Texas House Bill HB2101

Texas 2011 - 82nd Regular

• Introduced: 3/3/11
• Refer: 3/8/11

Caption

Relating to sealing of court records containing identifying financial information or personal identifying information.

Impact

The impact of HB2101 is primarily on the management and accessibility of court records involving sensitive data, thereby strengthening privacy protections for individuals whose financial or personal information might be exposed in legal proceedings. By requiring courts to seal records under specific circumstances, this bill can help reduce the risk of identity theft and misuse of personal financial information. The provisions create a more secure environment for individuals involved in court cases, ensuring their sensitive information is not publicly accessible without consent.

Summary

House Bill 2101 introduces significant changes concerning the sealing of court records that contain identifying financial information or personal identifying information. The bill amends the Government Code by adding a new subchapter that establishes the criteria under which a court must seal such records. It obligates the court to seal these records upon the motion of an affected party, such as the individual whose information is contained in the record, unless the court determines a good cause exists not to seal it. This provision aims to enhance the protection of sensitive information within the legal system.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB2101 appears largely positive among those who advocate for privacy rights and data protection. Supporters argue that it is a necessary step in safeguarding individuals' personal and financial information from potential exposure during legal processes. However, there may be some contention from legal practitioners concerned about the implications for transparency and the accessibility of legal information, as sealing records could restrict public oversight of court proceedings.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the balance between protecting individual privacy and ensuring public access to court records. Some may argue that the bill could hinder legal professionals and researchers who rely on access to complete records for various purposes. Furthermore, defining 'good cause' can present challenges, as it may introduce subjective criteria that could lead to inconsistencies in how courts apply this law. Discussion around these aspects indicates a need for further examination on the bill's broader implications for the legal system.