JIS Data Dissemination Committee

March 25, 2005

MINUTES

JIS Data Dissemination Committee

AOC SeaTac Office 

Members Present: 

Judge Kenneth Grosse, Chair, Division I Court of Appeals

Judge Glenna Hall, King County Superior Court

Judge James Heller, Pierce County District Court

Siri Woods, Chelan County Superior Court Clerk

Judge Thomas Wynne, Snohomish County Superior Court

Guests: 

Don Horowitz, ATJ           

N.F. Jackson, Whatcom County Superior Court

Barb Miner, King County Superior Court

Mark Weiss, WSBA Family Law Section

AOC Staff:

Brian Backus

John Bell

Call to Order 

Judge Grosse opened the meeting and introductions were made.

Judge Grosse stated that he planned to draft a letter to King County Prosecuting Attorney, Norm Maleng, regarding the prospective issue discussed at the last meeting, but since King County had addressed this issue by local rule, he thought the issue was moot, at least as to King County.

Judge Grosse also stated, and Don Horowitz confirmed, that policy language regarding fees for electronic access in Pierce County is being drafted and should be ready for presentation at the May 20 meeting.

Judge Grosse stated N.F. Jackson had sent him a memo regarding the prospective application of GR 31 that raised several issues that he thought the committee should discuss. 

GR 31 

N.F. Jackson began the discussion with a question regarding the electronic availability of court records filed prior to the adoption of GR 31.  He asked if the committee believed that there was a prohibition against electronic access to pre-GR 31 court records. 

Siri Woods and Barb Miner stated that they did not believe there was any prohibition against electronic access to pre-GR 31 records.

Mr. Jackson asked if the clerks were liable for electronic dissemination of information such as personal identifiers that are redacted under GR 31.  The response from the committee was no. 

The data dissemination committee agreed that the single tier philosophy of GR 31 is an affirmation of Nast v. Michaels and, as such, is retroactive as well as prospective.  The protection and redaction of personal identifiers listed in GR 31 is prospective only.

The committee agreed that the issue of liability should not be addressed in a court rule.  This issue could be addressed by the legislature.

GR 15 

There was a brief discussion of GR 15, and Judge Grosse stated he believed that the proposed rule should address redaction as well as sealing.  Judge Wynne, who chaired the work group that drafted the amendments to GR 15 agreed.  He stated he would ask the JISC to approve the rule with the added request that the rule be sent to the DD committee to work on redaction language.