
SO, WE WERE DEALING WITH A
BIGGER PICTURE AND WE THOUGHT
IT WAS MORE IMPORTANT TO
UNDERSTAND THE BIGGER PICTURE,
TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN C8 AND C9 INFORMATION,
WHICH IS SOMETHING WE ARE
DEALING WITH, TO LOOK AT WHAT
THE ELECTRONIC FILING
COMMITTEE IS DOING, AND I
BELIEVE THEY HAVE A REPORT
THAT IS SOON PERCOLATING UP TO
THE COURT BECAUSE THAT AFFECTS
WHAT WE ARE DOING.
AND THEN, THEN COME BACK, WITH
MECHANISM WITH REGARD TO WHAT
WE CALL THE CLASS TWO OR TYPE
TWO INFORMATION, WHERE IT IS A
PARTY WHO IS MOVING TO SEOUL
AND NOT SOMETHING THE COURT OR
THE CLERKS ARE SUPPOSED TO DO
AUTOMATICALLY!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AUTOMATICALLY.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH WITH
OUR ASSISTANCE YOU'VE DOUBLED
YOUR TIME.
SO --
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANKS BEFORE WE CONCLUDE I
WASN'T TO GIVE THE PANEL AN
OPPORTUNITY TO ASK ANY GENERAL
QUESTIONS, AND ALSO -- A
COUPLE MINUTES -- GO AHEAD.,,,,
.
>> VERY BRIEFLY, IN REBUTTAL
YOUR HONOR AND I WILL RESPOND
TO SEVERAL -- PROCEDURAL
OBJECTIONS IN ORDER.
AS REGARDS TO THE OBJECTION,
COMMITTEE FELT THAT IT WAS
NECESSARY TO HAVE A PROCEDURE
THAT ADDRESSED WHAT HAPPENS
WHEN YOU NEED TO SEOUL
SOMETHING ALREADY IN THE FILE,
SOMETHING IS THAT IS NOT IN
THE FILE TOMORROW BUT SITTING
THERE NOW.
FOR INSTANCE IF YOUR OPPONENT
ALREADY FILED SOMETHING YOU
CONSIDER APPROPRIATE NEED TO
CITY WE THOUGHT IT WAS
NECESSARY TO HAVE THAT
PROCEDURE, EVEN IF IT IMPOSED
SLIGHT BURDEN ON THE CLERKS,
AND AGAIN, THE FACC PROPOSAL
THAT WE RECEIVED THE FIRST
INSTANCE STEPPED UPON
THEMSELVES THAT BURDEN BECAUSE
THEY RECOGNIZED THAT PROCEDURE
AS WELL.
SECONDLY WITH REGARD TO WHAT
HANDS WHEN YOU PUTT SOMETHING
NEW IN THE FILE AS PRACTICAL
MATTER LITIGANT ABOUT TO PUTT
SOMETHING IN THE FILE THEY
CONSIDER CONFIDENTIAL, IS
GOING TO FILE IT IN ENVELOPED
UP UNDER SEOUL AING AS RESULT
GOOD DAILY OF $$CLERK'S WORK
DONE IN INITIAL INSTANCE
FINALLY$$!!!!ILY WITH ISSUE OF
PUBLICATION OUR COMMITTEE
CONSIDERED PUBLICATION
EXPENSIVELY PUTTING BURDEN ON
PRIVATE LITIGANTS TO GET NEWS
ADS TO TALK ABOUT THE FACT A
THAT IS ORDER ENTERED REJECT
FORD A NUMBER OF REASONS FIRST
OF ALL WE DON'T BELIEVE THERE
IS STATUTORY OBJECT OBLIGATION
HAS TO BE DONE THAT WAY I
THINK THAT STATUTE ONLY
APPLIES TO HOW ONE PUBLISHES
WHERE EXISTING STATUE
REQUIRING PUBLICATION,
SECONDLY WE FELT THAT IF YOU
PUT THAT KIND OF BURDEN ON
LITIGANTS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LITIGANTS, ATHEY MAY NOT BE
ABLE TO AFFORD IT B, MORE
CONCERN ARGUABLY US THE FACT
THING MAY NOT DO IT.
ULTIMATELY YOU MAY HAVE, NOT
ENOUGH PUBLICATION, AND THE
SYSTEM PROPOSING, GIVES THE
CLERKS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO
MAKE SURE THAT PUBLICATION
NOTICE OCCURS VIA WEBSITE AND
THE POSTING SO AGAIN, WHILE WE
RECOGNIZE THAT THIS RULE PUT
BURDENS ON ALL OF THE PARSE
PAINTS IN THE SYSTEM ON
LITIGANTS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LITIGANTS, COURTS AND ON THE
CLERKS, WE TRIED VERY HARD TO
SPREAD THOSE BURDENS AROUND
AND WE THINK ACHIEVED THAT
KIND OF BALANCE.
>> ON THE POSTING ISSUE, ON
THE BURDEN I'M UNDERSTANDING
THAT THIS IS PUT IT LIKE WE
POST, ALL THE TIME, ON OUR
WEBSITE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
WEBSITE, THOSE THINGS, AND IT
IS NOT -- DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH
OF A BURDEN, BUT, IS THERE WAS
WAS THERE SOME ATTEMPT TO MAKE
IT SO IT WOULD BE UNIFORM AS
TO HOW IT WOULD BE POSTED, OR
AND THEN THE OTHER PART IS
WHERE IN THE HOW DO YOU DO
THAT IN THE COURTHOUSE YOU
JUST PUT IT YOU ON A ALL ABOUT!!$$!!!!!!!!
ABOUTTIN BOARD?
I WAS -- TRYING TO FIT IT
IN --
>> WE WERE -- LOATHE TO BE TOO
SPECIFIC, I GUESS, IT WILL
DEPENDS WHAT YOUR COURTHOUSE
LOOKS LIKE WEBSITE LOOKS LIKE
WEREN'T -- SET MINIMUM
STANDARD -- AND THEN MAKE
CLEAR THERE ARE MINIMUM IF AN
ABILITY OF THE CLERKS TO POST
THESE ON THE WEBSITE, FOREVER,
SO BE IT WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO
IS IMPOSE THAT OBLIGATION, AND
SAY YOU HAVE GOT TO KEEP IT ON
THERE FOREVER IF SERVER
COULDN'T HANDLE IT SO
ULTIMATELY THERE IS GOING TO
HAVE TO BE DISCRETION ON THE
INITIAL CLERKS, BUT AGAIN TO
MAKE SURE ON THE INTERNET AND
SIMILAR PHYSICAL IN CASE
LITIGANT --
>> WITH SO YOU ARE ASSISTANCE
OF YOU GONE WELL BEYOND YOUR
TIME, AND -- WITHOUT FURTHER
QUESTIONS WE THANK ALL OF YOU
FOR COMING WE THANK THIS
COMMITTEE FOR DOING IT'S HARD
WORK ALL THE COMMENTERS THANK
YOU THIS THEEBL WHICH THE
SYSTEM WORKS WE KNOW THIS IS
NOT A PAID JOB YOU ARE DOING
IT FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE
OF THE ENTIRE BRANCH, WE THANK
YOU ALL OF YOU FROM THE
CLERK'S OFFICE, STATE
ATTORNEYS, PRIVATE ATTORNEYS,
FOR THE PRESS, AND PUBLIC
DEPPEDERS TO JUDICIAL BRANCH
COMMITTEE THANK ALL OF YOU FOR
DOING THAT A DECISION WE WILL
NEED TO MAKE THE COURT WILL
TAKE ITS MORNING RECESS.
>> ALL RISE.