New rule could help reporters with obtaining court records

All in all, the changes should improve reporters’ experience with court records and redactions. Additionally, the Missouri statute addressing redactions now carries a notation at the bottom that the provision addressing redaction of victim and witness names was declared unconstitutional.”

Dan Curry, MPA Hotline Attorney

The Missouri Supreme Court issued an order on Dec. 16, 2025, changing the way redactions will work for court records, starting in July 2026. The new rules have some improvements that could benefit reporters struggling with redacted records, or records that have been closed altogether.

First, what would be the new Court Operating Rule 2.03 (a) instructs that no other information should be redacted other than what is prescribed by court rules, orders to seal or statutes. Any additional redactions would require showing of “good cause.” This should prevent the occurrence of lawyers over-redacting documents, i.e. “blacked-out” pages, whether from an abundance of caution or a desire to keep facts from the news.

Second, the same rule changes from being open-ended to being specific. While the old rule provides examples of what would need to be redacted, the new Rule 2.03 (a) spells out what must be redacted by reference to the new Rule 4.24(b). That new rule describes eight categories of information that are confidential and must be redacted. This improved definition should again help reduce the incident of over-redaction by attorneys worried about running afoul of an open-ended redaction requirement.

Third, the new rules require court findings to seal any record other than 19 categories of records that are automatically confidential and out-of-sight. Of those 19 categories, the first 18 are specific and consistent with current state law requirements. For any other record to be considered sealed from public view, the new rules require a motion that “must overcome the presumption that judicial records should be open for public inspection.” The new Rule 55.0275 provides the standard for sealing non-confidential records, and it requires “a compelling justification for closing the records” as well as an order explaining the specific facts and circumstances, even if the motion is unopposed or the parties to the litigation agree they want a record sealed. That is all an improvement over the current rules.

But let’s talk about that last 19th category – which is so far the only rule change that causes me worry. The 19th category is a catch-all that includes any record closed by an “order of a court of record.” This appears to allow a judge to create a confidential record by issuing an order that closes it – and under the new rules, would not appear to require the judge to make a finding of a compelling justification for closure. In fact, the new rules remove a “good cause” requirement for closing a record contained in the former rules.

The worry is this – in some ways the new rules make it easier for a court to close files than before. If a judge desires to make case records confidential, the rules place no conditions or constraints on that decision. This could lead to case files continuing to disappear from Casenet.

All in all, the changes should improve reporters’ experience with court records and redactions. Additionally, the Missouri statute addressing redactions now carries a notation at the bottom that the provision addressing redaction of victim and witness names was declared unconstitutional. This should also help end old habits of over-redaction spurred by the statute’s enactment.