IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 2.420
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court amended Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 to clarify which court records must be designated as confidential in response to recently enacted statutes regarding Baker Act records and domestic violence injunctions. The Court declined to adopt a blanket confidentiality provision for records containing identifying information, holding that constitutional provisions limiting confidential records preclude such broad rules.
The Court amended subdivision (viii) to include 'all personal identifying information of a person subject to the [Baker] Act' consistent with section 394.464(3), Florida Statutes. However, the Court declined to amend subdivision (xxiii) to include records that merely contain confidential identifying information, holding that the Court cannot make entire records confidential simply because they contain identifying information that is confidential under statute.
[1] Court rules may designate certain court records as confidential when authorized by statute.
[2] Petitions, court orders, and related records under the Baker Act, including personal identifying information, must be maintained as confidential by the clerk of court.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“This Court cannot adopt a rule that makes an entire record in a court file confidential simply because that record contains identifying information that is confidential under section 119.0714(1)(k)(3).”
The Court's holding declining to adopt a blanket confidentiality provision for all records containing identifying information in domestic violence injunction cases, based on constitutional constraints.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing the enactment of section 394.464(1), Florida Statutes, which made certain Baker Act records confidential, and amendments to section 119.0714…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Confidentiality Of Court Records cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Previously, in this case, the Court, on its own motion, 1 amended Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(d) (Procedures for Determining Confidentiality of Court Records) to add two new categories of information in court records that the clerk of court must designate and maintain as confidential under subdivision (d)(1)(B) of the rule.
See In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Jud. Admin. 2.420, No. SC19-1049 (Fla. June 27, 2019).
The Court has jurisdiction 2 and further amends subdivision (viii) of rule 2.420(d)(1)(B). 1.
See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.140(d). 2.
See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.
In response to newly enacted section 394.464(1), Florida Statutes, 3 which makes certain Baker Act records confidential, the Court amended subdivision (viii) of rule 2.420(d)(1)(B) to add “all petitions, court orders, and related records under the Baker Act” as a category of court records that the clerk must designate and maintain as confidential under the rule.
See In re Amends., slip op. at 1, 4.
In response to amendments to section 119.0714(1)(k), Florida Statutes (2018), the Court added new subdivision (xxiii) to the rule to list “[i]nformation that can be used to identify a petitioner or respondent in a petition for an injunction against domestic violence, repeat violence, dating violence, sexual violence, stalking, or cyberstalking, and any affidavits, notice of hearing, and temporary injunction until the respondent has been personally served with a copy of the petition for injunction, affidavits, notice of hearing, and temporary injunction.”
See In re Amends., slip op. at 2, 4. 4 Because the Court did not publish the amendments before adopting them, interested persons were given seventy-five days from the date of the opinion to comment on the amendments.
See id.at 2. 3.
See ch. 2019-51, §§ 1-2, Laws of Fla. (creating § 394.464 (Court records; confidentiality), Fla. Stat.). 4.
See ch. 2019-39, § 1, Laws of Fla. (amending § 119.0714(1)(k), Fla. Stat.). -2-The Court received three comments.
One of the comments filed suggests an amendment to rule 2.420(d)(1)(B) that is beyond the scope of the amendments at issue here.
The Florida Public Defenders Association filed a comment supporting the amendment to subdivision (viii) of the rule.
The Rules of Judicial Administration Committee (RJA Committee) filed a comment supporting the rule amendments, providing majority and minority positions on the two amendments, with a majority of the committee suggesting an amendment to new subdivision (xxiii) of rule 2.420(d)(1)(B) and a minority of the committee suggesting an amendment to subdivision (viii) of the rule.
After considering the majority and minority views of the RJA Committee, we amend subdivision (viii) of the rule consistent with subsection (3) of section 394.464, Florida Statutes, as suggested by the minority, to add “all personal identifying information of a person subject to the [Baker] Act.”
However, we decline to amend new subdivision (xxiii) to include “[r]ecords that contain” the confidential identifying information listed in that subdivision of the rule.
This Court cannot adopt a rule that makes an entire record in a court file confidential simply because that record contains identifying information that is confidential under section 119.0714(1)(k)(3). 5 5.
See In re Amends. to Fla. Rules of Crim. Pro., 188 So. 3d 764, 768 (Fla. 2015) (recognizing that the Court cannot limit public access to judicial branch records by rule adopted after the 1992 adoption of article I, section 24 of the -3-Accordingly, the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration are amended as reflected in the appendix to this opinion.
New language is indicated by underscoring.
The amendment shall become effective immediately upon the release of this opinion.
It is so ordered.
CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, LAGOA, LUCK, and MUÑIZ, JJ., concur. THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS.