One of the triggers to keeping court documents and the information they contain away from prying eyes is the explosion of identify theft. Identify theft is indeed a growing problem in Ohio and elsewhere, but the proposed policy by a commission comprised of a local judges could include these reasons for safeguarding information by not allowing it to become a public record:

• Lead to injury of individuals.
  
• Jeopardize privacy rights and interests.
  
• Compromise proprietary business information.
  
• Harm public safety.
  
• Threaten the fairness of judicial processes.

Critics of what may becoming down the judicial pike, like Fred Gittes, a progressive Columbus lawyer who has traditionally championed the rights of the downtrodden, said the proposed language is vague enough that it "could justify almost anything."

Being its own branch of government, the full Ohio Supreme Court, all Republicans, can makes its own rules in this regard without need to touch base with the Ohio General Assembly. The public can comment to the court on this issue until Dec. 19th.

HEALTH NET NAILED IN COURT DOCUMENTS

The story that ran on Nov. 9th that should have received more coverage by the main stream media but didn't, was the story that came to light only because the information on the companies' internal procedures were disclosed at an arbitration hearing in a lawsuit brought by a woman whose coverage was terminated by Health Net.

Health Net had sought to keep the documents secret even after it was forced to produce them for the hearing, arguing that they contained proprietary information and could embarrass the company. But the arbitrator in the case, former Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Sam Cianchetti, granted a motion by lawyers for The Times, opening the hearing to reporters and making public all documents produced for it.

At a hearing on the motion, the judge said, "This clearly involves very significant public interest, and my view is the arbitration proceedings should not be confidential." LA Times

Hoist by its own petard, Health Net, which was being investigated by California insurance department officials, was nailed for its illegal practices, which were merely confirmed by the court records, to the tune of a $1 million fine.

State officials said they levied the fine after finding that the company misled investigators about such bonuses on two occasions during interviews at the company's headquarters this fall.

If Ohio and other states seek to bottle up various court information for the reasons outlined above, company practices like the ones used by Health Net may never come to light.

UNSEALED COURT RECORDS AID WHISTLEBLOWER

Another timely, powerful case that argues that court documents ought to be public records comes in this New York Times article about a former medical equipment seller turned medical equipment purchaser whose lawsuit alleging "improper sales practices, together with erroneous accounting, are invisibly draining millions of dollars out of vital public programs like Medicare through overcharges or unauthorized uses" will send shock waves through the industry.

As with the revelatory about Health Net's bonus incentives, this information came to light because court documents were unsealed, making them public.

John Michael Spinelli is a former Ohio Statehouse government and political reporter and business columnist. He now serves as the OhioNews Bureau Chief for ePluribus Media Journal.

If ePluribus Media readers have a news tip or story idea about Ohio politics or government, contact the OhioNews Bureau at: ohionews@www.epluribusmedia.org