What Is Missouri Court Operating Rule 2 and What Does It Mean for CaseNet Access?
Missouri Court Operating Rule 2 (COR 2), adopted , governs all public access to Missouri judicial department records. COR 2 establishes which records are public, which are confidential, the 5 electronic indexes available remotely on CaseNet, and the document security level system.
What Is Missouri Court Operating Rule 2 and What Does It Govern?
What is Court Operating Rule 2?
Court Operating Rule 2 (COR 2) is the Missouri court rule that controls all public access to records of the Missouri judicial department. The Supreme Court of Missouri adopted COR 2 on . The Office of State Courts Administrator (OSCA) administers COR 2 across all Missouri courts. COR 2 contains 11 subdivisions, COR 2.01 through COR 2.11, governing scope, presumption of openness, redaction obligations, the 5 electronic public indexes, exclusions, fees, requests, bulk distribution, and effective date. (courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=200636)
The 11 Subdivisions of COR 2 and What Each One Controls
Missouri Court Operating Rule 2 organizes its public access framework into 11 subdivisions. The 11 subdivisions are COR 2.01 through COR 2.11, each governing a distinct attribute of public records access. (courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=200636)
| Subdivision | Governing Function | Key Provision |
|---|---|---|
| COR 2.01 | Scope and application | Governs all public access to records of the Missouri judicial department; applies to case records, administrative records, and compiled information |
| COR 2.02 | Presumption of openness; redaction; scraper prohibition | Records presumed open unless confidential by statute, rule, or order; filer bears redaction obligation; scraper access prohibited |
| COR 2.03 | Definitions | Defines “case record,” “administrative record,” “compiled information,” “judicial department” |
| COR 2.04 | Electronic public access | Lists the 5 electronic public indexes; establishes the document security level framework; authorizes OSCA suspension during system overload |
| COR 2.05 | Confidential records | Identifies records exempt from public access: judicial work product, internal email, drafts, appellate case assignments |
| COR 2.06 | Inspection and copying | Authorizes inspection and copying of public records at the court of record |
| COR 2.07 | Fees | Authorizes court fees for copies, transcription, and certification of records |
| COR 2.08 | Requests for records | Establishes the procedure for requesting records not available through CaseNet |
| COR 2.09 | Denials and appeals | Establishes the procedure for challenging a records denial |
| COR 2.10 | Bulk distribution | Governs bulk data requests; courts have no obligation to fulfill non-standard data requests |
| COR 2.11 | Effective date and amendments | Effective date provisions; amendment authority retained by the Supreme Court of Missouri |
The Presumption of Openness Under COR 2.02(a)
Court Operating Rule 2.02(a) establishes the foundational rule of Missouri judicial records access: all court records are presumed open to the public unless made confidential by statute, court rule, or court order. The presumption of openness is the default state. A record is publicly accessible by operation of COR 2.02(a) unless one of the 3 listed sources of confidentiality applies.
Court Operating Rule 2.02(a) does not obligate the judicial department to create new data elements, generate non-standard reports, or produce compiled information that does not already exist. The presumption applies to records as they exist in the court file. (courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=200636)
Does COR 2 Apply to All Missouri Courts?
Missouri Court Operating Rule 2 applies to all courts of the Missouri judicial department, including the Supreme Court of Missouri, the Missouri Court of Appeals (all 3 districts), all 46 Missouri Circuit Courts, and Municipal Divisions within circuit courts. COR 2 does not apply to federal courts in Missouri (the US District Courts and the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals). Federal court records are governed by federal court rules and accessed through PACER (pacer.gov).
What Types of Court Records Are Covered Under COR 2?
Missouri Court Operating Rule 2.03 defines the 3 record categories that fall within the rule’s scope. The definitions in COR 2.03 determine which records are subject to the presumption of openness, the redaction obligations, and the electronic access framework. (courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=200636)
| Record Category | What It Covers | Examples | Public Access Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case Record | Documents and data filed in connection with a specific case | Pleadings, motions, orders, judgments, exhibits filed of record, docket entries | Presumed open |
| Administrative Record | Records of the court’s administrative operations | Court budgets, personnel records (non-confidential portions), facility records, court statistics, contracts | Presumed open |
| Compiled Information | Data extracted, aggregated, or reformatted from case or administrative records | Statistical summaries, court reports, OSCA annual reports, judicial caseload data | Open if it exists; no duty to create |
Confidential Records Excluded from Public Access Under COR 2
Missouri Court Operating Rule 2.05 identifies records the Missouri judicial department treats as confidential and exempt from public access. The COR 2.05 confidential record list includes 5 categories of records: judicial work product, internal correspondence (including internal email), memoranda and drafts circulated within the judicial department, appellate judicial case assignment information, and records made confidential by other statute, rule, or court order. (COR 2.05; courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=200636)
Judicial Work Product and Internal Memoranda Exclusions
Missouri Court Operating Rule 2.05 protects judicial work product and internal memoranda because the Missouri judicial department’s deliberative process must be insulated from public disclosure to preserve judicial independence. Drafts of opinions, internal staff analysis memos, and deliberative communications among judges are confidential under COR 2.05. The exemption does not extend to the final opinion or order issued by the court, which is public under COR 2.02(a).
Court Operating Rule 2.05 confidential records include 5 categories of judicial department materials:
- Judicial work product: draft opinions, internal legal analysis, staff memoranda prepared at a judge’s direction, and deliberative materials
- Internal email: communications among judges and judicial staff in the course of deliberation
- Drafts and memoranda: non-final versions of orders, opinions, and administrative documents circulated within the judicial department
- Appellate judicial case assignments: which justice or judge is assigned to draft an opinion in an appellate matter before the opinion is issued
- Statute-, rule-, or order-confidential records: any record made confidential by another Missouri statute (such as juvenile records under RSMo Chapter 211), court rule (such as Court Operating Rule 4.24), or specific court order
How Does COR 2 Determine What You Can See on CaseNet?
Why can’t I see documents filed before July 1, 2023 on Missouri CaseNet?
Documents filed before are not remotely accessible under Missouri Court Operating Rule 2.02 as amended. The May 2023 COR 2.02 amendment expanded remote document access only for documents filed on or after July 1, 2023. Pre-July 2023 documents remain accessible only at courthouse public access terminals. The restriction followed a St. Louis Post-Dispatch investigation that exposed Social Security Numbers visible in pre-amendment filings, which triggered the State Judicial Records Committee’s recommended restriction. (courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=192775)
The 5 Public Electronic Indexes Always Available Remotely
Missouri Court Operating Rule 2.04(a) authorizes 5 electronic public indexes that are always remotely accessible through CaseNet, regardless of any document-level security restriction. The 5 electronic public indexes are publicly searchable from any internet-connected device without account registration. (COR 2.04(a)(1)-(5); courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=98876)
| Index | What It Searches | What It Returns | Authority |
|---|---|---|---|
| (1) Case number | Searches by case number (format: XX-CC-NNNNN) | Case caption, parties, judge, court location, filing date, docket entries | COR 2.04(a)(1) |
| (2) File date | Searches by date a case was filed | List of cases filed on the searched date in the specified circuit | COR 2.04(a)(2) |
| (3) Party name | Searches by litigant name (plaintiff, defendant, petitioner, respondent) | All cases in which the named party appears as a party | COR 2.04(a)(3) |
| (4) Calendar date | Searches by scheduled hearing date | All hearings scheduled in the specified circuit on the searched date | COR 2.04(a)(4) |
| (5) Judgment against | Searches civil judgments by the party against whom judgment was entered | List of civil judgments entered against the searched party | COR 2.04(a)(5) |
What Document Security Levels Mean for CaseNet Visibility — the Plain-English Decoder
Missouri Court Operating Rule 2.04 ties CaseNet document access to a 5-level security framework managed under the Missouri Court Automation Program (MCAP). Each case and each document carries a security level number from 1 to 5. The lower of the case-level and document-level number determines remote access. Documents where both case and document are at security level 1 or 2 are remotely accessible. Documents at security level 3 or higher require a courthouse public access terminal. (news.mobar.org/what-you-need-to-know-about-expanded-remote-public-access/; courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=41719)
| Security Level | Remote (CaseNet) Access | Common Case Types at This Level | What to Do If Blocked |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Level 1 | Publicly accessible remotely | Standard civil judgments, traffic infractions, post-arraignment criminal complaints, small claims dockets, most circuit court orders | No action — fully accessible via CaseNet (courts.mo.gov/casenet) |
| 2 Level 2 | Publicly accessible remotely | Most civil case attorney filings, motions, scheduling orders, judgments in standard civil and criminal cases | No action — fully accessible via CaseNet |
| 3 Level 3 | Courthouse public access terminal only | Juvenile cases, paternity actions, child protection orders, adult abuse orders, certain family law records | Visit the court of record’s public access terminal; remote access not authorized |
| 4 Level 4 | Courthouse access — restricted | Adoption cases, mental health commitment records, presentence investigation reports, certain probate restricted entries | Access restricted to authorized users; party or attorney access only |
| 5 Level 5 | No public access at any level | Court-sealed cases, expunged records, in-camera review documents, pre- confidential filings | Access restricted to court personnel and authorized parties; sealed orders required to unseal |
Missouri Court Operating Rule 2.04 default security level assignments are set by the State Judicial Records Committee in consultation with the Missouri Court Automation Committee. The default for a given case type controls unless a specific court order changes the level for an individual case or document. A judge can raise the security level of a specific filing by court order. A judge can lower the security level only if statute and rule permit public access.
Why Documents Filed Before July 1, 2023 Require a Courthouse Visit
Missouri Court Operating Rule 2.02 was amended in May 2023 to expand remote document access only for filings made on or after . Documents filed before that date remain accessible only at courthouse public access terminals, regardless of their underlying security level. The restriction followed the St. Louis Post-Dispatch investigation that exposed Social Security Numbers and other personally identifying information visible in pre-amendment electronic filings. The State Judicial Records Committee recommended the cutoff date to limit retroactive exposure of unredacted historical filings. (news.mobar.org/what-you-need-to-know-about-expanded-remote-public-access/)
Who Can Access Missouri Court Records Under COR 2?
Missouri Court Operating Rule 2 differentiates access based on the user’s relationship to the record. The 3 access tiers determine what an individual user is authorized to see in CaseNet and at courthouse terminals.
| Access Tier | Who It Covers | What They Can See | What They Cannot See |
|---|---|---|---|
| General Public | Any internet user without authentication | 5 electronic public indexes (COR 2.04(a)); level 1-2 documents filed on or after July 1, 2023 | Pre-July 2023 documents; level 3+ records; confidential filings; judicial work product |
| Attorney Subscriber | Missouri attorneys authenticated through case.net subscriber account | All general public records plus expanded case-of-record access for cases on which the attorney is counsel of record | Confidential records in other cases; sealed records; judicial work product |
| Party to a Case | Litigants or their attorneys in the specific case | All documents in their own case, including confidential filings, sealed sub-files, and ex parte communications related to the case | Records in other parties’ cases; judicial work product; in-camera review documents not yet disclosed |
Public Access vs. Attorney Subscriber Access
Missouri Court Operating Rule 2’s public access tier is the default access level for the general public using CaseNet without authentication. Attorney subscriber access requires a separate case.net subscriber account with bar number verification through MOBAR. Attorney subscribers gain expanded document visibility on cases where they are counsel of record. Attorney subscribers do not gain general access to confidential filings in cases where they are not counsel.
When a Litigant or Their Attorney Has More Access Than the Public
Missouri Court Operating Rule 2 authorizes a party to a case (or the party’s attorney of record) to view all documents in that case, including filings marked confidential. The party-access tier exists because due process requires a litigant to see the records that affect the litigant’s case. The party-access tier does not extend to cases the party is not directly involved in. A litigant in case A cannot use the party-access tier to view confidential records in case B.
For account setup that enables attorney subscriber or party access, see Missouri CaseNet Login. For the general public guide to remote case-record retrieval, see Missouri CaseNet Public Access (Remote).
How Has Court Operating Rule 2 Changed and What Is Changing in 2026?
What is changing about COR 2 in 2026?
Effective , the December 16, 2025 Supreme Court of Missouri order restructures COR 2.01 through COR 2.05. The order limits permissible redactions to a defined list, creates new Rule 55.0275 establishing a formal sealing standard, clarifies COR 4.24 confidential record definitions, and removes the CRIF requirement when a filer files redacted and unredacted versions of a document simultaneously. (courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=228654; molawyersmedia.com, )
Missouri Court Operating Rule 2 Amendment Timeline
Missouri Court Operating Rule 2 was adopted on , and has been amended 8 times in the 52 years since adoption. The amendment timeline shows the rule’s evolution from a paper-records framework to a digital-records framework with security level management.
| Year | Amendment Focus | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Original adoption | Established framework for public access to Missouri judicial records | |
| Updated definitions | Modernized scope to account for early electronic records | |
| Electronic access framework | Authorized the framework that became CaseNet | |
| Confidentiality classifications | Refined the COR 2.05 confidential records list | |
| Security level framework | Formalized the 5-level document security system | |
| Bulk distribution rules | Established COR 2.10 framework for bulk data requests | |
| COVID-era access provisions | Authorized temporary remote access expansions during court closures | |
| Redaction obligation and expanded remote access | Made filer solely responsible for redaction; expanded remote document access for post-July 2023 filings | |
| Restructuring; new Rule 55.0275 sealing standard | Restructures COR 2.01-2.05; limits redactions to defined list; creates formal sealing standard |
The 2023 Expansion: Remote Access to Documents via CaseNet
Missouri Court Operating Rule 2.02, as amended with an effective date of , expanded remote document access on CaseNet. Before the amendment, the 5 electronic public indexes were remotely accessible but most underlying documents required a courthouse public access terminal. The amendment authorized remote access to documents at security levels 1-2 filed on or after . The amendment also placed the redaction obligation solely on the filer, eliminating any expectation that court clerks would redact filings before public posting.
The 2023 amendment included a companion amendment to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 55.025 and Missouri Rule 19.10, governing civil and criminal redaction obligations simultaneously. The simultaneous amendment package was driven by the State Judicial Records Committee’s recommendation following the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporting on SSN exposure in CaseNet documents.
The July 1, 2026 Restructuring: What the December 2025 Order Changes
Missouri Court Operating Rule 2 will undergo a structural restructuring effective . The Supreme Court of Missouri issued the underlying order on . The order restructures COR 2.01 through COR 2.05, limits permissible redactions to a defined list of categories, and creates new Rule 55.0275 to establish a formal standard for sealing court records that had been absent from COR 2 itself. Chief Justice Powell’s statement accompanying the order identified the restructuring as part of a broader effort to clarify the redaction and sealing framework after 3 years of operational experience with the 2023 remote access expansion. (courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=228654; mopress.com, )
The CRIF Exception Effective July 1, 2026
Missouri Court Operating Rule 2.02(c)-(e), as restructured by the December 16, 2025 order, eliminates the CRIF (Confidential Redacted Information Filing Sheet) requirement when a filer files both a redacted version and an unredacted version of the same document simultaneously. Before , the CRIF is required whenever a filer redacts confidential information. After , the CRIF is unnecessary if the filer submits both versions in the same filing transaction.
What Is the Difference Between COR 2 and the Missouri Sunshine Law?
Missouri Court Operating Rule 2 and the Missouri Sunshine Law are 2 separate legal frameworks that often confuse the public. COR 2 covers records of the Missouri judicial department (courts and their administrative offices). The Sunshine Law, codified at RSMo Chapter 610, covers records of executive and legislative branch agencies and political subdivisions. A request directed to the wrong framework will be denied as outside the recipient’s authority. (RSMo Chapter 610; courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=200636)
| Attribute | Missouri Court Operating Rule 2 | Missouri Sunshine Law (RSMo Chapter 610) |
|---|---|---|
| Governing authority | Supreme Court of Missouri (court rule-making power) | Missouri General Assembly (statutory) |
| Records covered | Court records of the Missouri judicial department | Government records of executive and legislative agencies, political subdivisions |
| Custodian | Clerk of the court of record; OSCA for system-level records | Designated custodian of each public governmental body |
| Request method | Direct request to clerk; CaseNet for case dockets; GN forms for case-specific motions; COR 2.08 procedure for records not on CaseNet | Written request under RSMo §610.023 to the designated custodian |
| Response deadline | Not statutorily fixed; clerk handles in ordinary course; 30 days for redaction motion disposition under COR 2.02(d) | 3 business days under RSMo §610.023.3 |
| Denial remedy | Motion to correct under COR 2.02(d); appeal under COR 2.09 procedure | Court action under RSMo §610.027; injunctive relief and attorney fees available |
| Fees | Court rule schedule (per OSCA fee schedule) | Statutory maximum: $0.10 per page; actual cost of duplication |
| Confidentiality framework | COR 2.05 (judicial confidentiality); cross-referenced statutes and orders | RSMo §610.021 (closed records exceptions list) |
Court Records vs. Government Records: Which Law Governs Each
Missouri Court Operating Rule 2 governs every record generated, received, or maintained by a Missouri court or the Office of State Courts Administrator in the course of judicial business. A divorce decree, a circuit court docket, a probate inventory, and an OSCA caseload report are all court records under COR 2. The Missouri Sunshine Law does not govern these records.
Missouri Sunshine Law governs every record generated, received, or maintained by an executive or legislative agency or political subdivision in the course of governmental business. A city council meeting minute, a state agency contract, a county property tax assessment, and a school board email are government records under RSMo Chapter 610. Court Operating Rule 2 does not govern these records.
How to Request Records Not Available via CaseNet Under COR 2.08
Court Operating Rule 2.08 establishes the procedure for requesting court records not available through CaseNet. The request is directed to the clerk of the court of record where the case was filed or where the administrative record is maintained. The COR 2.08 request procedure follows 5 steps:
- Identify the court of record: Determine which Missouri court holds the record. For a civil case, the record is at the circuit court where the case was filed. For an OSCA administrative record, the request goes to OSCA directly.
- Submit a written request to the clerk: The COR 2.08 request states the records sought with reasonable specificity. The request identifies the case number where available, or describes the administrative record sought.
- Pay applicable fees under COR 2.07: The clerk may charge fees for copies, transcription, or certification at the rate established by the OSCA fee schedule.
- Receive the response from the clerk: The clerk produces public records or, if access is denied, identifies the basis for denial (statute, rule, or order).
- Pursue COR 2.09 appeal if denied: A requester who believes a denial is improper may seek review under the COR 2.09 procedure. Consult a licensed Missouri attorney for case-specific guidance on appeal.
What Happens When a CaseNet Document Is Confidential or Over-Redacted?
How do I challenge a confidential or over-redacted CaseNet document?
File a Motion to Correct on form GN 325 with the court of record under Missouri Court Operating Rule 2.02(d). The motion identifies the document and states the basis for the challenge: insufficient redaction (confidential information left visible) or excessive redaction (public information blacked out). The court must dispose of the motion within 30 days of filing under COR 2.02(d). Form GN 325 is available from courts.mo.gov. Consult a licensed Missouri attorney for case-specific guidance. (COR 2.02(d); courts.mo.gov)
Filing a Motion to Correct Insufficient or Excessive Redaction (GN 325 Form)
Missouri Court Operating Rule 2.02(d) authorizes any person to file a motion challenging the redaction of a document filed in a Missouri court. The motion is filed on form GN 325, the Motion to Correct Redaction. The motion can raise 2 types of challenges: insufficient redaction (the filer failed to redact confidential information, leaving SSNs, account numbers, or other protected data visible) or excessive redaction (the filer redacted information that should be publicly accessible, denying lawful public access).
The GN 325 motion is filed in the court of record where the underlying case is pending or was decided. The motion identifies the document, page, and specific redacted or unredacted content at issue. The motion does not require an attorney. A self-represented party can file the GN 325 form directly with the clerk.
The 30-Day Resolution Deadline Under COR 2.02(d)
Missouri Court Operating Rule 2.02(d) imposes a 30-day disposition deadline on the court of record. The 30 days run from the date the motion is filed. The court can grant the motion (ordering the document to be corrected), deny the motion (finding the existing redaction proper), or set the motion for hearing if material facts are in dispute. The 30-day deadline applies to disposition of the motion, not to the underlying redaction correction itself. If the court grants the motion, the corrected document is filed under the timeline ordered by the court.
The 30-day deadline is a court rule deadline, not a statutory deadline. A court that misses the deadline does not lose jurisdiction to rule. The deadline establishes the expected pace of resolution. Counsel for a party affected by an untimely ruling should consult a licensed Missouri attorney about remedies including writ relief.
Can a Confidential CaseNet Case Be Challenged or Unsealed?
Missouri Court Operating Rule 2 alone does not establish a sealing procedure. Under the December 2025 order, new Rule 55.0275 (effective ) establishes the formal standard for sealing court records. Before , sealing motions rely on case-specific statutes (such as RSMo §610.140 for expungement) and individual court inherent authority. After , Rule 55.0275 supplies a uniform standard. A person seeking to unseal a Missouri case must petition the court of record that issued the sealing order. The petition must address the standard for sealing the court originally applied.
Court Operating Rule 2 itself does not provide a unilateral remedy to access a sealed case. The sealing court retains jurisdiction over the seal. Consult a licensed Missouri attorney for case-specific guidance on unsealing petitions, particularly for expunged criminal records under RSMo §610.140.
Can You Automate or Bulk-Download CaseNet Records Under COR 2?
The Scraper Prohibition Under COR 2.02(f) Explained
Missouri Court Operating Rule 2.02(f) expressly prohibits access to any Missouri judicial website, including CaseNet, by “site data scrapers or similar automated software intended for repetitive querying to collect data.” The prohibition covers all automated access regardless of stated purpose. A scraper operated by a journalist, a researcher, a business intelligence firm, or a private individual is equally prohibited under COR 2.02(f).
The scraper prohibition does not prevent normal browser use of CaseNet. A user manually searching CaseNet using a web browser is not violating COR 2.02(f). The prohibition targets software designed to make repetitive queries at machine speed to harvest data. OSCA has technical capability to detect automated traffic patterns and can block IP addresses that show scraping behavior. (COR 2.02(f); courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=192775)
How to Request Bulk Distribution of Court Records Under COR 2.10
Missouri Court Operating Rule 2.10 establishes a separate framework for bulk data requests that cannot be satisfied by normal CaseNet use. A bulk distribution request is directed to OSCA. COR 2.10 imposes no obligation on the Missouri judiciary to fulfill a bulk distribution request. OSCA may grant, deny, or partially fulfill a request in its discretion. A grant typically requires payment of compilation costs and may include conditions limiting redistribution.
Court Operating Rule 2.10 contemplates bulk distribution requests for research, journalism, and government oversight purposes. A requester seeking bulk data should submit a written request to OSCA identifying the specific records sought, the purpose of the request, and the requester’s identity. OSCA evaluates the request against COR 2.10’s framework and the public interest in access weighed against privacy and operational concerns.
| Activity | Allowed Under COR 2? | Governing Subdivision |
|---|---|---|
| Manual CaseNet search via web browser | Yes — standard public use | COR 2.04(a) |
| Automated repeated queries (scraping) | No — expressly prohibited | COR 2.02(f) |
| API access for case data | No — no public API offered | COR 2.02(f) |
| Bulk distribution request to OSCA | Discretionary — OSCA may grant or deny | COR 2.10 |
| Subscription to attorney-tier case alerts | Yes — for authenticated MOBAR attorneys on cases of record | COR 2.04 |
| Commercial third-party CaseNet republishing | No — requires OSCA bulk distribution agreement | COR 2.10 |
How Does COR 2 Connect to Court Operating Rule 4.24 and Rule 55.0275?
Missouri Court Operating Rule 2 does not operate in isolation. COR 2 cross-references 2 companion rules that supply definitions and procedures essential to the public access framework: Court Operating Rule 4.24 (definitions of confidential record and confidential information) and Rule 55.0275 (sealing standard, effective ).
What COR 4.24 Defines as “Confidential Record” and How It Links to COR 2
Court Operating Rule 4.24 defines the terms “confidential record” and “confidential information” used throughout COR 2. COR 4.24 was revised by the same December 16, 2025 Supreme Court of Missouri order that restructured COR 2. The COR 4.24 definitions determine which records COR 2 must protect from public access. Without COR 4.24, COR 2.05’s confidentiality framework would have no anchor. The COR 4.24 definitions are the operational layer that COR 2 enforces.
Court Operating Rule 4.24 identifies categories of information considered confidential by Missouri court rule, separate from confidentiality by statute. Categories under COR 4.24 include Social Security Numbers, financial account numbers, taxpayer identification numbers, dates of birth (in certain contexts), and other personally identifying information. (Court Operating Rule 4.24; courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=228654)
The New Rule 55.0275 Standard for Sealing Records (July 2026)
Missouri Rule 55.0275, created by the December 16, 2025 Supreme Court of Missouri order with an effective date of , establishes a formal Missouri standard for sealing court records. Before Rule 55.0275, sealing motions in Missouri relied on case-specific statutes (such as RSMo §610.140 for criminal record expungement) and individual court inherent authority. Rule 55.0275 supplies a uniform standard that applies across case types. The rule identifies the factors a court must weigh and the showing a party seeking sealing must make. (courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=228654; molawyersmedia.com, )
Missouri Rule 55.0275 does not change the existing case-specific statutes. A criminal record expungement under RSMo §610.140 continues to operate under that statute’s procedure. Rule 55.0275 supplies the standard for sealing motions that do not fall under a specific statute, particularly in civil cases where sealing was previously governed only by the court’s inherent authority.
| Rule | Function | Effective Date | Relationship to COR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Missouri Court Operating Rule 2 | Governs public access to court records | ; restructured effective | The central public access framework |
| Court Operating Rule 4.24 | Defines “confidential record” and “confidential information” | Revised ; effective | Supplies the definitions COR 2 enforces |
| Rule 55.0275 | Establishes formal standard for sealing court records | New rule; effective | Supplies the sealing standard absent from COR 2 |
For the broader structure of the Missouri judiciary that COR 2 governs, see Missouri Court System Levels. For the eFiling rules that interact with COR 2 redaction obligations on new filings, see Missouri CaseNet eFiling Rule 21.