801.20 When documents may be filed as confidential. (1) The director of state courts shall maintain a list of commonly-filed documents made confidential by statutes, court rules and case law, and shall make this list publicly available. Documents on the list may be submitted by a party without a motion or court order and will be automatically treated by the court as confidential. (2) A filing party is responsible for properly identifying a document as confidential at the time it is filed. The court is not required to review documents to determine if the documents are confidential in nature. History: Sup. Ct. Order No. 14-04, 2015 WI 89, 364 Wis. 2d xv. NOTE: Sup. Ct. Order No. 14-04 states: “Comments to Wis. Stat. ss. 801.19, 801.20, and 801.21 are not adopted, but will be published and may be consulted for guidance in interpreting and applying the statute.” Comment, 2015: Confidentiality of court documents is often an area of confusion for the public, lawyers, and court-related professionals. This problem can be addressed by publishing a list of commonly-filed documents that the court will automatically treat as confidential without a motion because they are protected by statutes, court rules, or case law. The filing party must properly identify the document at the time it is filed. Court staff are not required to review documents to determine confidentiality.
801.21 Motions to seal. (1) In this section: (a) “Redact” means to obscure individual items of information within an otherwise publicly accessible document. (b) “Seal” means to order that a portion of a document or an entire document shall not be accessible to the public. (2) A party seeking to protect a court record not protected by s. 801.19 or included on the list described in s. 801.20 shall file a motion to seal part or all of a document or to redact specific information in a document. The motion must be served on all parties to the action. The filing party shall specify the authority for asserting that the information should be restricted from public access. The information to be sealed or redacted may be filed under a temporary seal, in which case it shall be restricted from public access until the court rules on the motion. (3) The court may determine if a hearing is necessary on a motion to seal or redact a court record. The court may require that the moving party provide notice to the general public by posting information at the courthouse or other location, including the time, date, and location of the hearing. (4) The court shall determine whether there are sufficient grounds to restrict public access according to applicable constitutional, statutory, and common law. In restricting access, the court will use the least restrictive means that will achieve the purposes of this rule and the needs of the requester. The court may order that a document be redacted in the manner provided under s. 801.19. If the court seals or redacts information, the public record shall indicate that an order to seal or redact was issued and the name of the court official entering the order. (5) An unredacted or sealed document is not accessible to the public, even if admitted as a trial or hearing exhibit, unless the court permits access. The clerk of circuit court or register in probate may certify the record as a true copy of an original record on file with the court by stating that information has been redacted or sealed in accordance with court rules or as ordered by the circuit court. (6) The court may, on its own initiative, order sealing or redaction of any part of the court record or transcript.
May 22, 2026, are designated by NOTES. (Published 5-22-26)
23
Updated 23-24 Wis. Stats.
COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION AND VENUE
(7) Documents filed subsequent to the sealing order that are subject to the order must be so identified by the filing party. (8) Upon court order, the court reporter shall, without charge, redact the transcript or mark the transcript as sealed in accordance with the court order and with directives established by the director of state courts office. (9) On appeal, if the record assembled under s. 809.15 includes a sealed document, the sealed document shall be marked as confidential. Sealed paper documents shall be submitted in a sealed envelope. History: Sup. Ct. Order No. 14-04, 2015 WI 89, 364 Wis. 2d xv. NOTE: Sup. Ct. Order No. 14-04 states: “Comments to Wis. Stat. ss. 801.19, 801.20, and 801.21 are not adopted, but will be published and may be consulted for guidance in interpreting and applying the statute.” Comment, 2015: This section defines the procedural prerequisites for filing of documents under seal. This section is not intended to expand or limit the confidentiality concerns that might justify special treatment of any document. The section is intended to make it clear that filing parties do not have the unilateral right to designate any filing as confidential and that permission from the court is required. This permission may flow from a statute or rule explicitly requiring that a particular document or portion of a document be filed confidentially or from an analysis of the facts of the case and the applicable law. A defendant’s attorneys’ independent ethical responsibilities under supreme court rules, including avoiding conflicts of interest, are a significant consideration regarding the plaintiffs’ request to proceed without revealing their identities to opposing counsel. Doe v. Madison Metropolitan School District, 2022 WI 65, 403 Wis. 2d 369, 976 N.W.2d 584, 20-1032. In this case, the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion by requiring disclosure of the plaintiff parents’ identities to opposing attorneys, while allowing the parents to keep their names sealed and confidential as to the public and the defendant school district. The circuit court concluded some protection for the parents’ identities was warranted and decided to shield their names from public view and the school district’s view. But the court did not see the same danger in disclosing the parents’ names to the school district’s attorneys. The circuit court’s exercise of discretion was a proper application of the statutory test under sub. (4). Doe v. Madison Metropolitan School District, 2022 WI 65, 403 Wis. 2d 369, 976 N.W.2d 584, 20-1032.