Posted: October 29, 2008
Code of Judicial Administration
CJA 04-202.02. Records classification. Amend. Classifies as private the records in guardianship and conservatorship cases, except the order and letter of appointment. Classifies as private the records in guardianship and conservatorship cases, except the order and letter of appointment. Classifies some select data elements as public or private. This rule is being published for comment a second time, after amendments made in response to earlier comments. The further changes are highlighted in yellow.
CJA 04-202.03. Records access. Amend. Permit access to juvenile court records by the Department of Human Services.
CJA 04-202.09. Miscellaneous. Amend. Prohibits including non-public information in an otherwise public document. Specifies substitutes for personal identifying information.This rule is being published for comment a second time, after amendments made in response to earlier comments. The further changes are highlighted in yellow.
Regarding the proposed amendment to Rule 4-202.02
I renew my objection to classifying a Judgment Information Statement as Private.
A Judgment Information Statement is required to perfect a judgment lien on real property. In practice, the main avenue for creating the lien on property (or to accomplish any other collection action on a judgment) is to provide the court with the information contained in a Judgment Information Statement, so that a Judgment can be identified as belonging to a particular individual. Title agencies, credit reporting agencies, and other entities are only able to verify a debtor’s identity by using the name, address, date of birth, driver license number, social security number, and other identifying information contained in the Judgment Information Statement. If the document and the information contained in it are made Private, the court will be unable to release that information to interested entities, negating much of the purpose for requiring that a Judgment Information Statement be filed with the court at all, and crippling a creditor’s ability to collect on a judgment.
In addition, the phrase “and last four digits of a [social security number]” is proposed to be stricken from subsection (2)(L), making the classification provisions conflicting. Effectively, the rule regarding social security numbers (and driver license numbers) would read like this:
Rule 4-202.02. Records classification.
. . . (2) Public court records include
but are not limited to:
. . . (L) . . . driver’s license
number, [and] social security
number . . . of a party;
. . . (4) The following court records
are private:
. . . (H) judgment information
statement;*
. . . (J) the following personal
identifying information about a
party: . . . driver’s license
number, social security
number . . . .
So, which is it? Would a party’s social security number (or driver license number) be Public, or would it be Private?
I would of course prefer that at least the last four digits of a party’s social security number (and driver license number) remain Public (as seems to be contemplated by the proposed amendment to Rule 04-202.09), so that (Public) Judgment Information Statements wouldn’t be entirely gutted of usefulness. (If the information itself remains Public, there would be no practical reason to classify the document as Private.)
*Pursuant to UCA 78B-5-201, Judgment Information Statements seem to be required to include the entire social security number, although possibly Rule 04-202.09 could clarify this issue (i.e. if the Judgment Information Statement is classified as a Public document, all but the last four digits could be redacted under proposed 04-202.09).
The Judgment Information Statement itself is currently exported to the web, making the document itself the court’s method of communicating a debtor’s identifying information to interested entities. Classifying the Judgment Information Statement Private would remove that avenue of communication, even if the last four digits of a party’s social security number are classified Public, making such a distinction essentially pointless.
Rule 4-202.02
ln 113-117:
– Does “party” have a specific enough meaning that it clearly does not apply to minor victims in felony, misdemeanor, or infraction cases?
– I think it’s a little problematic to have this designation of public record buried in the definiton of private records. Also, does this this language conflict with (or is redundant of) ln 40-41?
Show me that this set of rules is enforced and what is the penalty for violations and then making the suggested changes might mean something. Because I recently filed a motion pursuant to 4-202.04(2)(c)requesting a Judge to classify a set of court documents as private and my motion was opposed by counsel, hence 4-202.04(3) should have controlled. Whereby, the Judge shall hold a hearing, shall make findings and conclusions, identify and balance, order closed or not and show why.
The Judge simply denied the motion and that was the end of it. Because appeals of these motions are not allowed, why would a judge waste the time?
My feelings on this matter are, if a Judge or a clerk cause this rule to be violated the penalty should be extremly harsh. Why not, these rules are not written with “may or may not,” these rules say “shall or shall not.”
Furthermore, with all the idenity thief that is happening now, information that is retained by the government should be restricted as per access.