Cummings v. Cummings , 2015 Ark. App. 517 ( 2015 )

Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 517
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CV-15-54
HARRY CUMMINGS Opinion Delivered SEPTEMBER 30, 2015
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE POLK
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. DR-2010-111-2]
HONORABLE J.W. LOONEY, JUDGE
REBEKAH A. CUMMINGS
APPELLEE REBRIEFING ORDERED
ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Chief Judge
This appeal comes to us after protracted domestic-relations litigation between
Rebekah and Harry Cummings. Mr. Cummings brings this appeal to challenge the trial
court’s contempt finding against him and its alimony award. We do not reach the merits of
this appeal and, instead, order rebriefing because of both parties’ failure to comply with the
requirements of Administrative Order No. 19.
Administrative Order No. 19 pertains to access to court records, and Arkansas
Supreme Court Rule 4-1(d) (2014) requires compliance with its protective requirements for
confidential information. Section VII(A) of Administrative Order No. 19 details the
information to be excluded from public access and confidential absent a court order to the
contrary. The information excluded from public access pursuant to Administrative Order
No. 19 includes Social Security numbers and account numbers of specific assets, liabilities,
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 517
accounts, credit cards, and personal identification numbers. Ark. Sup. Ct. Admin. Order No.
19 (VII)(A)(4) & (5).
Both parties indicated in their informational statements that this appeal does not
involve confidential information as defined by section (III)(A)(11) and (VII)(A) of
Administrative Order No. 19. However, our review indicates otherwise. We identified
numerous instances in which the parties’ Social Security numbers and bank account numbers
were provided and subject to public access in contradiction to the purpose and requirements
of Administrative Order No. 19 and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-1(d). With the benefit
of technological advances, this deficiency is particularly egregious. Our court records are
now available online. Absent redaction or the filing of a case under seal, these records are
easily accessible by members of the public. Counsels’ inclusion of Social Security numbers
and bank account numbers created the potential for abuse of their clients’ confidential
information. This deficiency must be cured; therefore, we order rebriefing.
WHITEAKER and HOOFMAN , JJ., agree.
Orvin W. Foster, for appellant.
The Troutt Law Firm, by: R. Scott Troutt, for appellee.
2