From Barfield v. Doe, determined immediately by the Florida Courtroom of Enchantment, in an opinion by Decide Jeffrey Kuntz, joined by Judges Martha Warner & Edward Artau:
The litigants within the eviction continuing sought to protect a whole courtroom file from public disclosure. They argued a landlord filed an eviction motion after agreeing not to take action and that the owner acquired 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 Common Apply and Judicial Administration Rule 2.420(c)(9)(A)(vi) (2022), the county courtroom accepted these causes as a foundation to seal parts of the courtroom file….
There’s a presumption that courtroom recordsdata are open to the general public and “[e]very particular person has the proper to examine or copy any public document made or acquired in reference to the official enterprise of any public physique … besides with respect to data exempted pursuant to this part or particularly made confidential by this Structure.” The judicial department is “particularly embody[d]” on this provision, Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. Rule 2.420(a) gives that “[t]he public shall have entry to all data of the judicial department of presidency, besides” as supplied in Rule 2.420….
Rule 2.420(c)(9)(A)(vi) permits a courtroom to protect a continuing or document from the general public when confidentiality is required to “keep away from substantial harm 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 are 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 protect their names from public disclosure can’t justify doing so. Consequently, and absent another legitimate foundation to protect the knowledge from disclosure, the names can’t be hidden from public view.
For the same choice from Washington, see right here.