Have Questions? Contact Us.
Since its inception, NYCLA has been at the forefront of most legal debates in the country. We have provided legal education for more than 40 years.
January 17, 2013
Comments on Proposal to Adopt 22 NYCRR Section 202.5(e)
The New York County Lawyers’ Association Supreme Court Committee reviewed the Office of Court Administration (“OCA”) proposal regarding the adoption of 22 NYCRR Section 202.5(e) relating to the redaction of papers filed in civil matters at its meeting on January 8, 2013.
The Committee voted 12-0, with 12 abstaining, in favor of adopting the new 22 NYCRR Section 202.5(e), as amended below, relating to the redaction of papers filed in civil matters.
The Committee was generally in favor of a court rule requiring redaction of certain personal information; however, the Committee was concerned about subdivision (4), stating that a party waives the protection of the rule if the party files papers containing his or her own personal information. Because it was unclear from the plain text of the proposed statute whether a motion to redact brought under subdivision (2) could be brought by a party who inadvertently disclosed his or her own personal information, the Committee voted to adopt the proposal with subdivision (4)amended to read, “Except as provided in subdivision (2), a party waives the protection of this rule as to the party’s own personal identifying information by filing it without redaction and not under seal.” Added text underlined.
With the proposed amendment, the Committee was in favor of the redaction rules.
The New York County Lawyers’ Association Civil Court Practice Section reviewed this OCA proposal at its January 15, 2013 meeting. By a vote of 12-0, with one abstaining, the Section also voted to subscribe to the Supreme Court Committee’s recommendations respecting OCA’s proposal as to adopting a new section 22 NYCRR Section 202.5(e) – relating to redaction of personal identifying information in papers filed in civil matters – with the following additional recommendations of its own:
(1) the rules governing the Civil Court should be similarly amended, especially in light of the rule’s exceptions for filings “in an action arising out of a consumer credit transaction,” the vast majority of which are brought in Civil Court; and
(2) proposed Section 202.5(e) should be amended to state that it will not apply also to filings in actions or proceedings for custody, visitation or maintenance of a child, in addition to “matrimonial actions,” as such filings all are sealed by the same statute, DRL Section 235.