State's high court limits Internet access to court records | NewsOK.com

By John Greiner
Capitol Bureau

Oklahomans’ access to court records on the Internet will be limited by rules adopted by the Oklahoma Supreme Court today.
The court said individual pleadings and other recorded documents filed in state court actions shall not be publicly displayed on the Internet.

People wanting to see this information can go to the courthouse and view it, the court added .

The rules are effective June 10.

Supreme Court Justices Yvonne Kauger and James Edmondson dissented, saying the court's decision was made with input only from court clerks while others affected by the decision -- attorneys, judges, the Legislature and the public — were not consulted.

"Courts have a responsibility to balance the risk of harm that may be rendered by the disclosure of sensitive information with the need for a fully open court record,” the dissenting opinion stated.

"I think the court and court clerks underestimated the popularity of access to those records. The public and all kinds of businesses and individuals are going to scream," said Mark Thomas of the Oklahoma Press Association.

well there goes one of my stalking resources! funhaters.

In other words, despite the higher filing fees we're all paying, which were raised so that the court clerks could pay for this technology, the court clerks have other financial priorities and made up a B.S. reason to pull these documents off the internet.

I don't suppose they'll drop filing fees back to what they were since they'll no longer need the money to pay for this technology, will they?

Nope.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Crazy. What are they thinking???? Oklahoma was doing a great job of having a terrific cutting edge system but are completely taking themselves out of the game with this decision. I am practicing in Virginia and would LOVE to have Oklahoma's access. I hope they reconsider this.

Some simple rules allowing for the redacting of personal information without a court order and perhaps a small sanction for attorneys and parties who knowingly file paperwork with that sort of information on it would have sufficed.

Justice Kauger's dissent is spot-on. They threw the baby out with the bath water.

Perhaps when a few of the more ancient Justices leave the bench, this rule will be reconsidered.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Have the seniors on the bench been gumming up the works? I used to work for one of them (won't say which one) long years ago. Delightful man.

I read the whole ruling. Apparently, this is "proposed." It doesn't go into effect until June 10th, by which time, the Court will likely get an earful from members of the news media, attorneys, judges, etc.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Here's a puzzler for you. If you're going to file a divorce, what do you do about the UCCJEA, which states in part that:

Do you follow the statute? Or do you follow the court's proposed rule which states:

Don't the court rules completely defeat the purpose of the affidavit required in the UCCJEA? I do realize that the rule says "unless otherwise provided for by law," but really, now, which one is the law? The UCCJEA or the Rule?

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

All I can say is that in Virginia, they sometimes keep addresses sealed in cases where domestic violence can be demonstrated.

Sure.. The UCCJEA allows that, but if no such allegations are present and an attorney under the new Rule declines to include the residency history and the District Judge dismisses the case for failure to state a claim, what then?

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Folks, its about money....................The court clerks can charge for the files if copies are requested.
On the net the can be printed for free....................follow the money

In all cases, except criminal, let the parties involved choose how detailed the info is. The xxx xx 1234 used for SSN' s seems to work fine in other areas. W/2 children & a divorcee, I do NOT like their names etc all over the web. What about you other parents here? Possibly their initials & month/year of birth would suffice.
This is another example where our society seems to draw lines in the sand on issues that can be worked out easier using some common sense. Rather than emotionally charging the debate from the start!

FYI, the State Supreme Court has rescinded the rule.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!