The state's high court adopted new rules that limit the full use of Social Security numbers, home addresses, birth dates and other personal information.

Such information would be redacted or partially redacted from documents filed in the district courts, said Chief Justice James R. Winchester.

For example, if a Social Security number is included in a court filing, only the last four digits will be left visible. Home addresses will have only the city and state instead of the full address.

The new rules are mandatory. However, in some cases, the rules would be overridden if a state statute requires that unredacted personal information be included in a court filing, Winchester said.

The state's Supreme Court created the new rules to protect citizens' privacy and because of increasing awareness of identity theft, he said.

"I can't tell you that there was any single case that called for this action, but we just became more in tune for the potential for identity theft, so we made this ruling after thoughtful deliberation," Winchester said.

The new rules on redaction become effective June 10.

Winchester said the responsibility to uphold the new rules will be placed on the lawyer or person filing a court case in district court. That means documents must be partially redacted before being submitted to the court clerk.

Winchester said essential personal information that has been redacted will be included in a cover letter and given to the court clerk but will not be available for public viewing.

Additionally, the new rules prohibit the posting of pleadings online, Winchester said.

"Only a few counties do this now, so I would not characterize this as a sweeping change for (online) pleadings," he said.

The online rule takes effect immediately.

In addition to the new mandatory rules of redaction, the rules allow a court filer the option of redacting additional personal information. With a judge's permission, the information could include a driver's license number, medical records, employment history, proprietary or trade secrets and individual financial information.

Those concurring with Winchester's ruling are Justices Tom Colbert, Rudolph Hargrave and John F. Reif. Justice Steven Taylor dissented.

Those dissenting in part are Justice Yvonne Kauger and Vice Chief Justice James Edmondson.

Kauger wrote: "What I disagree with is the instantaneous restrictions of public access to current public court documents online. The court made this decision with input only from the court clerks. Others directly affected by the decision -- the bar, the bench, the legislature and the public -- were not consulted."

Tulsa County District Attorney Tim Harris' office said it would need time to review the rules to see how they will affect criminal filings.

Currently, state law requires the district attorney to include witnesses' addresses in criminal court filings, said Steve Kunzweiler, assistant district attorney.

"We're concerned like everyone with identity theft, and we take all precautions to safeguard and to not publish information that would put someone's personal information at risk," Kunzweiler said.

Omer Gillham 581-8301
omer.gillham@tulsaworld.com