HB 3289 repeals and replaces a cluster of statutes governing court records and operations to create a more centralized approach to court automation and to tighten handling of personally identifiable information in court files. The bill authorizes a Statewide Court Automation Fund and a court automation committee to maintain and operate a statewide automation system, delegates recordkeeping methods to the Missouri Supreme Court, and updates who may sit on the automation committee.
Beyond automation and governance, the bill redefines what counts as confidential information in court case records, requires confidential filing sheets for family-law matters, constrains what identifying data may appear in publicly accessible court documents, and preserves judges’ supervisory duties over court records. The package shifts operational control toward centralized standards and processes while offering municipalities a path to participate in the statewide system under agreement with the state courts administrator.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a funded, state-level court automation program administered by a court automation committee and places recordkeeping methods under Missouri Supreme Court rule; limits public display of sensitive identifiers in filings and requires confidential filing sheets for family-law cases.
Who It Affects
Circuit and municipal court clerks, judges, attorneys, prosecutors, public defenders, county treasuries (fee collections), and local governments that may opt into the statewide system via ordinance and agreement with the state courts administrator.
Why It Matters
This bill shifts technical control and standard-setting for court records from local practice to a coordinated statewide program and elevates privacy protections for litigants’ unique identifiers — changes that will alter procurement, data-handling, and daily clerk and judge workflows across Missouri’s courts.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB 3289 is a structural rewrite of how Missouri courts will handle records and court automation going forward. It moves the methods and systems for keeping files and court data under the direction of Missouri Supreme Court rule rather than leaving them to a mix of statutory prescriptions and local practice.
Practically, that means the court system will be able to standardize formats, custody and access approaches, and security requirements across counties once the Supreme Court issues implementing rules.
The bill sets up a dedicated Statewide Court Automation Fund and empowers a court automation committee to maintain and operate a statewide automation system and to run pilot projects. Municipal courts may opt into that statewide system by passing an ordinance and signing an agreement with the state courts administrator, which can include multi-year surcharge arrangements or guaranteed minimum payments.
Clerks will continue to perform the day-to-day work of recording case events, but the bill makes clear they must follow whatever methods the Supreme Court prescribes — including electronic storage and filing formats.On privacy, the bill tightens the definition of confidential information and creates a contemporaneous confidential filing sheet for family-law filings that is not subject to public inspection; full Social Security numbers and full financial account numbers are to be excluded from public pleadings and instead kept on confidential records. Judges retain supervisory duties over court records and must provide parties notification and an opportunity to respond before directing removal of items from a court file.
The measure also includes a narrowly tailored provision allowing close relatives or personal representatives to request confidentiality of misdemeanor convictions in the statewide automation system for deceased persons, after a waiting period and court review for unfair prejudice.Operationally, local clerks and courts will need to align with Supreme Court rules on record access and confidentiality, negotiate participation agreements if they want to join the statewide automation system, and adjust intake procedures to include confidential filing sheets for specified matters. The bill leaves important implementation mechanics — exact data formats, user access controls, and rule text governing access exceptions — to the Supreme Court and the committee to resolve.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The court automation committee includes judicial appointees (a court of appeals judge, four circuit judges, four associate circuit judges), court employees (four circuit court employees and two municipal division employees) and legislative and bar appointees, with ex officio seats for the chief justice, the commissioner of administration, the executive director of the Office of Prosecution Services, and the director of the state public defender system.
Any purchase of software or hardware over $5,000 for the automation system must follow the Office of Administration’s lowest-and-best-bid requirements, with the court automation committee setting specifications.
The bill makes the knowing release of confidential judicial-record information a class B misdemeanor and using confidential judicial-record information for financial gain a class E felony.
The court automation committee must file an electronic progress report by January 15 each year to the chairs of the house budget, senate appropriations, house judiciary, and senate judiciary committees.
Beginning August 28, 2026, public court filings may not include full Social Security numbers or full financial account numbers; those must be placed on confidential records or filing sheets and only the last four digits should appear in public documents.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Language, electronic records, and Statewide Court Automation Fund
Section 476.050 preserves English as the statutory language of court writs and records but explicitly permits filings and records to be stored or maintained electronically under rules the Supreme Court may adopt. Section 476.055 establishes the Statewide Court Automation Fund to hold surcharge revenue, gifts, grants, and proceeds from judiciary electronic services; it also creates the court automation committee to administer and maintain the statewide automation system. The practical effect is to create a ring‑fenced revenue stream and a governance body to plan, procure, and operate shared court IT, while directing the technical standards and storage approaches to be developed by the Supreme Court and committee.
Municipal court participation
This section authorizes cities, counties, and other municipalities to opt into the statewide automation system. To participate, a municipality must both enact an ordinance imposing the applicable surcharge and enter an agreement with the state courts administrator; agreements can include guaranteed minimum payments and multi‑year surcharge continuations. That gives local governments a contractual route to gain automated services while preserving negotiation over funding and terms.
Posthumous confidentiality for misdemeanor records
This narrow provision allows a close relative or personal representative to move the convicting court to make a deceased person’s misdemeanor conviction confidential in the statewide system after the person has been dead six months, subject to the court’s finding that confidentiality would not unfairly prejudice others. It creates a discrete pathway to limit access to certain historical misdemeanor records in the automated index.
Filing locations and assignment protections
The statute preserves existing filing locations and docketing procedures in counties with centralized filing, permits plaintiffs in certain civil categories to elect to have their case decided under circuit-judge procedures, and establishes protections in assigning cases to associate circuit judges — for example, limiting transfers of cases to other courthouses without party consent except for good cause and encouraging grouped assignments to avoid scheduling conflicts.
Definitions for case records and confidential information
This new definitions section codifies what counts as a 'case record' and enumerates 'confidential information' (including full dates of birth, full Social Security numbers, driver's license and passport numbers, full financial-account numbers and passwords, and the name/address of minors). By statute-defining these categories, the bill gives the Supreme Court and clerks a clear baseline for what must be segregated or handled as confidential in the automated system.
Clerks' recordkeeping subject to Supreme Court rule
Section 483.082 requires clerks to keep court records 'as directed by rule of the supreme court' and recognizes evolving recordkeeping technologies. The provision emphasizes that confidential records must be maintained so they are inaccessible to the public consistent with Supreme Court rules — effectively vesting the Court with operational authority over formats, access controls, and definitions of public versus confidential materials.
Judicial supervision and removal process
Judges retain a statutory duty to supervise how rolls and court records are maintained and to require uniform, accurate recordkeeping. The updated language prohibits local rules that allow a judge to remove pleadings or files without first notifying parties and giving them an opportunity to respond. That procedural safeguard changes the default for file alterations: judges may still supervise records, but not unilaterally excise materials from files without notice and response.
Filing of certain documents and recording fee
This section preserves the clerk’s role in accepting specified case documents into the circuit court record and prescribes a charge of ten cents per one hundred words for such filings, with revenue payable to the county treasury. The provision formalizes the fee rule for clerks and clarifies which documents belong in the official record.
Limits on public display of identifying information and confidential filing sheets
The statute bars public inclusion of full Social Security numbers and full financial account numbers in filings and judgments, requires confidential filing sheets (not available for public inspection) for dissolution, paternity, support and custody matters, and directs courts to retain full unique identifiers on confidential records. Documents that must be public should display only the last four digits of numbers. The text also preserves the ability of certain authorized entities to use unique identifiers to match records and allows courts to release confidential filing-sheet data for good cause or to specified state agencies.
Discovery production mechanics
This discovery provision preserves the court’s authority to order production and inspection of nonprivileged documents and property in a party’s control and specifies how inspections will be conducted. It also allows a party to obtain, without additional showing, prior statements made by that party (written or recorded). The language modernizes pronouns and preserves standard discovery remedies while fitting the new record environment.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State courts administrators and the judiciary — gain a funded, centralized mechanism (the automation fund and committee) to plan and deploy shared IT, which can reduce duplicate local procurement and make statewide upgrades feasible.
- Litigants and privacy-sensitive individuals — receive stronger statutory protection for Social Security numbers and financial account numbers, plus confidential filing sheets for family-law matters that limit public exposure of sensitive identifiers.
- Municipal courts that opt in — can access a statewide automation platform under negotiated agreements and guaranteed-payment options instead of building or maintaining their own systems.
- Missouri Bar members and legislators serving on the committee — gain formal representation in governance and the chance to influence specifications, pilot projects, and rollout priorities.
- Court clerks and records staff — benefit from unified standards and (potentially) shared tools and training that simplify multi-county practices and support electronic filing.
Who Bears the Cost
- Counties and local courts that decline full committee-funded migration — may face compliance costs if they must adapt to statewide data standards or purchase compatible systems without full reimbursement.
- Vendors and purchasing managers — must compete under Office of Administration bidding requirements for contracts above $5,000 and meet committee-specified technical specifications, potentially increasing procurement complexity.
- Clerks and court personnel — will carry operational burdens during transition (data conversion, new intake protocols, confidential-sheet handling) and must implement Supreme Court rules without the bill specifying transition funding.
- Small municipalities and municipal divisions — even with an opt-in path, they may face contract terms requiring guaranteed payments or surcharges that could strain local budgets if automation costs exceed local revenue.
- The court automation committee and Supreme Court — face administrative workload and liability for security standards, pilot projects, and rule development without explicit appropriations beyond the fund’s receipts.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill resolves the need for consistent, secure statewide court IT and stronger privacy protections by centralizing authority and funding, but that centralization conflicts with local control and can impose conversion and contractual costs on counties and municipalities — creating a trade-off between uniformity/security and local fiscal and operational autonomy.
The bill centralizes key decisions about court record formats, storage, and access under the combination of a legislatively created automation committee and the Missouri Supreme Court’s rulemaking authority. That combination consolidates technical power but leaves open who bears conversion and interoperability costs in many localities.
While the fund can receive surcharge revenue and gifts, the statute does not specify a comprehensive appropriation strategy or precise revenue sufficiency tests for statewide rollout; implementation may therefore depend on future appropriations or negotiated guarantees with municipalities.
The confidentiality rules tighten public exposure of unique identifiers, but they also create practical questions about who gets access for legitimate purposes (law enforcement, child-support agencies, financial institutions doing fraud checks) and how matching and authentication will occur without exposing full data. The bill preserves limited exceptions for entities to use unique identifiers to validate records, but it defers procedural guardrails (audit logs, access controls, sanctions for misuse beyond the criminal penalties) to court rules, which could lead to uneven protections during the transition.
Lastly, vesting procurement specifications with the committee while subjecting purchases above $5,000 to Office of Administration bidding standards introduces potential friction between specialized judicial needs and centralized procurement protocols.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.