ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Kentucky Blogs -> Kentucky Law Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Kentucky

: Kentucky Law Blog

CIVIL RULE AMENDMENTS: New Rule to Protect Privacy in Pleadings and other Court Filings of Documents

By Michael Stevens

ADVERTISEMENTS

Civil Rule 7.03 is new, new, new.

In a nutshell:

  • Attorney shall redact SSN, DOB, TIN, financial account number in civil matters (DOB ok in criminal pleadings) from those documents FILED WITH THE COURT.
  • Attorney is the custodian of the original.
  • Court may order unredacted filed under seal.
  • Not the clerk's responsibility to review the filings for compliance.  Responsibility vests with counsel and party filing documents.
  • Failure to comply will subject attorney to sanctions and relevant portions stricken.

Implications:

  • Redacting these items from the pleadings and other prepared discovery should be straightforward.  However, I have been simply not providing SSN and DOB in the discovery responses and sending that under separate cover.  Now it looks like two documents one redacted and one not.  TIN and other financial information arises frequently in divorce and business litigation.
  • The rule includes "certain personal data identifiers" and then lists specifics.  What about residences, former residences, children's names, health care providers, employers' names, etc.???  Is the "including" all inclusive or by way of example?
  • What about the interrogatory asking about other civil or criminal matters which may contain personal indentifiers filed before the civil rule change?
  • What about the requests for documents such as medical records, personnel records, employment records, insurance policies, etc.? Sounds like the easiest solution is not to produce for filing with the court but simply make them available for inspection or copying and sent by separate cover (copies or digital format).
  • These questions only scratch the surface of the ramifications of this rule which must also be read together with the subpoena changes since many records from physicians and employers and financial institutions require personal identifiers.  I will have to reread the rules regarding the filing of subpoenas and see what the risks are on these documents to avoid inadvertant filing by the sheriff of any unredeacted documents.

Make  your comments on these changes and how to avoid problems.



Picture 46

Picture 44

Full post as published by Kentucky Law Blog on March 30, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0233 secs (new cache)