Posted: May 20, 2025
Code of Judicial Administration – Comment Period Closed July 4, 2025
CJA04-202.08. Fees for records, information, and services
The proposed amendments increase fees for Xchange subscriptions and access.
Utah Court Rules – Published for Comment
The Supreme Court and Judicial Council invite comments about amending these rules. To view the proposed amendment, click on the rule number.
To submit a comment or view the comments of others, click on “Continue Reading.” To submit a comment, scroll down to the “Leave a Reply” section, and type your comment in the “Comment” field. Type your name and email address in the designated fields and click “Post Comment.”
Comments cannot be acknowledged, but all will be considered. Comments are saved to a buffer for review before publication.
Posted: May 20, 2025
CJA04-202.08. Fees for records, information, and services
The proposed amendments increase fees for Xchange subscriptions and access.
I write to oppose this rule change. In particular, I oppose the 100% fee increase for non-subscribers of Xchange to view a pdf document, which this rule changes from $0.50 per document to $1.00 per document. I suspect that the actual cost to the courts to allow a non-subscriber to view each document is next to nothing, and thus the current fee of $0.50 per document is already unreasonable. Doubling this cost doubles the unreasonableness of the current fee. The general public should be able to search and view public court records without having to pay unreasonable fees. This doubling of the cost to view each pdf record will having a chilling effect on the right of average citizens to view public court records because by simple math each citizen will only be able to afford to see half as many public court records as he or she can afford now. This will prevent citizens from seeing the criminal background of a potential romantic partner, parents from seeing the criminal background of potential babysitters, roommates from seeing the criminal background of a potential roommate, a business person from seeing the criminal and civil backgrounds of potential suppliers, etc. There are lots of legitimate reasons why an average citizen should be able to freely access public court records as a non-subscriber to Xchange. The price to access these public court records is already too high. Please do not double the cost to view each public court record from $0.50 to $1.00.
There is no clear nexus between these charges and the administration of the website justifying the increase. In other words, we don’t even know why we are paying these costs to begin with to evaluate whether they are even reasonable and now the costs are being increased. There’s also no exemption for pro bono cases, which I happen to handle or for indigent parties. There’s no indication that the Xchange site is privately run or governmentally controlled and if it is privately run then that further justifies transparency as to cost and identity of the operator and governmental bidding process.
I strongly oppose this increase in fees especially in light of the total lack of free access we used to have in the court houses. It is absurd to charge more for something that costs next to nothing to produce. It is more absurd when the paywall at issue is protecting public documents to which the general public has a constitutional right to obtain.
Access to Xchange should be reduced in price, not increased. Terminals at all district courthouses should also allow FREE access like they used to offer.
With these increases, you will have more people calling the court clerks for help when they could just obtain the documents online. Access to court clerks in most courts is already embarrassingly poor. Now, they will get even more calls and requests for help.
Every year, Utah’s government and the Utah Bar move in the direction of taking away public access to public information or put more barriers in place to assure the general public is hindered in their efforts to seek justice. This needs to end. Start serving the people you swore to serve.
Some organizations with which I am involved have made the decision to fight inflation by refusing to increase fees for members and others. If everyone would do the same, there would be no inflation. When I was president of the Davis Bar, we made a decision to not increase membership fees. Everyone appreciated it, and we were able to continue all our activities. Thus, I encourage the court to not increase fees in this instance as well.
I oppose raising the fees in Xchange. To double the cost of “Downloading” a document 100% is either a blatant way to discourage the general public from trying to access documents or just a plain old “money grab.” There is no paper being printed, there is no additional manpower needed in that the document is already in the system. The “cost” to download it today is not any different then the cost it will be to download it in July. I suggest a tiered approach. Provide law firms/businesses/media outlets tiered options: 500 searches for $60.00, 750 searches for $80.00, 1000 searches for $100.00, etc… These businesses will likely choose the higher “packages” and thus Xchange would receive an increase. Leave all other aspects alone including the search cost after meeting their total and the cost of downloads. In this way the general public and those with low search totals are not discouraged and disgruntled by the perception that Xchange is trying to fleece them at a time when even the most basic necessities are increasing at a rapid pace.