Ways to balance public, private court data offered

A step into a new realm of technology has had court officials trying to harmonize privacy rights with the right to public access when it comes to large amounts of court information.

For two years, a special committee charged with studying access to court records has debated over whether access to bulk court data, typically in the form of an electronic database, could compromise the privacy of those named in court records.

Privacy advocates have argued that database lists of court defendants could be abused for marketing or other purposes, which would infringe upon people's privacy.

However, those who support open access to court records argued that simply banning bulk data would prevent the public and the media from getting worthwhile information about the courts.

On Monday, the Committee on Privacy and Public Court Records finalized their suggestions to the Utah Judicial Council. Among those suggestions were to make aggregate court data private, but to also make certain data indexes available to the public when the information is considered public. Private information, such as dates of birth and addresses, will not be released to the public.

The committee also recommended that a process be established where media and other groups can petition the courts to release other court information in bulk in the future.

David Reymann, an attorney representing local media groups, called Monday's decision "a step in the right direction."

Reymann said initially the courts wanted to consider all bulk court information private, but Monday's decision leaves the door open for negotiation.

"It's encouraging that there's a process in place where reporters who want to use this data for beneficial reasons can go to the council and explain what they want to do," Reymann said.

Committee member Randy Dryer said with technology growing, access to large amounts of court information by the public is going to become more common. Information such as data on how judges rule could be requested.

However, 3rd District Judge Noel Frank, also a committee member, expressed concern that such information could be used against judges. Frank pointed out that a list of a judge's decisions on a certain type of case could be used to bring pressure on a judge on the eve of making a decision. Noel did recognize the importance of the public's right to access open information and suggested the request process be streamlined.