Can Any Privacy Remain Once a Case is Filed in Court?

Is it ever possible to open files in an embarrassing sexual misconduct case and still protect legitimate privacy concerns? It seems so, according to a federal trial judge in Chicago.

Because of on-going concerns about electronic access to case dockets and case files themselves, the balance reached in this case warrants a close look.

A weekly Chicago newspaper won access to the discovery files in a lawsuit brought by a young woman against a Chicago police officer and settled quietly. The decision, from the federal trial court in Chicago, holds that the federal trial rules allowing protective orders should not apply to "well over five banker’s boxes" of discovery documents filed with the trial court. What were they hiding?

The boxes contained transcripts of the depositions of Chicago police personnel, hiring and firing personnel information for the defendant police officer and investigative complaint register files for the defendant and other police officers. These were all about allegations of sexual misconduct, according to the trial judge.

Of course a decision on access to court records is based on precedent that dates back to the 1980’s. It is not new law, but Judge Reuben Castillo held that exposure to public view is the only way to clean up police misconduct in Chicago and any other city suffering from police misconduct.

"Police misconduct creates on the ultimate ‘lose/lose’ situations in our democratic society," Castillo wrote, and the first victim is the person who puts misplaced trust in a police officer who deceives and brutalizes the citizen. Second only to the victim "are those courageous and righteous law enforcement officers who every day risk their lives to protect their community, only to suffer from the ‘bad cop’ label caused by the misdeeds of the rogue fellow officer."

First, the matter was of vital interest to the public. Lack of trust in the police force leads to other public losses, Castillo wrote, and "ironically, the average citizen not only suffers these unquantifiable losses, but also is asked to foot the bill. . ." for huge settlement payments. The only cure, he said, is to evaluate and re-evaluate practices, and this requires "public debate and appropriate media scrutiny."  

Second, court files are presumed open for the sake of openness. "Court documents are presumed to be matters within the public domain, especially when they concern matters of general concern to the workings of our democratic society. Police misconduct certainly meets this standard," said Castillo.

But that was not the end of the holding. Judge Castillo also showed a legitimate concern for individual privacy. He approved withholding individually identifiable results of psychological examinations, the names and identifying information about officers involved who are referenced on a monitoring or early warning program, and names and other identifying information of complainants, witnesses, and police officers in Complaint Register (CR) investigations involving allegations of sexual or gender misconduct that resulted in a finding of "not sustained."

The decision demonstrates the ability of trial judges to rule on access matters very precisely when competing interests warrant that approach.