DISTRICT COURT UPDATE
Summons Article, May, 2006
written by
Hon. M. Randall Jurrens

Continuing concerns about citizen privacy are the focus of this month’s update. 

 
As anticipated in the April 2005 article on Michigan’s new “social security number privacy act”, MCL 445.81 et seq., the state supreme court has promulgated Administrative Order No. 2006-2, effective March 1, 2006, to prevent the illegal or unethical use of information found within court records.

 
Although you are encouraged to review AO 2006-2 in its entirety at www.courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/Resources/Administrative/2006-2.pdf, the following highlights are offered for your consideration:

n      AO 2006-2 directs trial courts to (a) limit the collection and use of social security numbers for party and court file identification purposes to the last four digits, (b) implement updated case file management standards for nonpublic records, (c) eliminate the collection of social security numbers (except where required by statute, court rule or court order), and (d) establish minimum penalties for court employees who breach the new privacy policy.

n      Perhaps more important to practitioners, AO 2006-2 directs persons filing documents with the court to exclude social security numbers (except where required by statue, court rule, or court order), and makes offenders subject to punishment for contempt and liable for related costs and attorney fees. 

n      Finally, AO 2006-2 allows a person whose social security number is disclosed in a court document to move the court for an order directing the clerk to (a) redact the number (if the number is not required by statute, court rule, or court order), or (b) place the document in a separate nonpublic file (if the number is legally required).

Finally, in furtherance of the supreme court’s policy regarding access to court records, your district court has updated its own local administrative order regulating the inspection, reproduction and creation of court records; and LAO 2006-1 is available upon request.

      These changes will hopefully achieve a proper balance between the seemingly competing interests of allowing access to court records and personal privacy.

#   #   #