Notwithstanding the above provision, the Clerks of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals shall distribute copies of opinions to authorized publishers free of charge for publication pursuant to law and Ariz.Const. Art. 6, § 8.
Upon motion by a party, by any person, or upon the court's own motion, and for good cause shown, the court in which such action is pending may issue an order to allow remote electronic access to members of the public, as provided in paragraph (g)(1)(D), to any case in which a defendant is charged with an offense listed in A.R.S. Title 13, chapters 14, 32, 35 or 35.1 or in which the victim was a juvenile at the time of the offense as provided in paragraph (g)(1)(D)(ii)(h). The order may include any appropriate provision required to protect the juvenile or other victim from embarrassment or oppression. The burden of showing good cause for an order shall remain with the person seeking remote electronic access to the case record. Irrespective of an order limiting electronic access under this paragraph, the clerk shall provide non-registered users remote electronic access as set forth in paragraph (E)(ii) herein when the court generally provides such non-registered user access in other cases.
Any remote electronic access shall be conditioned upon the user's agreement to access the information only as instructed by the court, not to attempt any unauthorized access, and to consent to monitoring by the court of all use of the system. The court will also notify users that it will not be liable for inaccurate or untimely information, or for misinterpretation or misuse of the data. Such agreement and notices shall be provided to the users in any manner the court deems appropriate. The court may deny access to users for failure to comply with such requirements. The court or clerk of court that establishes remote electronic access to case records may also establish limitations on remote electronic access based on the needs of the court, limitations on technology and equipment, staff resources and funding.
Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 123
COURT COMMENTS [1997]
Paragraph (c)(2). This provision mandates the producer and custodian of records to identifiably segregate from the public case records, all administrative documents containing confidential information to avoid inadvertent disclosures. After confidential documents have been removed or information has been redacted from a record, a description of the excised data shall be placed therein, unless the description itself constitutes a violation of confidentiality.
Paragraph (d)(1)(A). Following passage of the Stop Juvenile Crime Initiative (Proposition 102) in November 1996, the legislature made substantial revisions to juvenile delinquency proceedings that included opening juvenile court records to the public. See ARS § 8-208, amended effective July 21, 1997.
Paragraph (d)(2)(A). The intent of this subsection is to eliminate uncertainty among users regarding who has the primary responsibility to identify and segregate the criminal history record information (CHRI) under section (9) of Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 94-16 (Victims' Rights Implementation Procedures), or other mandates. The probation department or other units that initially obtain or produce the CHRI have the primary responsibility to identify and segregate the CHRI from the open portions of the records. The clerk's office has continuing responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of the CHRI that has been marked confidential by the primary user.
Paragraph (e)(2). This section does not apply to the records of applicants for judicial appointments or membership on appellate and trial court commissions. Disclosure of information relating to applicants for judicial and commission appointments are subject to the Uniform Rules of Procedure for Commissions on Appellate and Trial Court Appointments.
Paragraph (e)(6). This section does not require that draft reports or pre-decisional documents on court operations be maintained or preserved as a public record except as required by applicable records retention policies.
Paragraph (e)(7). This section is intended to assure the confidentiality of the record of materials borrowed by any patron; however, the patron's name and address are public records.
Paragraph (e)(11). This section acknowledges the court's authority under federal copyright law, to control the copying or re-publication of public records that may be copyrighted by the court. Materials that may be copyrighted include all original writings (except judicial opinions), drawings, audio and video recordings, computer programs and applications, or other original publications, produced by a court employee within the scope of employment.
Paragraph (f)(4)(A). Public access to the records of court proceedings is an essential element of a democratic system. Court personnel have a duty to assist the public in obtaining information on their judicial system. That duty is no less a part of court operations than are the other primary duties of the judiciary. This paragraph (f)(4)(A) is intended to deal with situations in which a request jeopardizes the operations of the court, and not to justify refusal of public record requests because compliance will require effort on the part of court personnel.
[1999] COURT COMMENT TO PARAGRAPH (C)(4)
The public is entitled to inspect and obtain copies of court records that are maintained on computer systems or in other non-paper medium as provided in this rule. Because of convenience and cost efficiency, the court is committed to maximizing the availability of records to the public through electronic systems. The production or reproduction of records in a non-standard form or format is encouraged as a service to the public. However, producing or reproducing any record in a form or format not used in the court's ordinary business operations is at the discretion of the custodian.
[1999] COURT COMMENT TO SECTION (F)(3)
This section incorporates the common law exemption for newspapers from the fees charged applicants who seek records for commercial purposes. In Star Publishing v. Parks, 178 Ariz, 604, 875 P.2d 837 (1993), the Court of Appeals, Div. II, determined that newspapers were not engaged in "the direct economic exploitation of public records," and therefore were not subject to the commercial use fees charged by the state under ARS § 39-121.03. For the same reason, those that are regularly engaged in gathering, reporting, writing, editing, publishing or broadcasting news to the public are not considered commercial users of court records.
[2009] COURT COMMENT TO PARAGRAPH (H)(5)
This provision is intended to allow individuals to seek correction of data entry errors appearing in case management system data likely to be displayed online or disseminated in bulk or compiled fashion. The process for correcting errors appearing in judgments, orders, and other parts of the record is governed by current rules, including Rule 60, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 24.4, Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Rule 85, Rules of Family Law Procedure.
COMMENT TO 2014 AMENDMENT TO PARAGRAPH (G)(1)(E)(III)
Courts and clerks of court should prominently note on their document access website that it may not display all documents in a case and that additional or subsequent documents or orders may be available from the court or clerk of court.
HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
The June 6, 2005 amendment of this rule by Order No. R-03-0012, which was to become effective December 1, 2005, was vacated by Order dated September 27, 2005.