Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Protective Orders topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judiciary subcommittee decides not to recommend broad sealing of TRO affidavits
Summary
A Judiciary subcommittee concluded that a single, rare error does not justify recommending a statutory or procedural change to seal all temporary restraining order affidavits; members said the episode should be handled case-by-case.
A Judiciary subcommittee voted to forgo recommending that courts broadly seal temporary restraining order (TRO) affidavits after concluding the incident that prompted the proposal was a rare exception rather than an ongoing practice.
The decision matters because sealing TRO affidavits would affect transparency and record access across family court cases; members said they were reluctant to recommend a blanket change based on a singular event submitted to the judicial legal department for review.
Subcommittee members discussed a specific incident that had prompted consideration of sealing TRO affidavits. Joe, a subcommittee member, told the group the situation appeared to be an anomaly and said sealing “every single one of those files would be, I think, a a high bar given what how the court is currently operating.” He added, “I've been doing this for 30 years. It's the first time I ever heard of something like that.”
Gail Hardy, cochair of the subcommittee and designee for the chief state's attorney, participated in the discussion and confirmed the issue had been routed to judicial legal staff for review. Members said that if a pattern of similar incidents emerged, a different approach might be warranted, but that was not the case on the record.
The subcommittee did not move forward with a recommendation to seal TRO affidavits; members instead indicated the specific incident would be addressed through existing legal channels and internal judicial review. No formal statutory proposal or motion to change sealing policy was advanced at the meeting.
The item will remain on the council’s radar for follow-up if additional incidents or legal findings prompt further review.
