Redaction that Works
May 27, 2016 § 2 Comments
MRCP 5.1 and the MEC administrative rules require that you redact certain information from pleadings filed electronically. We’ve discussed the topic here previously. I’ve also encouraged you to redact similar information from discovery responses and exhibits in evidence.
But how do you redact? Are you doing it effectively?
The federal courts, which have similar privacy requirements to Mississippi’s, have studied the question. Here’s a link to an article on the web site of the US District Court for the Northern District of California that explains what methods of redaction do the job — and those that do not.
The Better Chancery Practice Blog 
The best redaction method I’ve found is to use Acrobat Pro. It had a redaction tool which blacks out the relevant portions of the document and creates the final version from that redaction. In other words, there’s no way to see through it because the source document itself is blacked out, not a scan of a marked over document. It also does a good job of removing metadata and other little markers that may be in the document.
I always enjoy reading your tips. Regarding confidentiality, I frequently see situations where an attorney involved in a chancery action waits until the day before a court hearing to serve a DHS worker with a subpoena duces tecum for DHS records and then gets frustrated because the DHS worker doesn’t produce the records. The attorney probably did not first read Rules 5 and 6 of the Uniform Rules of Youth Court Practice (U.R.Y.C.P.) and the code sections mentioned therein. The reasons I have heard include “I did not read those rules because my court hearing is in chancery court. It is not in youth court.”