Imagine opening the Press Herald and learning you had been sued. Now, imagine your daughter signing into her Facebook, learning you have been sued by your crazy neighbor, and reading the comments before you got home. Finally, imagine your boss reading a tweet about those allegations over dinner.
Last week, the Press Herald published an article criticizing the state courts for “hiding” certain court records. In brief, various media outlets want access to Complaints right away. In its excitement to publish, the Press Herald provided excellent illustrations of some of the real risks of releasing Complaints upon filing. Namely, the person being sued cannot provide his side of the story and the media presents one side only.
Complaints are not definitive statements of fact or law. They are not court decisions. A Complaint is what one party knows, believes, or fantasizes. It is one party’s viewpoint. In most cases, the party who is sued has 20 days to submit a defense or “Answer.” In general, no court action will be taken until after an Answer is filed or Answer-period has ended. The judge waits until the parties have given their view of the facts and law before making a decision. That is part of the legal process and keeps things fair.
Approximately 20,000 new Civil Complaints (not including family and violations bureau cases) are filed in Maine state courts each year; many of them take months or years to complete. These cases are very important to the people involved, but most are neither “of public interest and consequence” nor newsworthy; they are personal or business disputes between parties who are asking the courts to resolve them. To secure the Court’s help, people are often required to provide sensitive information.
Maine’s Constitution requires the Supreme Judicial Court to oversee the state court system and make decisions about its records. After nearly two decades of study and gathering input from many stakeholders, the Court decided not to make a civil Complaint available to the public before a person being sued has received it.
By choosing to publish its article before the Court filed its Answer in the lawsuit, the Press Herald did not do much to educate the public about Court policy, governmental accountability, First Amendment law, or information privacy. It did not include viewpoints from those who agreed with the Court’s policy, nor from people (like me) who think the Court did not go far enough to protect privacy. It could have added commentary from those who disagree with the media’s first amendment analysis or links to more information about court record access. See e.g.,https://ctap.me/current-focus/ Ironically, the Press Herald has not even told us the Court’s reasoning. Instead, it summarized the media’s Complaint, which is only a small slice of a complex set of issues.
We can surmise that a court-imposed delay may allow the person being sued to absorb the news and discuss it with his daughter and boss. It has the potential to allow the person time to ask the court to shield information from public view (e.g., address information to prevent physical harm; medical or financial data to prevent identity theft; details about the lives of children or others that are unnecessary to an understanding of the case); or, to find an attorney, or try to figure out how to navigate the legal system without one; or to find someone else who is able to read, explain, or even translate the Complaint for non-English speakers.
We will find and make time to read the Court’s Answer when it is filed. We may not be equally diligent each time we read allegations against or the personal details about a stranger in the newspaper, posted online, on Facebook, tweeted, shared, or retweeted.
There is more to the Court’s policy. We hope you get to read about it.
