Quote of note:

The fact that a case was sealed despite neither party requesting it concerned Robert Beatty, general counsel for The Miami Herald. 

...When cases are sealed, the information within them is closed off, except for the most basic details like names and case numbers. Sealing is legally permitted under certain circumstances; for example, to protect innocent third parties, such as children.

But secret docketing goes a step further, because it means that to public eyes the case does not exist. No state rule authorizes judges to put cases on a secret docket. And a federal appeals court has said the practice is unconstitutional.

Nobody in the Broward courts has taken responsibility for the secret docketing.

Divorce cases of big shots hidden on secret Broward docket
Court cases involving two Broward judges' divorces are among more than 100 cases hidden on a secret docket.
BY PATRICK DANNER AND DAN CHRISTENSEN

Any divorce that lands in court goes on the public record -- except the divorces of some judges, elected officials and other big shots, whose cases are hidden on a secret docket in Broward courts.

Take the 2003 divorce case of Circuit Judge Thomas M. Lynch IV, or the 2001 divorce of County Judge Ginger Lerner-Wren. Public records don't show that either judge got divorced, much less what's in the files.

The same goes for the 2002 divorce of Miriam Oliphant, Broward's supervisor of elections until she was removed from the post. Or, for that matter, the 2001 divorce of North Broward Hospital District Chairman Paul Sallarulo.

Those files are among more than 100 civil cases since 2001 that have not been on any public records in Broward. The Miami Herald got a list of the files Monday under court order, after the newspaper sued for the release of case numbers and party names. However, the cases themselves remain off the public record, and no further information about them is available at this time.

The use of a secret docket in the first place goes against the basic tenet that courts should be open to the public. But the high-profile names on the docket further raise the question of whether some people get special treatment and are spared the indignity of having the details of their divorces open to all eyes.