Maine Judicial Branch Task Force on Transparency and Privacy in Court Records

MINUTES

April 25, 2017 Meeting Capital Judicial Center

ATTENDEES: Hon. Ann Murray, Hon. Andrew Mead, Hon. Andre Janelle, Francine Stark, Kellie McKenney, Brian MacMaster, Carol Lovejoy, Peter Guffin, Jack Haycock, Heather Staples, Bonita Usher, Ned Chester, Christa Berry, Zach Heiden, Mal Leary, Jack Baldacci, Dan Wood, Alyson Cummings, and Laura O’Hanlon.

Introduction

Justice Ann Murray, the Chair, welcomed the group and thanked everyone for agreeing to participate on the Transparency and Privacy in Court Records Task Force (TAP). The importance of TAP’s work to the court system and to the public was discussed.

All attendees introduced themselves and briefly explained their connection to the issues the Task Force will be studying. J. Murray presented a PowerPoint explaining the current state of court records in the Maine Judicial Branch (MJB) and the MJB’s efforts to recruit a vendor to create and implement a new e- filing/case management system (CMS). She further explained the process the JB was following to design the new systems, including a description of the various products that will be available in the new e-fling/CMS system.

Members of the Task Force were given notebook materials along with a link to the Committee Website, where the majority of Committee materials can be accessed. The group reviewed notebook materials and the links, including a list of deliverables for presentation by this group to the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC). J. Murray emphasized the deadline for the report, and the group’s goal to meet the September 30thdeadline for reporting as outlined in the Task Force Charter.

The Chair explained the structure for the TAP, and explained that given theissues and the time constraints that subcommittees were not being proposed. Rather than having subcommittee meetings, TAP members were asked to spend moretime

Transparency and Privacy in Court Records TaskForce Minutes1

doing homework, and come prepared to work as a committee as a whole. The Chair discussed the reference materials available on the Committee website. TAP Members are encouraged to review additional materials and if TAP members find resource materials that they think would be useful, they are asked to contact the TAP email address so that materials could be shared with the whole group (Website resource:

Historical Perspective

Justice Mead, the SJC liaison, gave a historical overview of court records, including a discussion of the practical obscurity doctrine and prior “court record access” efforts in Maine (Task Force on Electronic Court Record Access & TECHRA Implementation Group). He explained that as we move into a new case management system, it will be critical for the MJB to have a policy and approach that protects private information while allowing for transparency of court operations.

He provided an overview of what other states have done with electronic court record access, and described some of the difficulties they have encountered. Maine hopes to learn from their experiences.

Justice Mead described two major tasks that will be completed by TAP. First, TAP will develop an overarching policy—a policy about access. Taking advantage of the work done by other states, detailed reference materials compiled by Eric Pelletier who served as an extern in Justice Mead’s chambers, and any independent research, TAP will develop and present a broad overarching policy statement for consideration bytheSJC. The SJC does not haveapreconceivednotion and needs the input of this committee. The SJC will seriously consider recommendations of this Task Force. Second, the TAP will develop recommendations about who can access which types of information and how. This may be called “access levels.” This will be a difficult task. For example, should everybody get everything? If records are/were available at the courthouse should they be available on line and to whom? We must consider what needs to be protected and why. We can use simplicity, but we must make sure that all viewpoints areconsidered.

Justice Mead referred to an MJB memorandum outlining the legal landscape, and a spreadsheet with links to other states’ policy statements. These documents are available on the TAP website. He encouraged the TAP members to read what is

provided, immerse themselves in the topic, and to determine which concepts need to be pursued. He explained that TAP needed member investment to succeed.

Open Discussion

Following a brief break, members discussed a variety of topics that will be helpful to future agenda development and to guiding the MJB as it continues to develop a new e-filing/Case Management System. The discussion included items such as: the efficacy of prior court record access groups, how the e-filing/CMS system would be deployed, how many case-types would be in the new system, examples and lessons learned from the federal court and probate court experiences with e- filing, how to handle redaction of confidential information and sealed records in the new system, how to work with unrepresented litigants and those without access to computers, changing roles for court staff, and the need for continued legislative funding. The group was also interested in the details of Tyler’s new e-filing/CMS system.

Tasks to be completed before for the next meeting

Review materials provided on TAP website and conduct additional research, as desired. Come prepared to develop a draft policy statement for the Maine Judicial Branch.

Upcoming Meetings

May15,20171 p.m.-4p.m.

June7,20179 a.m.-1p.m. [or 4 p.m.TBD]

June20,20171 pm - 4 pm[Tentative]

August1,20179 a.m.-1p.m.

Website resource: Contact us: