JIS Data Dissemination Committee

February 25, 2005

MINUTES  

JIS Data Dissemination Committee 

AOC SeaTac Office

Members Present:

Judge Kenneth Grosse, Division I Court of Appeals, Chair

Judge Kip Stilz, Thurston County District Court

Judge Glenna Hall, King County Superior Court

Judge James Heller, Pierce County District Court

Siri Woods, Chelan County Clerk

Judge Thomas Wynne, Snohomish County Superior Court

Lisa Hayden, WSBA Family Law Executive Committee

Don Horowitz

Diana Kramer, representing the newspapers

Katherine Long, Seattle Times

Barbara Miner, King County Clerk

Kevin Stock, Pierce County Clerk

Brian Backus

Call to Order

Judge Grosse opened the meeting, introductions were made, and the November 19, 2004 minutes were approved.

Fees for Access to Electronic Court Records

In a January 17, 2005 letter to Justice Bobbe Bridge, Rowland Thompson, Executive Director of the Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington, raised two issues concerning electronic access: 

1.      Price differentials for Internet access where, for example, the cost for members of the bar is $150 annually, but the price for the public is $1,000-$1,500 annually.

2.      Contract conditions governing use of court records obtained over the Internet.

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: 

1.      Lawyers and non-lawyers will be treated equally with the exception of data resellers who will be charged differently for enhanced services.  The Pierce County Clerk plans to charge $150 per year, per individual user.

2.      Individuals qualifying as in forma pauperis (IFP) will not be charged.  The IFP process will be like that mandated by GR 30(6)(b) for electronic filing.

3.      There will be fee exemptions for qualifying non-profit legal aid organizations.

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 Justice Bridge thinks this issue should not be on the table and that, like any legislation unless remedial in nature, GR 31 is prospective and applies only from its effective date. 

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: 

1.      Whether there is a prospectivity issue.

2.      What it means if the rule, as adopted, is prospective. 

3.      What, if anything, should be done about past records beyond the authority granted in GR 31(d)(2). 

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. 

Next Meeting

The next meeting is scheduled for Friday, March 25, 2005, at 9:00 a.m. in the SeaTac conference room.