Should Court Reporters Redact Social Security Numbers in Transcripts?

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inCourt Reporting, Judicial Ethics Watch, Legal ServicesTags:, , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Hidden Ethics Behind a Growing Practice

In an era where privacy breaches make daily headlines, a seemingly small question has begun circulating among court reporters nationwide: Should we be redacting Social Security numbers (SSNs) from transcripts automatically?

At first glance, it feels like an obvious “yes.” After all, who wants to risk exposing personally identifiable information (PII) in a court record? But in practice, the issue isn’t nearly that simple—and the legal responsibility doesn’t necessarily fall on the stenographer. What starts as a well-intentioned act of caution could actually cross an ethical or procedural line.

The Question That Sparked a Debate

A recent conversation among reporters online revealed deep uncertainty and regional inconsistencies. One proofreader mentioned that her local reporters were redacting SSNs on their own initiative, assuming it was required by privacy rules. But when the reporter she was working with looked into it, she couldn’t find any explicit rule authorizing—or requiring—court reporters to perform that redaction.

In both Washington and Texas, as it turns out, responsibility for redacting personal information before a filing typically lies with the party or attorney, not the reporter or clerk. So why are some reporters taking on this task anyway? Often, it’s a combination of well-meaning caution and confusion about the boundaries of our role.

Who Actually Bears Responsibility?

Under most state and federal procedural rules, the obligation to redact sensitive information rests with filing parties. For example, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a) requires that only the last four digits of an SSN appear in any court filing—but it’s the filing party’s duty to make that redaction. The rule doesn’t assign any obligation to the court reporter, the clerk, or the court itself.

Many state courts mirror this framework. In Texas, Rule 21c of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure mandates redaction of sensitive data such as SSNs, birthdates, and financial account numbers—but again, the duty falls on the filer. The same applies in Washington, where General Rule 22 governs access to court records and designates attorneys and parties as the redactors.

In other words: court reporters are not the gatekeepers of redaction compliance. We are neutral officers of the court tasked with creating an accurate, verbatim record. Altering or omitting content, even for privacy reasons, without a clear directive from the court could raise serious ethical questions.

The Risk of “Helpful” Redaction

On the surface, redacting seems protective. But unless ordered by the court, modifying the transcript can blur the line between accuracy and editing.

Every CSR oath, whether in Texas, Washington, or California, includes language about producing a “true and correct transcript.” That duty conflicts directly with self-initiated redaction. If a witness states a full Social Security number on the record and you choose to obscure it—without an instruction from counsel, the court, or statute—you’ve technically changed the record.

In fact, the National Court Reporters Association’s (NCRA) Code of Professional Ethics Canon 1 emphasizes accuracy and impartiality above all else. Canon 3 underscores the reporter’s role as a neutral officer of the court. Both principles can be compromised by discretionary redaction.

So while removing private data might feel protective, it may actually place the reporter at risk of an ethics complaint if the omission later becomes relevant in an appeal, audit, or evidentiary dispute.

The Modern Privacy Paradox

Of course, reporters’ concerns are valid. In an age where transcripts are often stored, transmitted, and even sold digitally, exposure of PII could have devastating consequences. Once an SSN appears in an electronic file, it can travel indefinitely—duplicated in deposition repositories, billing software, discovery databases, and cloud storage systems.

Reporters are right to feel uneasy about transmitting unredacted PII through unsecured channels. But the solution lies not in editing the record; it lies in controlling access to it.

That’s why many agencies and independent reporters now use password-protected transcript portals, encryption tools, and two-factor authentication to deliver files securely. Some software even offers automatic detection warnings—flagging sequences that look like SSNs, but leaving the redaction decision to the party responsible.

A Practical Middle Ground

Until a court or jurisdiction explicitly directs reporters to redact personal identifiers, the safest course is to adopt a “record-but-don’t-publish” philosophy.

That means:

  1. Take it down exactly as spoken. The transcript should remain an accurate, complete reflection of the record, including any personally identifiable information stated aloud.
  2. Notify counsel if sensitive data was disclosed. A professional, neutral cover letter or note can alert both sides: “Counsel, please note that a full Social Security number appears on page 72, line 14. Pursuant to [applicable rule], you may wish to file a redacted version for the public record.”
  3. Retain the unredacted transcript under secure storage. Keep your master copy intact, but deliver only as authorized—especially if the court orders a redacted version for filing.

This approach protects everyone’s interests: the reporter’s ethical duty to preserve accuracy, the parties’ privacy rights, and the court’s reliance on an authentic record.

How States Differ (and Why Confusion Persists)

The patchwork of state rules adds to the confusion. Some jurisdictions, like Florida, have adopted explicit e-filing rules outlining which identifiers must be redacted. Others, like California, delegate it to local court policy or e-filing vendor procedures.

In Texas, reporters often encounter “standing orders” in certain counties directing redaction in juvenile or family law cases—but those orders apply to public filings, not to certified transcripts exchanged privately between parties. Unless the transcript is being filed into the court record, the same redaction standards don’t necessarily apply.

Washington State’s General Rule 31 and 22 treat access to court records separately from the creation of them. Reporters there are typically not considered “custodians of public records” under the rule. The party who submits a transcript becomes the “filer” and must comply with redaction requirements.

The result is a classic jurisdictional mismatch: two reporters doing identical work in different states could face opposite expectations.

Examples of States and Jurisdictions where the Filer Bears the Redaction Duty

1. California

Under California Rule of Court 1.201, the rule explicitly states that the responsibility for excluding or redacting identifiers (e.g. SSNs, financial account numbers) from documents filed with the court rests solely with the parties and their attorneys. California Courts
The rule also clarifies that the court clerk is not required to review filings for compliance.

2. Virginia

Virginia Code § 8.01-420.8 imposes on the party filing a pleading or motion the obligation to “make reasonable efforts to redact all but the last four digits” of identification numbers (including Social Security) when including them in court documents. Virginia Law
That statute also expressly states that it does not create a private cause of action against the party, court staff, or clerk.

3. Idaho

In Idaho’s rules (I.R.C.P. 2.6 and I.R.E.F.S. 15), the responsibility is placed firmly on the filer to ensure that personal data identifiers are omitted or redacted before submission, whether the document is filed electronically or in paper form. Idaho Supreme Court
The rules further emphasize that filing clerks will not review the submission for redaction compliance. Idaho Supreme Court

4. Wyoming

Under Wyoming’s “Rules Governing Redactions from Court Records,” the duty to redact specified personal data identifiers lies “solely with counsel and the persons filing the documents.” Wyoming Legislature
Those rules also address transcripts: once delivered, parties have a window to direct redaction before the public record is finalized. Wyoming Legislature

5. Kansas

Kansas eCourt Rule 24 places the obligation on attorneys or parties to protect personally identifiable information in filings. It explicitly states that in filings, “an attorney, or a party if not represented, is solely obligated to protect the confidentiality of personally identifiable information … in ensuring that the filing contains no personally identifiable information.” Kansas Judicial Center
The rule also says that the clerk has no duty to check filings for compliance. Kansas Judicial Center

6. Nevada

Nevada’s rules on sealing and redaction (Rules Governing Sealing and Redacting Court Records) identify “personal information” (including SSNs) and provide that the “primary duty for redaction rests with the filing party,” and courts may reject or require re-filing of documents that fail to redact. https://www.leg.state.nv.us/division/legal/lawlibrary/courtrules/

When the Court Directs Redaction

There are, of course, situations where redaction is appropriate—and required. If the court or a protective order explicitly directs the reporter to redact certain identifiers, compliance becomes part of the reporter’s official duties. In that scenario, documentation is essential. Always retain:

  • A written or on-the-record order directing redaction;
  • A note on the certificate page or title page indicating that redactions were made pursuant to that order;
  • A secure copy of the unredacted version, stored separately under seal.

Transparency in process prevents future accusations of alteration or bias.

Why Reporters Should Stay in Their Lane—But Guard the Gate

As the industry moves deeper into digital workflows, we must separate privacy management from record alteration. Reporters are not editors, data scrubbers, or privacy officers; we are the guardians of the verbatim record. Yet we also serve as the first line of defense against mishandled data.

The professional path forward isn’t unilateral redaction—it’s robust privacy protocol. Secure delivery platforms, encrypted backups, controlled client access, and clear communication about redaction responsibility are far more defensible than altering content post-capture.

In short:

Don’t redact. Report, alert, and secure.

The Takeaway

Automatic redaction of Social Security numbers might seem like a harmless courtesy, but it can undermine a reporter’s ethical obligation to produce a faithful record. Unless a statute, court rule, or judge specifically instructs otherwise, the duty to redact lies squarely with the attorneys and parties who file the transcript—not the stenographer who captured it.

The court reporter’s power lies not in altering the record, but in safeguarding its integrity. Protecting privacy doesn’t mean changing what was said—it means ensuring that what was said remains secure, confidential, and accurately preserved.

Below are confirmed jurisdictions where the filer (party/attorney) bears the redaction duty (with primary sources) or click the button to download the Excel State by State Chart:

State By State Redaction Chart
  • Federal (filings; transcripts): FRCP 5.2 places redaction on the filer; transcript redactions are requested by the parties—reporters do not redact unless parties request it. Legal Information Institute
  • California: Cal. Rule of Court 1.201—parties/attorneys must omit or redact; clerks are not required to review. California Courts
  • Texas: TRCP 21c—sensitive data must be redacted; filer notifies clerk if sensitive data must remain; e-filing orders reinforce filer duty. Texas Courts
  • Washington: GR 22 governs access; GR 15 addresses sealing/redaction (by party motion/court order), not a clerk duty. Washington Courts
  • Florida: Rule 2.420 amended—clerks ended automatic review in most civil filings; identification/redaction is on the filer. The Florida Bar
  • Virginia: Va. Code § 8.01-420.8—filing party must redact all but the last four digits of specified identifiers. Virginia Law
  • Idaho: I.R.C.P. 2.6 & I.R.E.F.S. 15—responsibility to omit/redact is on the filer; clerks need not review. Idaho Supreme Court
  • Kansas: Supreme Court Rule 24—attorney/party is solely obligated to protect PII; clerk has no duty to review. Kansas Judicial Center
  • Nevada: NEFCR & Rules for Sealing/Redacting—submitting party must ensure personal info is not in public filings or is redacted. Nevada Judiciary
  • New York: 22 NYCRR 202.5(e)—parties must omit/redact confidential personal information; court may order removal/redaction. Legal Information Institute
  • Illinois: Supreme Court Rule 138—filer must omit/redact and use a confidential information form; clerk not required to review. Illinois Courts
  • New Jersey: Rule 1:38-7—filing party must redact; courts will not order clerks to assume this task. Lowenstein Sandler LLP
  • Colorado: Public access/redaction rule places duty on filer; District of Colorado reminds that parties (not reporters) request transcript redactions. Colorado Judicial Branch
  • Georgia: OCGA § 9-11-7.1 & Uniform Superior Court procedures reflect filer obligation and sealing/redacted-public-version workflow. Justia Law
  • Massachusetts: SJC Rule 1:24 & E-Filing Rule 12—filer is responsible; clerk will not review each document. Mass.gov
  • Michigan: MCR 1.109(D)(9)—duty rests solely with parties/attorneys; clerk not required to review. Michigan Courts
  • Minnesota: Gen. Rules of Practice 11 & 14—filers are solely responsible for designating non-public info and ensuring proper handling of identifiers. MN Revisor’s Office
  • North Carolina: e-filing guidance—sole responsibility of the filer to omit/redact sensitive information. efiling.nccourts.org
  • Ohio: Sup.R. 45(D)—responsibility for omitting personal identifiers rests solely with the party (mirrored in local rules). pmcourt.com
  • Oregon: UTCR 2.130/2.100/2.110—courts are not required to redact; parties must segregate confidential info (CIF). Oregon Courts
  • Pennsylvania: Case Records Public Access Policy—filing party must redact; courts/custodians are not required to review/redact filings. Pennsylvania Code & Bulletin
  • Wisconsin: Wis. Stat. § 801.19—no party may submit protected information except as the rule provides; attorney/filer must redact. Wisconsin Legislature Documentation
  • Utah: UCJA 4-202.09 & courts’ guidance—private identifiers must be provided on a separate cover sheet; filers must leave out non-public info. Utah Courts
  • Arizona: Courts provide redaction request forms; responsibility sits with filers to seek redaction of identifiers in filed docs. AZCourtHelp.org

What this means for reporters

  • The pattern in these jurisdictions is the same as TX/WA: reporters should not “auto-redact”; the duty sits with the filer. If a transcript is to be filed publicly, counsel should direct any redactions (and in federal court, parties provide a redaction list to the reporter). cod.uscourts.gov

StenoImperium
Court Reporting. Unfiltered. Unafraid.

Disclaimer

“This article includes analysis and commentary based on observed events, public records, and legal statutes.”

The content of this post is intended for informational and discussion purposes only. All opinions expressed herein are those of the author and are based on publicly available information, industry standards, and good-faith concerns about nonprofit governance and professional ethics. No part of this article is intended to defame, accuse, or misrepresent any individual or organization. Readers are encouraged to verify facts independently and to engage constructively in dialogue about leadership, transparency, and accountability in the court reporting profession.

  • The content on this blog represents the personal opinions, observations, and commentary of the author. It is intended for editorial and journalistic purposes and is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
  • Nothing here constitutes legal advice. Readers are encouraged to review the facts and form independent conclusions.

***To unsubscribe, just smash that UNSUBSCRIBE button below — yes, the one that’s universally glued to the bottom of every newsletter ever created. It’s basically the “Exit” sign of the email world. You can’t miss it. It looks like this (brace yourself for the excitement):

Published by stenoimperium

We exist to facilitate the fortifying of the Stenography profession and ensure its survival for the next hundred years! As court reporters, we've handed the relationship role with our customers, or attorneys, over to the agencies and their sales reps.  This has done a lot of damage to our industry.  It has taken away our ability to have those relationships, the ability to be humanized and valued.  We've become a replaceable commodity. Merely saying we are the “Gold Standard” tells them that we’re the best, but there are alternatives.  Who we are though, is much, much more powerful than that!  We are the Responsible Charge.  “Responsible Charge” means responsibility for the direction, control, supervision, and possession of stenographic & transcription work, as the case may be, to assure that the work product has been critically examined and evaluated for compliance with appropriate professional standards by a licensee in the profession, and by sealing and signing the documents, the professional stenographer accepts responsibility for the stenographic or transcription work, respectively, represented by the documents and that applicable stenographic and professional standards have been met.  This designation exists in other professions, such as engineering, land surveying, public water works, landscape architects, land surveyors, fire preventionists, geologists, architects, and more.  In the case of professional engineers, the engineering association adopted a Responsible Charge position statement that says, “A professional engineer is only considered to be in responsible charge of an engineering work if the professional engineer makes independent professional decisions regarding the engineering work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional engineer’s physical presence at the location where the engineering work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the engineering work.” If we were to adopt a Responsible Charge position statement for our industry, we could start with a draft that looks something like this: "A professional court reporter, or stenographer, is only considered to be in responsible charge of court reporting work if the professional court reporter makes independent professional decisions regarding the court reporting work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional court reporter’s physical presence at the location where the court reporting work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the court reporting work.” Shared purpose The cornerstone of a strategic narrative is a shared purpose. This shared purpose is the outcome that you and your customer are working toward together. It’s more than a value proposition of what you deliver to them. Or a mission of what you do for the world. It’s the journey that you are on with them. By having a shared purpose, the relationship shifts from consumer to co-creator. In court reporting, our mission is “to bring justice to every litigant in the U.S.”  That purpose is shared by all involved in the litigation process – judges, attorneys, everyone.  Who we are is the Responsible Charge.  How we do that is by Protecting the Record.

Leave a comment