JIS Data Dissemination Committee
February 25, 2005
JIS Data Dissemination Committee
AOC SeaTac Office
Judge Kenneth Grosse, Division I Court of Appeals, Chair
Judge Glenna Hall, King County Superior Court
Judge James Heller, Pierce County District Court
Judge Thomas Wynne,
Guests:Lisa Hayden, WSBA Family Law Executive Committee
Diana Kramer, representing the newspapers
Barbara Miner, King County Clerk
Call to Order
Judge Grosse opened the meeting, introductions were made, and the
Fees for Access to Electronic Court Records
Judge Grosse opened the discussion by asking Don Horowitz to update the committee on recent discussions to resolve these issues. Mr. Horowitz reported that he had met with Kevin Stock, Mike Killeen (representing the newspapers), and Northwest Justice Project Staff Attorney, John Purbaugh. He reported that there was agreement that:
Once the agreement is finalized, it will be brought back to the Data Dissemination Committee for review. In addition, statewide standards will be proposed, for example, for handling IFPs, but would not require the same fees everywhere.
The committee discussed these proposals including concerns about the negotiation process, charging individual users versus charging per organization, how to deal with IFPs, and how much latitude local jurisdictions should have. Judge Stilz noted the benefits of best practices and the desirability that users of the justice system not have to do things differently in each county. Siri Woods observed that there are established business operations that are different in each county. Judge Grosse stated that the charge-back policy for legal services organizations should be the same for JIS as for local electronic court records systems.
Prospective Application Language for GR 31
Judge Grosse reported that letters have been received from the Superior Court Judges' Association and King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng asking that GR 31 be amended to make it prospective. He also noted
Judge Grosse then asked why people think prospective language is needed. Committee members noted that GR 31 imposes a new standard and that clerks have many records that contain information that would have been redacted had the rule been in effect at the time they were filed. Don Horowitz observed that GR 31(e)(1) might be interpreted to create a duty to redact old records and that, given the onus on attorneys, there may be a need to give counsel and parties an opportunity to redact. Others questioned whether the rule creates such a duty.
Siri Woods noted that the prospectivity issue had been brought to the Supreme Court and had been rejected. Other members noted that GR 31(d)(2) gives local courts the authority to make rules about what records are available to the public electronically.
Judge Grosse said that the Data Dissemination Committee could be a forum for discussion and that there might be three issues:
Judge Stilz noted the desirability of a commentary on GR 31. Judge Grosse suggested comments could be added to the FAQs.
Review of Data Dissemination Contract and Disclaimers
This item will be carried over to the next meeting.
The next meeting is scheduled for
|Courts | Organizations | News | Opinions | Rules | Forms | Directory | Library|
|Back to Top | Privacy and Disclaimer Notices|