From Barfield v. Doe, determined right now by the Florida Court docket of Attraction, in an opinion by Decide Jeffrey Kuntz, joined by Judges Martha Warner & Edward Artau:
The litigants within the eviction continuing sought to defend a complete court docket file from public disclosure. They argued a landlord filed an eviction motion after agreeing not to take action and that the owner obtained the rental funds earlier than the motion was filed. So the litigants argued that public disclosure of the eviction motion was probably defamatory and would have an effect on the tenants’ creditworthiness. Citing Florida Rule of Basic Follow and Judicial Administration Rule 2.420(c)(9)(A)(vi) (2022), the county court docket accepted these causes as a foundation to seal parts of the court docket file….
There’s a presumption that court docket information are open to the general public and “[e]very particular person has the fitting to examine or copy any public document made or obtained in reference to the official enterprise of any public physique … besides with respect to information exempted pursuant to this part or particularly made confidential by this Structure.” The judicial department is “particularly embrace[d]” on this provision, Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. Rule 2.420(a) offers that “[t]he public shall have entry to all information of the judicial department of presidency, besides” as supplied in Rule 2.420….
Rule 2.420(c)(9)(A)(vi) permits a court docket to defend a continuing or document from the general public when confidentiality is required to “keep away from substantial damage to a celebration by disclosure of issues protected by a standard legislation or privateness proper not typically inherent within the particular sort of continuing sought to be closed.” However “litigants can’t have an inexpensive expectation of privateness with regard to issues which might be inherent to their civil proceedings.” Nor can the settlement of all litigants justify shielding a judicial document from public view.
On this case, the names of litigants are issues inherent to the civil continuing. The comprehensible need of these litigants to defend their names from public disclosure can’t justify doing so. Because of this, and absent another legitimate foundation to defend the data from disclosure, the names can’t be hidden from public view.
For the same choice from Washington, see right here.