Open Records Policy
Courts and Judicial Branch agencies are not subject to the Texas Public Information Act nor to the federal Freedom of Information Act. A Judicial Branch agency means an office, board, commission, or other similar entity that is in the Judicial Branch and that serves an administrative function for a court, including a task force or committee created by a court or judge. Records held by courts and Judicial Branch agencies that do not pertain to their adjudicative function are considered judicial records, which are governed by Rule 12 of the Rules of Judicial Administration.
Access to Judicial Records
Access to judicial records (records other than court case records) is governed by Rule 12 of the Rules of Judicial Administration. The custodian of judicial records is usually the judge of the court. In the case of judicial records held by a Judicial Branch agency, the director of the agency is the custodian of the records.
A request to inspect or copy a judicial record must be in writing, must include sufficient information to identify the record, and must be directed to the custodian of the record.
Appealing Denial of Access
Appeals from denials of access to judicial records are to be filed with the Administrative Director of the Office of Court Administration. Appeals must be filed not later than 30 days after the date the notice of a denial is received. Petitions for review of a denial must comply with Rule 12.9 of the Rules of Judicial Administration.
Appeals are decided by a committee of presiding judges who issue written opinions explaining the committee's decision.
Access to Court Case Records
Access to court case records is governed by common law, statutory law and court rules. Generally, the custodian of court case records is the Clerk of the Court. Neither the Office of the Attorney General nor the Special Committee of the Regional Presiding Judges can consider appeals from denials of access to court case records.
The Presiding Judges of the Administrative Judicial Regions have issued the following directive regarding the processing of appeals from denial of access to court case records that are mistakenly filed with the Office of Court Administration under Rule 12.9 of the Rules of Judicial Administration: Directive Regarding Petitions for Access to Case Records
| Decision # | Date | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 24-015 | 12/05/2024 |
|
| 24-014 | 11/04/2024 |
The reviewing of facts, applying the law to facts, and making of a determination or decision in a given matter presented to a court are adjudicative acts. Search warrant is not a “judicial record” under Rule 12 because it pertains to the court’s adjudicative function and Rule 12.3(c)(2) makes Rule 12 inapplicable to the correspondent affidavits attached to the search warrant because access to those documents is controlled by “another provision of law.” |
| 24-013 | 10/21/2024 |
Where a request is overly broad, the appropriate response by a records custodian is to give the requestor an opportunity to narrow the scope of the request or provide additional information so the records can be identified. Where judicial records responsive to a Rule 12 request are provided, Rule 12 is satisfied. Petitioner’s request is overly broad and, for records that can be identified, Respondent provided responsive records. |
| 24-012 | 10/02/2024 |
Petitioner’s request, by Petitioner’s admission, is for records related to court settings and pleadings in a court case and thus pertains to Respondent’s adjudicative function. Requested records are not “judicial records” under Rule 12. |
| 24-007 | 06/17/2024 |
A Rule 12.5 exemption to disclosure applies if the records in question meet the parameters of any Rule 12.5 exemption. Rule 12.5 exempts from disclosure any record relating to an investigation of any person’s character or conduct unless the record is requested by the person being investigated and the release of the record, in the judgment of the records custodian, would not impair the investigation. Complaints filed with the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee require an investigation into a person’s conduct to determine if that person has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, and if, in the judgment of the UPLC, disclosure of the record would impair its investigation, the record is exempt from disclosure even if the person seeking the record is the person under investigation. |
| 24-004 | 04/03/2024 |
Records at issue are confidential under Government Code Section 418.182 because they contain information relating to the specifications, operating procedures, or location of the courthouse security system, making the records exempt from disclosure under Rule 12.5(i)’s Information Confidential Under Other Law exemption to disclosure. |
| 24-003 | 03/05/2024 |
Where judicial records responsive to a Rule 12 request are provided to a requestor, Rule 12 is considered satisfied. |
| 24-002 | 03/06/2024 |
Rule 12 request to inspect or copy a judicial record must be sent to records custodian, not to a court clerk or other agent for records custodian. When a Rule 12 request is sent to a court clerk rather than a records custodian, Rule 12’s response obligations do not apply |
| 24-001 | 02/28/2024 |
A record created, produced, or filed in connection with any matter that is or has been before a court is not a judicial agency. A records custodian is not required to create a document in response to a request. |
| 23-014 | 11/29/2023 |
Where the appeal in question is part of a series of similar appeals, the issues raised and settled in one appeal can be dispositive for those issues raised in later series appeals. Underlying request in question and appeal before special committee substantially similar to those considered in Rule 12 Decision No. 23-012. |
| 23-013 | 11/27/2023 |
Where the appeal in question is part of a series of similar appeals, the issues raised and settled in one appeal can be dispositive for those issues raised in later series appeals. Underlying request in question and appeal before special committee substantially similar to those considered in Rule 12 Decision No. 23-012. |
| 23-012 | 11/16/2023 |
Representation by counsel is not required by nor prohibited by Rule 12. The use of counsel by a Rule 12 respondent does not change records custodianship, which is set by Rule 12.2(e). Rule 12 not a litigation mechanism and Rule 12 does not operate like rules governing litigation process. Rule 12 does not contain privilege log requirement. Rule 12 does not apply to records subject to a rule of evidence. Educational credential record may be subject to disclosure under Rule 12 if being maintained by a respondent as a judicial record (for example, as part of a personnel file). |
| 23-011 | 10/02/2023 |
The special committee’s authority under Rule 12 is limited to that given to it to review a petition and determine whether a requested record should be made available to a petitioner. There is no mechanism under Rule 12 permitting a hearing regarding a petition. Rule 12 does not distinguish between “personal” and “official” communications accounts for judicial records purposes. The public/private status of a communications account through which a judicial record flows is irrelevant for Rule 12 purposes; what matters is the status of the records being sent. |
| 23-010 | 10/17/2023 |
Rule 12 provides procedures for responding to requests when judicial records are available. If a requested record does not exist, a respondent’s inability to produce a record is not a denial of access to judicial records. |
| 23-009 | 10/11/2023 |
Under Rule 12.3(c)(2), records or information relating to an arrest or search warrant or support affidavit, access to which is controlled by common law, court order, judicial decision, or “another provision of law” are not subject to Rule 12. Article 15.26, Code of Criminal Procedure, provides that an arrest warrant and any affidavit presented to a magistrate in support of the warrant is public information and must be made available for public inspection. Because access to records sought by Petitioner are controlled by Article 15.26, Code of Criminal Procedure, Rule 12 does not apply. |
| 23-007 | 09/12/2023 |
Rule 12 mandates access to certain judicial records held by a court and its judges, not simply any record within a court’s or judge’s possession. Rule 12 contains applicability limitations and exemptions for various policy reasons, and a records custodian must apply the entirety of Rule 12 against a request. Rule 12 contemplates that a request can substantially and unreasonably impede court operations. Where Rule 12 request is so broad that a records custodian cannot reasonably comply with the request without impeding court operations, the request frustrates Rule 12’s aims of an open and transparent judiciary. Petitioner’s request, which sought variety of communications sent or received over two-week period, is overly broad and burdensome. |
| 23-006 | 08/17/2023 |
If a requested record does not exist, a Respondent’s inability to produce a requested record is not a denial of access to judicial records. And where judicial records responsive to a request are provided, Rule 12 is satisfied. |
| 23-004 | 07/19/2023 | A Rule 12 request is not required to state that it is being made pursuant to Rule 12. Requestors should be given access to judicial records regardless of whether they are able to invoke the correct “magic” words to gain that access. The special committee has no authority to issue a decision regarding access to case records. Where judicial records responsive to a Rule 12 request are provided, Rule 12 is satisfied. |
| 23-003 | 07/07/2023 | If a requested record does not exist, a respondent’s inability to produce the requested record is not a denial of access to judicial records under Rule 12. Petitioner’s request is, by its own terms, for a record “created, produced, or filed” in connection with a matter on a court’s docket, and is therefore not subject to Rule 12. |
| 23-002 | 05/08/2023 | Records requested by petitioner are related to a defendant-probationer, are in a case file maintained by a community supervision and corrections department, and therefore are not judicial records under Rule 12. |
| 23-001 | 05/17/2023 | OCA’s role regarding Rule 12 is to notify a respondent and the presiding judges of the Administrative Judicial Regions of the receipt of a petition for review. A district court administrator’s regular use of a recorder to record a district judge meeting for the purpose of creating meeting minutes is a “normal routine” related to the holding of the meeting, is therefore part of the courts’ regular course of business, and the recording is a judicial record under Rule 12.2(d). Respondent failed to comply with Rule 12’s requirements. Destruction of a judicial record following receipt of a request for access to the record is a violation of Rule 12, and ignorance of Rule 12 does not excuse the destruction of records. |
| 22-018 | 03/01/2023 | There is no categorical difference between probation officer caseload lists, probationer personal contact exception lists, and check-in meeting schedule records from records relating to a probationer kept in a case file maintained by a probation officer. These records are created in connection with criminal cases that have been before a court which placed a probationer under community supervision. |
| 22-017 | 02/02/2023 | Respondent provided Petitioner documents responsive to request, no additional responsive documents exist. |
| 22-015 | 01/23/2023 | No categorical difference between records related to a probationer kept in a case file maintained by a probation officer who supervises probationers from records kept in a probation officer’s personnel file detailing probationer behaviors and check-ins with probation officer. Government Code Section 76.006 does not prohibit access to performance records by the person who was evaluated. Where the statute underpinning a Rule 12.5(i) exemption does not support the withholding of information, the exemption claim must fail. Rule 12.5(e)’s exemption to disclosure cannot be logically read to apply to the person who submitted an application. |
| 22-013 | 01/17/2023 | Records that relate to the daily process by which a court administration office distributes settings are part of how a court processes cases, and how a court processes cases is part of the court’s adjudicative function. Records regarding requests made under a county’s local rule that controls how a case is assigned to a judge are not judicial records, they are case records. |
| 22-012 | 01/09/2023 | Complaints filed with Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee (UPLC) require the investigation of a person’s conduct to determine if they have engaged in unauthorized practice of law, and therefore UPLC complaint records are exempt from disclosure under Rule 12.5(k) unless the requestor is the subject of the investigation and release will not impair the investigation. |
| 22-009 | 11/21/2022 | A record created, produced, or filed in connection with any matter that is or has been before a court is not a judicial record. Records containing “keywords” that are the names of individuals, where the records were created in connection with a matter that was before the court, not judicial records. |
| 22-008 | 08/22/2022 | The fact that the Judicial Branch Certification Commission has a combination of administrative, adjudicative, and regulatory functions does not alter its status as a judicial branch agency, and the Commission is not subject to the Public Information Act. The Commission exercises an adjudicative function when it investigates and resolves complaints filed with the Commission. Emails related to Commission’s investigations into the activities or conduct of Commission licensees for the purpose of monitoring licensee compliance with Commission’s rules are exempt from disclosure under Rule 12.5(k). |
| 22-007 | 07/21/2022 | Certain attorney-client communications held by Respondent were judicial records facially subject to Rule 12. Even where a record is facially subject to Rule 12, the rule itself may be inapplicable to a record by Rule 12’s own terms. Attorney-client communications that are privileged under the Texas Rules of Evidence are not subject to Rule 12. Attorney-client privilege extends to an entire communication, and once established the privilege extends to the entire document. |
| 22-006 | 07/07/2022 | A record created, produced, or filed in connection with any matter that is or has been before a court is not a judicial record, it is a case record. |
| 22-005 | 07/01/2022 | Where prior Rule 12 decisions are silent on an issue, the special committee will examine parallel Public Information Act (PIA) provisions and their interpretation for guidance. Caselaw interpreting PIA holds that the party seeking to withhold requested information bears the burden of proving sought information is not subject to disclosure. Respondent did not carry its burden of proving the information was not subject to disclosure under Rule 12’s “litigation exemption.” That a requested record “relates to” matters pending before a court does not axiomatically push it outside Rule 12’s purview. A record can slip outside Rule 12 based on its status as an adjudicative record or as a case record. |
| 22-004 | 06/27/2022 | Respondent did not issue a formal denial for certain records materials because it did not have any responsive records, but Rule 12 only provides procedures for responding to requests when judicial records are available. It is helpful to inform requestors that records do not exist, but Rule 12 does not require it. |
| 22-003 | 06/24/2022 | An item that is not part of a court record may nonetheless have been created or produced in connection with a case and fall outside of Rule 12’s definition of a judicial record. |
| 22-001 | 04/11/2022 | Attorney-client communications that are privileged under Rule 503 of the Rules of Evidence are not subject to Rule 12. Document withheld from Petitioner falls outside Rule 12 because it is a privileged attorney-client communication. |
| 21-016 | 01/13/2022 | Respondent does not have any records responsive to request. |
| 21-015 | 09/20/2021 | Recordings from security cameras identifying specifications of the video recording system, including technical details and vulnerabilities, are confidential under Government Code § 418.182 and therefore exempt from disclosure. A release to outside counsel or other members of a governmental entity do not constitute a release to the public under Rule 12. |
| 21-014 | 08/30/2021 | A record does not have to be filed in a case to pertain to a court’s adjudicative function. Any record created or produced in connection with any matter that is or has been before a court pertains to a court’s adjudicative function. |
| 21-013 | 08/26/2021 | Fact that Respondent replied to Petitioner after 14-day window for response is immaterial and does not alter fact that there were no records responsive to request. |
| 21-011 | 06/22/2021 | Emails exchanged between two judges related to matters that have been before the judges are case records, not judicial records. Paystub information consisting of net pay, deductions, and other payroll information exempt from disclosure under Rule 12.5(c). General leave information, including sick and annual leave balances, not exempt from disclosure. Information related to private phone numbers and family information exempt from disclosure. |
| 21-010 | 06/01/2021 | Rule 12.6 requires a request for records intended for a judge to be sent to the judge as the records custodian, not to a court clerk or other agent for the judge. A judge’s obligation to comply with Rule 12 is triggered upon actual receipt of a request for records. |
| 21-009 | 05/24/2021 | Petitioner’s request is for records relating to a pending court case, which makes the records adjudicative records and not judicial records under Rule 12. |
| 21-008 | 05/14/2021 | Under Rule 12.3(d), Rule 12 does not apply to elected officials other than judges. Because Petitioner’s cost estimate appeal pertains to a district clerk, and because district clerks are elected officials, the special committee is without authority to issue a decision regarding the cost estimate. The special committee instructs the Office of Court Administration to administratively dismiss any future appeals submitted in which the respondent is a district clerk or district clerk’s office. |
| 21-007s | 12/08/2021 | Supplemental review of line-item pricing and hourly rate information Vendor in Rule 12 Decision No. 21-007 argued was exempt from disclosure. Rule 12.5(i)(3) exempts from disclosure certain information that relates to a trade secret. Vendor’s recurring quarterly/annual charges and hourly rate for change order pricing information not exempt under Rule 12.5(i)(3). Vendor’s pricing assumption information rises to level of a trade secret and is exempt from disclosure. |
| 21-007 | 05/21/2021 | Rule 12.5(i)(3) exempts from disclosure certain “trade secret” information, which under case law is any formula, pattern, device, or compilation of information used in one’s business and which presents an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know it or use it. To determine whether a trade secret exists, the special committee looks at certain trade secret factors. Viewing request for offer information Respondent withheld from disclosure as a trade secret, the special committee agrees with Respondent’s trade secret assertions in light of the trade secret factors. |
| 21-005 | 04/23/2021 | Assigned judges in some instances may be considered custodians of records they create and maintain separately from the courts they serve. Emails or notes related to Petitioner’s case pertain to a respondent’s adjudicative function and are not covered by Rule 12, but responsive emails or notes that do not pertain to respondent’s adjudicative function should be released unless exempt from disclosure. Telephone records are subject to disclosure under Rule 12. |
| 21-002s | 05/17/2021 | Petitioner’s appeal is functionally a request for reconsideration of the special committee’s decision in Rule 12 Decision No. 21-002, but under Rule 12.9(m) a special committee’s decision is not appealable. In the interest of efficient resolution of the records request and in furtherance of Rule 12’s purpose, special committee requests Respondent forward original request. |
| 21-002 | 03/11/2021 | Special Committee will not grant a request for a new panel based on conclusory allegations provided to support the request. Rule 12 lacks provision that automatically discloses records for a respondent’s failure to comply with Rule 12.8. Rule 12 demands good faith and reasonableness in reply to requests. Nothing in Rule 12.9 renders an appeal’s styling as determinative of an appeal’s merits. Respondent as listed in opinion reasonably interpreted it was actual respondent in petitioner’s request and replied to petitioner in good faith. |
| 21-001 | 03/04/2021 | Special Committee is unable to conclude that releasing the names and contact information of Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee (UPLC) members would impair investigation. If requestor requests a certain record format after being directed to a website, the agency should comply with the request. Rule 12.5(a) exemption does not apply to UPLC records. Neither a list of names of those in attendance at a UPLC meeting nor the “roll call” are internal deliberations of a judicial agency. Rule 12.5 exempts from disclosure records related to civil or criminal litigation or settlement negotiations. |
| 20-003 | 08/10/2020 | The exemption from disclosure provided by Rule 12.5(k) is not limited to records related to the investigation of a judicial officer’s character or conduct. |
| 20-001 | 04/14/2020 | Records related to a complaint filed with the Commission on Judicial Conduct are not “judicial records.” |
| 19-029 | 02/10/2020 | Rule 12 Decision No. 19-019 is dispositive of this appeal, as the records requests at issue here are substantially similar to those found in that appeal. The special committee can neither grant the petition in whole or in part, nor sustain denial to the requested records. |
| 19-028 | 02/10/2020 | Rule 12 Decision No. 19-019 is dispositive of this appeal, as the records requests at issue here are substantially similar to those found in that appeal. The special committee can neither grant the petition in whole or in part, nor sustain denial to the requested records. |
| 19-027 | 02/14/2020 | Rule 12.7 outlines the costs associated with the release of judicial records. The time it takes to comply with a request depends upon the number of records responsive to the request, whether records need to be redacted, and how records are maintained. |
| 19-026 | 02/13/2020 | A court’s internal operating procedures and local rules relate to a court’s adjudicative function even though they do not relate to a specific case because procedures addressing the processing of cases pertain or relate to a court’s adjudicative function. The Rule 12 definition of “judicial record” excludes any record that pertains to the court’s adjudicative function, regardless of whether that function relates to a specific case. Unlike the Public Information Act, Rule 12 does not contain a waiver provision related to untimely reply to a records requestor. |
| 19-025 | 02/04/2020 | Special committee’s authority under Rule 12 is limited to determining whether requested records should be made available to a petitioner under Rule 12. In the case of a court with one judge, the records custodian is the judge of the court. Judicial records are open to the public unless exempt from disclosure, and where a respondent does not raise exemptions and the special committee cannot conclude any apply the records must be released. |
| 19-023 | 01/28/2020 | Rule 12 Decision No. 19-019 is dispositive of this appeal, as the records requests at issue here are substantially similar to those found in that appeal. The special committee can neither grant the petition in whole or in part, nor sustain denial to the requested records. |
| 19-021 | 01/28/2020 | Rule 12 Decision No. 19-019 is dispositive of this appeal, as the records requests at issue here are substantially similar to those found in that appeal. The special committee can neither grant the petition in whole or in part, nor sustain denial to the requested records. |
| 19-020 | 01/14/2020 | Rule 12 Decision No. 19-019 is dispositive of this appeal, as records request at issue is, but for Respondent, factually identical to that appeal. The special committee can neither grant the petition in whole or in part, nor sustain denial to the requested records. |
| 19-019 | 01/14/2020 | Special committee will not comment on the nature of documents submitted to it that extend beyond the records sought by a petitioner under Rule 12. Rule 12 does not require special committee to opine on validity of assertions posed by a petitioner. Act of removing an attorney from a county’s Fair Defense appointment list relates to court’s adjudicative function. A court’s indigent defense plans and attorney appointment plans or rules fall under the umbrella of local rules of procedure and are not judicial records. There is a distinction between court appointment data found in case files and appointment data reports generated from those files, and a judicial officer is not required to harvest its case files to create a document that would satisfy a request. |
| 19-018 | 01/08/2020 | Records custodian not required to create a document in response to a request. The ordinary meaning of “relating to” is “having a connection with or reference to,” and records “relating to” Respondent’s administrative conferences are exempt from disclosure under “internal deliberation” exemption. |
| 19-016 | 12/09/2019 | A court’s local rules of procedure relate to a court’s adjudicative function. A presiding judge’s review and approval of local rules submitted by region’s courts is an administrative function. Respondent provided Petitioners with access to requested records where Respondent directed Petitioners to link on website where records could be accessed. Rule 12 does not require a judge to opine on any matter or acknowledge validity of assertions posed by a requestor. |
| 19-015 | 11/22/2019 | Certain records relating to grievance filed against Respondent municipal court not judicial records or exempt from disclosure under Rule 12.5’s “investigation of character or conduct” exemption. Grievance review councilmember does not become member of judicial agency for “internal deliberation” exemption by serving on grievance committee that reviews judicial officers, and a record distributed to a grievance review councilmember that is outside of a court or judicial agency cannot be an “internal” deliberation among judicial officers. |
| 19-010 | 09/24/2019 | Personnel files maintained by a court or judicial agency are available to the public under Rule 12, subject to applicable Rule 12 exemptions. The denial of a request for access to judicial records must be in writing and include the following: 1) the reason for the denial, 2) information regarding the requestor’s right to appeal under Rule 12.9, and 3) the name and address of the Administrative Director of the Office of Court Administration. |
| 19-008 | 08/15/2019 | A record is not exempt in its entirety under Rule 12 simply because portions of the record are exempt from disclosure. The proper response is to redact exempt information before disclosing the record. |
| 19-007 | 08/12/2019 | Rule 12 Decision No. 16-011 is dispositive of this appeal, as records request at issue here (request for juvenile curfew citations issued over four-year period) is substantially similar to the request in that appeal. The special committee is without authority to grant the petition or sustain the denial of access to requested records. |
| 19-006 | 08/09/2019 | A judicial officer does not have to answer questions or create documents to provide summary information, but if the questions or requests are for information the custodian knows may be available from a record, the custodian should advise the requestor so the requestor can amend the request to ask for those records. |
| 19-005 | 08/06/2019 | Many records found in a judge’s or employee’s personnel files are not exempt from disclosure under Rule 12.5(c). |
| 19-004 | 06/20/2019 | The special committee is without authority to issue a decision because the request at issue is an internal request, not a request from member of the public. |
| 18-007 | 01/07/2019 | Petitioners should have the opportunity to narrow an overly broad request. Records of browser history and internet search history made in the regular course of a court’s or judicial agency’s business are subject to Rule 12 and should be released. |
| 18-006 | 09/10/2018 | When a judicial officer does not have the record requested by the public, the officer is under no obligation to create the record to respond to the request; however, the officer should, if possible, ascertain who is the custodian of the record, pass the request on to that custodian, and notify the requestor. Timesheets are not exempt under Rule 12 and should be released when requested. When a records request has been received, a records custodian should not inquire about or be influenced by any supposed purpose for the request. |
| 18-005 | 05/29/2018 | Copies of emails sent and received in connection to an amicus curiae brief are case records, not judicial records subject to Rule 12. |
| 18-004 | 06/06/2018 | Respondent provided responsive records once they knew about the request. |
| 18-001 | 04/13/2018 | A records custodian should give a records requestor the opportunity to narrow a request or provide additional information when a request appears overly broad or burdensome. Records pertaining to a specific court case are not considered judicial records and are not subject to Rule 12. Telephone logs, bills, and records, however, are judicial records and must be released unless a Rule 12 exemption applies. |
| 17-027 | 03/13/2018 | Records request system that requires requests be submitted to the custodian by regular mail to the court’s mailing address or to a dedicated email address does not violate Rule 12. When petitioner failed to comply with court’s procedures to submit records request, the court was not required to respond because it had not received request. Campaign contribution reports, donation records, and case specific communications are not judicial records controlled by Rule 12. |
| 17-026 | 01/29/2018 | A record custodian is not required to create records to satisfy a records request. Records related to a probationer that are in the probationer’s case file maintained by a probation officer are not judicial records subject to Rule 12. Records concerning the investigation of the Petitioner’s conduct were properly withheld under Rule 12.5(k) because release of the documents would have reasonably interfered with the investigation. |
| 17-024 | 12/13/2017 | Rule 12.5(k) makes the entire record “relating to an investigation” of a person’s character or conduct exempt from disclosure. “Relating to” means “having a connection with or reference to,” and even if the names of persons investigated were redacted in the record, Rule 12.5(k) would permit withholding the entire record because the record relates to an investigation. |
| 17-023 | 11/17/2017 | A sheriff's office is not a judicial agency subject to Rule 12. |
| 17-020 | 11/29/2017 | Records created by Rule 12 special committees and their attorneys are related to the special committees' adjudicative functions and are not subject to Rule 12. |
| 17-019 | 11/29/2017 | Respondent provided all documents responsive to Petitioner’s request. |
| 17-018 | 11/27/2017 | Procedures regarding how a court processes its cases pertain to a court’s adjudicative function and are not judicial records within the meaning of Rule 12. |
| 17-017 | 09/28/2017 | Documents prepared by Respondent’s staff analyzing claims in cases filed with Respondent pertain to Respondent’s adjudicative function and are not “judicial records” subject to Rule 12. |
| 17-016 | 10/17/2017 | The special committee was unable to conclude that the records responsive to the request would interfere with an investigation and Respondent did not raise and the committee was not aware of any specific provisions that would protect the records at issue in the appeal from disclosure. |
| 17-015 | 10/02/2017 | If a record does not exist, the Respondent’s inability to produce the record is not a denial of access to judicial records under Rule 12. Rule 12 provides procedures for responding to requests when judicial records are available. It is silent regarding the duty or procedure to respond when a requested record does not exist. It is helpful to inform requestors that the records they are seeking do not exist; but Rule 12 does not require it. |
| 17-014 | 09/27/2017 | Respondent complied with Rule 12 when it mailed Petitioner a hard copy of the document responsive to Petitioner’s request. |
| 17-013 | 09/22/2017 | Respondent demonstrated that it had responded to Petitioner’s request within the time required by Rule 12, and after obtaining additional information from the petition for review provided Petitioner with documents responsive to the request. Accordingly, the issue in the appeal is moot and the petition is denied. |
| 17-012 | 09/13/2017 | Traffic citations are records that are created, produced and filed in connection with cases that have been before Respondent and are not “judicial records” that are subject to Rule 12. |
| 17-011 | 09/08/2017 | Employee status forms and employee termination information sheets for employees who received notices of proposed adverse action during a specific time period and retired, resigned, or were terminated from employment “have a connection with or reference to an investigation of the employee’s character or conduct” and are exempt from disclosure under Rule 12.5(k). |
| 17-010 | 09/06/2017 | Notes added to case files are records created in connection with a matter that is or has been before a court and are not “judicial records” subject to Rule 12. |
| 17-009 | 06/19/2017 | A court, judicial agency, or records custodian is not required to respond to or to comply with a request for a judicial record from or on behalf of an individual who is imprisoned or confined in a correctional facility. |
| 17-008 | 08/16/2017 | Oral arguments heard by Respondent pertain to Respondent’s adjudicative function and are not “judicial records” subject to Rule 12. |
| 17-007 | 08/02/2017 | Records created in connection with a case pending with Respondent are not “judicial records” subject to Rule 12; requests for copies of all purchases made by Respondent’s clerk are overly broad and fail to identify the records Petitioner seeks; copies of requests previously submitted by Petitioner are not overly broad and are not exempt from disclosure. |
| 17-006 | 07/17/2017 | A document prepared by Respondent's staff analyzing claims in a case filed with Respondent pertains to Respondent's adjudicative function and is not a judicial record as defined by Rule 12. |
| 17-005 | 07/18/2017 | Records created and filed in connection with a specific court case are not "judicial records" and are not subject to Rule 12; however, judges are reminded that the public has a right to inspect and copy them. |
| 17-004 | 06/20/2017 | Telephone bills are judicial records under Rule 12; a judicial officer who receives a request for a judicial record not in his or her custody must attempt to ascertain who the records custodian is and refer the request to that person. |
| 17-003 | 06/20/2017 | Telephone bills are judicial records under Rule 12; a judicial officer who receives a request for a judicial record not in his or her custody must attempt to ascertain who the records custodian is and refer the request to that person. |
| 17-002 | 05/24/2017 | Records created, produced, and filed in connection with a specific court case are not “judicial records” and are not subject to Rule 12. Additionally, if the requested information is available in a record that can be provided to Petitioner, Respondent should advise Petitioner so that Petitioner can request the appropriate record. |
| 17-001 | 05/22/2017 | Records created, produced, and filed in connection with a specific court case are not “judicial records” and are not subject to Rule 12. Additionally, judge should have referred the request to proper custodian. |
| 16-024 | 03/07/2017 | Records related to a probationer in a case file maintained by a probation officer who supervises probationers are records that are created, produced or filed in connection with criminal cases that have been before the court that placed the probationer under community supervision, therefore, they are not “judicial records” and are not subject to Rule 12. |
| 16-023 | 03/08/2017 | Records created and filed in connection with a specific court case are not “judicial records” and are not subject to Rule 12. |
| 16-022 | 01/26/2017 | Records created, produced, and filed in connection with a specific court case are not “judicial records” and are not subject to Rule 12. |
| 16-021 | 01/26/2017 | Records created, produced, and filed in connection with a specific court case are not “judicial records” and are not subject to Rule 12. |
| 16-019; 16-020 | 01/23/2017 | An inquiry is not a request for records, so the panel is without authority to address Respondent’s failure to respond; records created, produced, and filed in connection with a specific court case are not “judicial records” and are not subject to Rule 12. |
| 16-018 | 03/08/2017 | Records that reflect the time that the judge left his office on one specific date including but not limited to calendar entries, computer usage records, computer log-in and log-out records, emails opened or sent, phone calls received or made, and security pass data for the judge’s garage door and elevator door, if they exist, are not exempt from disclosure under Rule 12.5(b) or (i); however, the special panel notes that its decision was reached without the benefit of reviewing the responsive records and cannot ensure that they are not exempt from disclosure. |
| 16-017 | 11/30/2016 | Records related to a probationer in a case file maintained by a probation officer who supervises probationers are records that are created, produced or filed in connection with criminal cases that have been before the court that placed the probationer under community supervision, therefore, are not “judicial records” and are not subject to Rule 12; records that evaluate the performance of a community supervision officer are confidential and should be withheld under Rule 12.5(i); the redacted information submitted for in camera review, except for two noted items, is exempt from disclosure under Rule 12.5(c) and (k); neither the fact that a record is not subject to Rule 12 nor a decision making this determination should be used as a basis for withholding records. |
| 16-016 | 11/29/2016 | Records related to a probationer in a case file maintained by a probation officer who supervises probationers are records that are created, produced or filed in connection with criminal cases that have been before the court that placed the probationer under community supervision, therefore, are not “judicial records” and are not subject to Rule 12; records that evaluate the performance of a community supervision officer are confidential and should be withheld under Rule 12.5(i); the redacted information submitted for in camera review, except for two noted items, is exempt from disclosure under Rule 12.5(c) and (k); neither the fact that a record is not subject to Rule 12 nor a decision making this determination should be used as a basis for withholding records. |
| 16-015 | 12/06/2016 | Records created and filed in connection with a specific court case are not “judicial records” and are not subject to Rule 12. |
| 16-014 | 11/10/2016 | Rule 12 does not require: that certified copies be provided to a requestor; that a record be created responsive to an information request; any form of authentication or certification of records; that the records be provided in a specific format; a document be altered to fit the purposes of the requestor. |
| 16-013 | 10/25/2016 | Records related to a specific court case are case records, not judicial records, and therefore are not subject to Rule 12. |
| 16-012 | 10/05/2016 | Respondent is not required to create records responsive to an information request; records that are created, produced and filed in connection with matters that are or have been before a court are not "judicial records" and are not subject to Rule 12. |
| 16-011 | 06/13/2016 | Reports required to be submitted to OCA containing the total number of juvenile and minor cases by offense type do not pertain to the court's adjudicative function and are subject to Rule 12; the remaining information requested by Petitioner consists of case records that are not subject to Rule 12. |
| 16-010 | 06/07/2016 | Respondent is not required to create records responsive to an information request; the panel is unable to make a determination regarding a record's exemption without reviewing the record. |
| 16-009 | 06/06/2016 | Lists of persons who have requested or have been ordered to take driver's safety class pursuant to Art. 45.01 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are case records, and the special panel is without authority to issue a decision in matters involving case records. |
| 16-008 | 06/01/2016 | Respondents complied with Petitioner's requests for information that is subject to Rule 12; the questions submitted to Respondents are not requests for judicial records that are subject to Rule 12. |
| 16-007 | 04/29/2016 | Respondent did not have records responsive to request; a records custodian may be subject to sanctions under the Code of Judicial Conduct for knowingly failing to comply with Rule 12. |
| 16-006 | 04/25/2016 | Requested records – which were submitted for an in camera inspection -- are judicial records, but only one of the records is not exempt under Rule 12.5(a) or (f); the remainder of the documents are exempt from disclosure under Rule 12.5(f) or are not responsive. |
| 16-005s | 12/06/2016 | The special panel is without authority to consider a motion to rehear or an appeal of a Rule 12 decision. The panel emphasizes that any record connected to a case that is or has been before a court is exempt from Rule 12. |
| 16-005 | 04/04/2016 | Records related to the maintenance of a list of attorneys who are eligible for appointment under a county's Fair Defense Act plan are related to a judge's adjudicative function and are not subject to Rule 12. |
| 16-004 | 03/16/2016 | Respondent does not have any responsive records. |
| 16-003 | 03/16/2016 | Records related to a specific court case are case records, not judicial records, and therefore are not subject to Rule 12. |
| 16-002 | 03/17/2016 | Records submitted for in camera review are exempt from disclosure under Rule 12.5(b) and (f). |
| 16-001 | 03/17/2016 | Reports created for a specific purpose not intended for public view but that include types of information that is available in publicly available reports must be released; records created on a stenographic recorder in the courtroom that also are judicial records subject to Rule 12, i.e., not related to the court's adjudicative function, are the records of the judge of the court in which the machine was used. |
| 15-018 | 02/18/2016 | While personnel records are administrative records of an agency that do not pertain to its adjudicative function and therefore are subject to Rule 12, some of the requested records are related to applicants for employment and therefore are exempt under Rule 12.5(e); other of the requested records are related to a pending EEOC complaint and therefore are exempt under Rule 12.5(j). |
| 15-017 | 01/22/2016 | Records related to the cases filed in the county's district and civil courts and action taken by the grand jury are case records and they are not covered under Rule 12. |
| 15-016 | 01/05/2016 | Matters related to a court's adjudicative function are not subject to Rule 12; some of the records submitted for review were not created, produced or filed in connection with a case, are not judicial work products and drafts, and do not pertain to internal deliberations on court or judicial administration matters and should be released. |
| 15-015 | 11/30/2015 | A record that contains exempt information is not exempt in its entirety and the proper response is to redact exempt information prior to release: Requested video recordings that contain footage of non-public areas of a building should be redacted and the remainder of the recording released, unless the remaining portions of the video are determined to be exempt by the Special Committee under Rule 12.5(b). |
| 15-014s | 10/21/2015 | Special Committee asks Respondent to refer Petitioner to additional possible custodian of requested records that Special Committee learned of after initial decision was issued. |
| 15-014 | 10/13/2015 | Under Rule 12, a Respondent is not required to create records responsive to an information request nor is it required to refer an information request to an entity that is not subject to Rule 12. |
| 15-013 | 10/28/2015 | A records custodian is not required to create a record to respond to Petitioner's request. |
| 15-012 | 10/26/2015 | Vouchers submitted for payment by court-appointed attorneys are records that are created, produced and filed in connection with matters that are or have been before a court and therefore are not "judicial records" that are subject to Rule 12. |
| 15-011 | 10/13/2015 | Texas Center for the Judiciary, a non-profit corporation, is not a judicial agency subject to Rule 12. |
| 15-010 | 10/07/2015 | Requested records related to the administration of a court's grand jury; therefore, they are part of a court's adjudicative function and are not subject to Rule 12. |
| 15-009 | 09/29/2015 | Records maintained by the Judicial Branch Certification Commission related to the investigation and resolution of complaints filed with the Commission are not judicial records subject to Rule 12. |
| 15-008 | 09/07/2015 | Investigative file of Commission on Judicial Conduct not "judicial records." |
| 15-007 | 07/06/2015 | Communication requesting the review of court appointment vouchers relates to the investigation of a person's conduct and is exempt from disclosure under Rule 12.5(k). |
| 15-006 | 07/06/2015 | Records that are created, produced and filed in connection with matters that are or have been before a court are not "judicial records" and are not subject to Rule 12. |
| 15-005 | 07/06/2015 | Respondent had already provided Petitioner all existing documents responsive to Petitioner's request. Also, a records custodian is not required to create a record to respond to Petitioner's request. |
| 15-004 | 07/02/2015 | Records regarding the cost of a transcript in a specific case are created in connection with a case or matter that has been before a court are not "judicial records" and are not subject to Rule 12. |
| 15-003 | 05/12/2015 | Records related to a specific court case are case records, not judicial records, and therefore are not subject to Rule 12. |
| 15-002 | 05/12/2015 | Records related to cases involving parents and non-juvenile defendants in truancy cases filed with the court pertain to a court’s adjudicative function and are not “judicial records”’; records created by the courts for the purpose of reporting aggregate statistical information to OCA are subject to Rule 12 and are not exempt from disclosure. |
| 15-001 | 03/19/2015 | Two of the three records submitted for in camera review are exempt from disclosure under Rule 12.5(b) and (f); the third record is not exempt from disclosure. |
| 14-005 | 12/16/2014 | Docket sheets are case records that are not subject to Rule 12. |
| 14-004 | 10/10/2014 | Audio recording required to be produced at a hearing in response to a subpoena duces tecum is not a “judicial record” subject to Rule 12. |
| 14-003 | 07/23/2014 | Records pertain to the court’s adjudicative function and therefore are not subject to Rule 12; additionally, records pertain to the court’s internal deliberations on court or judicial administration matters and therefore would be exempt under Rule 12.5(f). |
| 13-010 | 01/07/2014 | Records related to a specific court case are case records, not judicial records, and therefore are not subject to Rule 12. |
| 13-008 | 12/19/2013 | The release of records relating to the investigation of a person’s character or conduct, unless requested by the person under investigation and barring impairment of the investigation, is exempted by Rule 12.5(k). Accordingly, the appeal is denied. |
| 13-006, 13-007 |
10/22/2013 | There being no records responsive to the requests, the appeal is denied; Petitioner’s requests fail to reasonably identify the requested records; Petitioner’s requests are for information that is not judicial records under Rule 12; Petitioner’s requests are for information that is personal and family information and is not subject to Rule 12; requested records have been addressed in prior Rule 12 appeals submitted by Petitioner; a judge who receives a request for records not in his custody must forward the request to the proper records custodian and notify the Petitioner in writing. |
| 13-005 | 10/09/2013 | Copies of documents related to Petitioner’s involvement in a crime he had reported to a police detective pertain to the court’s adjudicative function; therefore, they are not judicial records and are not subject to Rule 12. |
| 13-004 | 09/10/2013 | Traffic citation data related to a municipal court’s case records pertain to the municipal court’s adjudicative function; therefore, they are not judicial records and they are not subject to Rule 12. |
| 13-003 | 10/03/2013 | There being no records responsive to the request, the appeal is denied |
| 13-002 | 09/27/2013 | The recording of a video teleconference hearing held in a district court pertains to the court’s adjudicative function; therefore, it is not judicial records and is not subject to Rule 12. |
| 13-001 | 08/20/2013 | Citations and dispositions related to a municipal court’s case records pertain to the municipal court’s adjudicative function; therefore, they are not judicial records and are not subject to Rule 12. |
| 12-014 | 12/21/2012 | Requested records have been addressed in prior Rule 12 appeals submitted by Petitioner, all of which were untimely filed or failed to reasonably identify the requested records, and will not be addressed again; records that document vacation leave pertain to a court's administrative function and are judicial records; a judge who receives a request for records not in his custody must forward the request to the proper records custodian and notify the Petitioner in writing. |
| 12-012 | 11/12/2012 | Records that verify the race and ethnicity of random felony cases filed by a DA's office during a certain time period comprise part of the report used by a court to determine whether an accused will comply with the conditions of a personal bond; as such, the records are created in connection with criminal matters before the courts and are not judicial records subject to Rule 12. |
| 12-011 | 10/10/2012 | Petitioner’s request fails to reasonably identify the requested records. |
| 12-010 | 09/28/2012 | A judicial officer who receives a request for records not in the judicial officer’s custody, but in the custody of a records custodian known to the judge, must forward the request to the proper records custodian. |
| 12-009 | 09/17/2012 | The appeal of one of the denied requests was untimely; another request failed to identify the requested records. Records regarding a judge’s financial investments, side business, retirement account, political campaign donations and election costs are not maintained by or for a court or judicial agency in its regular course of business. |
| 12-008 | 09/17/2012 | The appeal of one of the denied requests was untimely; the other request failed to reasonably identify the requested records. |
| 12-007 | 10/15/2012 | The requests seek an explanation regarding certain events and documents related to a case filed with the Court and, to the extent that any records are responsive, they are case records that are not covered under Rule 12. |
| 12-006 | 10/01/2012 | Records related to Petitioner’s complaint and orders or judgments regarding a city ordinance pertain to the court’s adjudicative function and therefore are not subject to Rule 12; the primary significance of a decision finding that a records is not subject to Rule 12 is that Rule 12 procedures for responding to requests and appealing the denial of a request do not apply; neither the fact that a record is not subject to Rule 12 nor a decision making this determination should be used as a basis for withholding records |
| 12-004 | 08/28/2012 | Records regarding the creation and implementation of and necessity for an Alcohol Concentration Stipulation and Verification form are exempt from disclosure under Rule 12.5(f). |
| 12-003 | 08/09/2012 | Information contained in a completed juror questionnaire is confidential by state statute and is, therefore, exempt from disclosure under Rule 12.5(i). |
| 12-001 | 05/30/2012 | Audio recordings of a specific court hearing are case records, not judicial records, and therefore are not subject to Rule 12. |
| 11-017 | 02/29/2012 | Personal cellular phone bills do not have to be released to the public in order to prove that they are not paid for with public funds; the release of information that reveals personal, non-business related appointments or events, constitutes an invasion of personal privacy; statements about leave or documentation about appointments or events that are in the judge's regular course of business do not constitute an invasion of personal privacy and these records are not exempt under Rule 12.5(h) unless they reflect appointments or engagements that are in the future; the release of basic leave information or a notation that a person is "out," without additional details, does not constitute an invasion of personal privacy and these records are subject to disclosure. |
| 11-016 | 02/16/2012 | The disclosure of calendar entries indicating a judge's personal, non-business related appointments and events constitutes an invasion of personal privacy and is exempt from disclosure under Rule 12.5(h); however, the release of calendar entries indicating that a judge or his employees are "out" or on "vacation" without additional details does not constitute an invasion of personal privacy and this information is not exempt from disclosure unless it is for a future appointment. The release of notes regarding appointments related to a judge's or court's regular course of business, such as appointments that reflect meetings with other judges, does not constitute an invasion of personal privacy and this information is not exempt from disclosure. Respondent did not knowingly fail to comply with Rule 12; therefore, sanctions under Rule 12.10 would not be appropriate. |
| 11-015 | 01/17/2012 | Appeal was not timely because Respondent had previously denied a request submitted by Petitioner for similar information, and Petitioner did not appeal that denial; records related to the subject of a pending Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint are exempt from disclosure under Rule 12.5(j). |
| 11-014 | 01/18/2012 | Appeal was not timely because Respondent had previously denied a request submitted by Petitioner for similar information, and Petitioner did not appeal that denial; records related to the subject of a pending Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint are exempt from disclosure under Rule 12.5(j). |
| 11-013 | 01/06/2012 | Court recorders logs and records associated with events shown on the Register of Actions for a specific case pending in a court are case records, not judicial records, and therefore are not subject to Rule 12. |
| 11-012 | 11/01/2011 | Requested records are not judicial records under Rule 12 because they are maintained by the State Bar of Texas, a judicial agency whose records are expressly made subject to Chapter 552 of the Government Code; Respondent not required to comply with the provisions of Rule 12.6(f) because the requested records are not judicial records subject to Rule 12. |
| 11-011 | 11/01/2011 | Records related to persons who have requested or been ordered to take a driver's safety course are case records, not judicial records as defined by Rule 12.2(d). |
| 11-010 | 09/13/2011 | A communication from a judge regarding the submission to a district clerk's office of a document that purports to be an application for writ of habeas corpus is a case record, not a judicial record, and therefore the record is not covered under Rule 12. |
| 11-009 | 08/23/2011 | Request that was delivered to the court coordinator, who then forwarded it to the judge of the court -- the actual records custodian -- should be treated as a Rule 12 request; bills for cellular phone service used by court staff and paid for, in whole or in part, with public funds are judicial records subject to Rule 12; information on a phone bill that reflects a person's home or personal telephone number or family members' names is exempt from disclosure; calendars that are made for the purpose of assisting the court in scheduling court hearings and other office duties are judicial records under Rule 12 and are available to the public subject to Rule 12.5 exemptions; a record that contains exempt information is not exempt in its entirety and the proper response is to redact exempt information prior to release; records that discuss a judge's personal appointments or where a judge or his staff vacation are not judicial records that are subject to Rule 12. |
| 11-008 | 08/08/2011 | Estimated rate for labor costs is not unreasonable and estimated time to compile records and complete request may be reasonable depending on the number of responsive records and the operations of the court. |
| 11-007 | 07/25/2011 | Investigative file of Commission on Judicial Conduct not "judicial records." |
| 11-005 | 06/13/2011 | Criminal history reports submitted to the PSRB as part of the application process are exempt from disclosure under Rule 12.5(i) and Rule 12.5(k). |
| 11-004 | 05/19/2011 | Records related to a specific court case are case records, not judicial records, and therefore are not subject to Rule 12. |
| 11-001 | 03/08/2011 | Rule 12 does not apply to the State Bar of Texas, a judicial agency whose records are expressly made subject to the Public Information Act. |
| 10-017 | 02/03/2011 | The requested records relate to a case filed in Respondent's court. Thus, they are case records, not judicial records, and therefore are not subject to Rule 12. |
| 10-016 | 12/28/2010 | Records related to a specific court case are case records, not judicial records, and therefore are not subject to Rule 12. |
| 10-015 | 10/25/2010 | A receipt for court costs and fees associated with a case filed in justice court is a case record and is not subject to Rule 12. |
| 10-014 | 10/06/2010 | Records related to the security measures taken at a PSRB meeting containing information that, if released, would jeopardize the security of an individual against physical harm, and information and discussions regarding security procedures and plans of the PSRB are exempt from disclosure under Rule 12.5(b). |
| 10-013 | 09/28/2010 | Members of the Process Server Review Board are volunteers and their applications for membership on the PSRB are exempt from disclosure under Rule 12.5(e). |
| 10-012 | 09/28/2010 | Records related to a complaint filed with the Process Server Review Board are not judicial records as defined by Rule 12. |
| 10-011 | 07/20/2010 | Docket sheets are case records that are not subject to Rule 12; judicial calendar is a judicial record; calendar entries that are exempt under Rule 12.5(h) or other Rule 12 exemptions should be redacted prior to release. |
| 10-010 | 07/19/2010 | Ticket associated with a case filed in justice court is a case record and is not subject to Rule 12. |
| 10-009 | 06/24/2010 | Respondent made a good faith effort to reply to request for records but was unsuccessful due to a technical email malfunction; records related to a case are not "judicial records" as defined by Rule 12.2(d). |
| 10-008 | 06/04/2010 | Performance evaluations are not exempt from disclosure, but information in the evaluations that mentions family members of a judge or complaints filed with the Judicial Conduct Commission may be withheld under Rule 12.5(d) and Rule 12.5(i). |
| 10-007 | 05/18/2010 | Respondent made a good faith effort to reply to request for records but was unsuccessful due to a technical email malfunction; records related to a case are not "judicial records" as defined by Rule 12.2(d). |
| 10-006 | 04/20/2010 | A police department is not a judicial agency within the meaning of Rule 12. |
| 10-004 | 04/26/2010 | District clerk's office is a judicial agency covered by Rule 12; district clerk's escrow and minor account bank statements are case records and Rule 12 does not apply to them. |
| 10-003 | 03/03/2010 | A records custodian is not required to create a record, other than to print information stored in a computer. |
| 10-002 | 04/05/2010 | Requested records are exempt from disclosure under Rule 12.5(a), (d), (f), (h), and (i) of the Rules of Judicial Administration; a record containing both exempt and non-exempt information should be redacted, not withheld in its entirety; Gov't Code Sec. 552.262 providing for an extension of time for providing documents from the date a deposit or bond is made does not apply to requests that are covered by Rule 12; Rule 12.10 sanctions can only be issued against a records custodian. |
| 10-001 | 03/22/2010 | Records related to the investigation and resolution of a complaint by a judicial agency pertain to the agency's adjudicative function and thus are not judicial records as defined by Rule 12. |
| 09-006 | 01/15/2010 | Internal administration rules related to how a court processes cases for disposition and regulating the method by which cases pending in a court are decided pertain to the court's adjudicative function and are not "judicial records"; case routing slips not "judicial records." |
| 09-005 | 12/15/2009 | Record created by a judge in his individual capacity and not maintained by his court in its regular course of business is not a "judicial record." |
| 09-004 | 09/08/2009 | Costs assessed by a district clerk for copies of case records are not subject to review under Rule 12 because case records are not "judicial records" and are not subject to Rule 12. |
| 09-002 | 03/13/2009 | Records requested of the Process Server Review Board are exempt from disclosure under Rule 12.5 (j) because the records are directly related to a lawsuit filed by requester against the Board. |
| 09-001 | 03/17/2009 | Rule12.3(a)(4) is not an exception to disclosure; requests for records do not have to state that they are being made pursuant to Rule 12 to be valid; leave records are not exempt as an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or as confidential under other law. |
| 08-009 | 02/27/2009 | Denials of requests for records should be made in writing and inform of the right to appeal; records regarding the deliberation of the qualifications an applicant's eligibility on a court appointment list are exempt under Rule 12.5(f); a signed order is not exempt from disclosure. |
| 08-007 | 02/13/2009 | Complaint files of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct are exempt from disclosure. |
| 08-006 | 02/02/2009 | Correspondence between county attorney and county court at law judges is attorney-client privileged and is not subject to Rule 12; information related to the investigation of a person’s character or conduct is exempt from disclosure under Rule 12.5(k). |
| 08-005 | 10/13/2008 | An appellate court justice’s request to the court’s chief justice for judicial records of the court is not a request for public access and not subject to Rule 12. |
| 08-004 | 10/27/2008 | Personnel records not exempt as unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or as confidential under other law; one document not exempt and one document exempt as related to investigation of character or conduct; judicial officer who is not custodian must forward request to the proper custodian and may not merely instruct requester to ask proper custodian for records. |
| 08-003 | 08/29/2008 | Document properly withheld because it did not contain the information requested. |
| 08-002 | 09/02/2008 | Judicial records that relate to the administrative processes of a municipal court should be disclosed. |
| 08-001 | 07/10/2008 | Appeal that was filed incorrectly and untimely is dismissed. |
| 07-006 | 11/09/2007 | Records related to an investigation of a person’s character or conduct that became part of the record in a public hearing no longer are exempt and must be disclosed. |
| 07-005 | 07/14/2007 | Records of financial disclosures, licensing, continuing education, and other credentials of elected judges are judicial records that must be disclosed. |
| 07-004 | 07/13/2007 | Investigative file of Commission on Judicial Conduct not "judicial records" and contents of file are exempt from disclosure. |
| 07-003 | 06/01/2007 | The identity or source of a letter that instigates an investigation by the Process Server Review Board is exempt from disclosure under Rule 12.5(k). |
| 07-002 | 05/03/2007 | Records of internal deliberations of the Process Server Review Board on matters of judicial administration are exempt from disclosure under Rule 12.5(f). |
| 07-001 | 02/09/2007 | Statements of the reason for denial of certification by judicial board are exempt from disclosure as records relating to an investigation of the applicant's character or conduct. |
| 06-004 | 11/14/2006 | Investigative file of Commission on Judicial Conduct not "judicial records" and contents of file are exempt from disclosure. |
| 06-003 | 10/13/2006 | Cost assessment for copies proper under Rule 12.7 and Texas Administrative Code. |
| 06-001 | 04/07/2006 | Reports of ad litem fees paid to attorneys are not exempt and must be disclosed; individual report prepared at request of judge who anticipated being a party to litigation was exempt from disclosure under Rule 12. |
| 05-005 | 02/13/2006 | E-mails between juvenile board judges and board's contract attorney that are made or maintained in the regular course of business but do not pertain to their adjudicative function are judicial records subject to disclosure. |
| 05-004 | 02/10/2006 | Reports to governmental agencies about convictions in designated cases pertain to a court's adjudicative function and are not judicial records, but documents related to general procedures are judicial records and must be disclosed. |
| 05-003 | 01/05/2006 | Draft reports analyzing probation revocations of Harris County district courts are not judicial records and are exempt as judicial work product and as internal deliberations on judicial administration matters. |
| 05-001 | 03/07/2005 | Texas Center for the Judiciary, a non-profit corporation, is not a judicial agency subject to Rule 12. |
| 04-004 | 09/21/2004 | Contents of Judicial Conduct Commission investigative files exempt from disclosure. |
| 04-003 | 09/17/2004 | Records related to expunction of attorney disciplinary records were matters before the Supreme Court and thus not "judicial records." |
| 04-002 | 09/01/2004 | Contents of Judicial Conduct Commission complaints files exempt from disclosure. |
| 03-008 | 01/23/2004 | Investigative file of Commission on Judicial Conduct not "judicial records." |
| 03-006 | 10/21/2003 | Custodians of judicial records provided required access. |
| 03-005 | 10/16/2003 | Docket sheets of a municipal court are not judicial records. |
| 03-004 | 08/18/2003 | Records related to municipal court cases are not judicial records. |
| 03-003 | 08/18/2003 | Misdemeanor convictions are not judicial records. |
| 03-002s | 08/18/2003 | Portions of complaints that reflect confidential information should be withheld. |
| 03-002 | 07/16/2003 | Copies of complaints filed against a municipal judge are open. |
| 03-001 | 04/24/2003 | Access to inquest records governed by statutory law, not Rule 12. |
| 02-005 | 12/23/2002 | Traffic citations not "judicial records." |
| 02-004 | 11/06/2002 | Oaths of office and anti-bribery statements not in judge's custody. |
| 02-003 | 06/28/2002 | Records of administrative judge "intended to instruct, assist or guide judges in the exercise of their contempt power" are "judicial records". |
| 02-002 | 06/17/2002 | Traffic citation records not "judicial records." |
| 02-001 | 06/07/2002 | Judge who did not have records relating to investigation and consultation should have attempted to determine custodian and notified requestor. |
| 01-005 | 11/02/2001 | Investigative file of Commission on Judicial Conduct not "judicial records." |
| 01-003 | 06/22/2001 | Trial record in court of appeals not "judicial records." |
| 01-002 | 07/19/2001 | Investigative file of Commission on Judicial Conduct not "judicial records." |
| 01-001 | 05/31/2001 | Appeal not timely from denial of access to judicial records of county community supervision and corrections department. |
| 00-007 | 12/19/2000 | Court's denial of a fee waiver did not include the required language about reasons for denial, the right to appeal, and the OCA director's name and address. |
| 00-006 | 10/25/2000 | Visiting judge records were "judicial records;" judge did not refer request to proper custodian. |
| 00-005 | 10/23/2000 | Records of associate judge retention committee were "judicial records," but were exempt from disclosure. |
| 00-003 | 04/27/2000 | Names of individuals on community supervision/probation in eight counties are not "judicial records." |
| 00-002 | 04/10/2000 | Records custodian not required to respond to request from prisoner. |
| 00-001 | 02/07/2000 | Traffic citation records not "judicial records." |
| 99-002 | 01/14/2000 | "Judicial records" of unauthorized practice of law committee were exempt from disclosure. |
| 99-001 | 08/31/1999 | "Judicial records" of unauthorized practice of law committee were exempt from disclosure. |