Restricted cases: the case file's blind spot

2The underlying rule: publicity with exceptions

The starting point is Article 9 of the Código Orgánico de Tribunales (Judicial Organization Code): the acts of the courts are public, except for the exceptions expressly established by law.

That "except" does all the work. Publicity is the rule and restriction the exception, but the court cannot invent the exception for its own convenience: it has to be established by law, or grounded in a power the law grants the judge. Case-file restriction follows that logic.

There are two kinds of grounds.

• By subject matter. There are proceedings where special laws protect the people involved, and that protection extends to what gets published. In practice, the portal still withholds certain sensitive matters. Exactly which list is currently in force, and which law backs each exclusion, is something worth checking case by case: there is no longer a single, closed catalog set by the Supreme Court, as existed in the past.
• By court order. The judge may order the case file, or part of it, restricted, on reasoned grounds, when a party requests it or when the judge considers it necessary. It is a decision that is recorded in the case itself.

How that restriction is actually implemented in the Poder Judicial's IT system is governed today by Auto Acordado 164-2024 (Supreme Court Full Bench resolution), on access to electronic judicial case files, in force since January 1, 2025. It fully replaced the previous resolution. Before citing it in a filing, it is worth checking its current text: this is an area that has been amended more than once.

3Why the public portal doesn't show it

Since Ley 20.886, on the digital processing of judicial proceedings, the case file stopped being paper and became an electronic folder ("carpeta electrónica"). That folder is made up of the filings, documents, rulings, hearing minutes and other acts of the case, and is available on the Poder Judicial's website, unless the law provides otherwise or the court restricts its publicity.

That is where the difference between the two access points that coexist today on the same site comes from.

Public case lookup

Open to anyone, without identification. Shows what the system publishes for the general public. A restricted case doesn't appear there, or appears without its content.

Oficina Judicial Virtual (Virtual Judicial Office)

Requires identifying with Clave Única (Chile's national digital-ID login) or with the Poder Judicial's own credentials. It shows, among other things, the cases the identified person is a party to. That is where the restricted case file is visible, for anyone entitled to see it.

In other words: restriction doesn't hide the case from the electronic file, it hides it from the shop window. The case file remains complete on the other side of identification.

4What it means for case tracking

For a legal team or a law firm, the practical consequence is a blind spot shaped like a portfolio. Routine tracking relies on what the court publishes: checking the daily court record, watching new filings, noting hearings. All of that works while the case is visible.

When it is not, three things change.

1. 1.The case file stops updating itself. New filings still happen, but no one outside the case finds out that they did.
2. 2.Deadlines keep running. The restriction is about publicity, not procedure. The Article 435 (Código del Trabajo) deadline lapses all the same, whether or not the ruling that triggered it was seen.
3. 3.The portfolio drifts out of alignment. An exposure report built from public data understates the total, and doesn't flag that it does. It is worse than a missing data point: it's a data point that looks complete.

This shows up most in mixed portfolios, where most cases are visible and only a few are not. No one questions the report because almost everything else checks out.

5How legitimate access works

There is exactly one correct path, and it is the obvious one: whoever is entitled to see it, sees it.

The lawyer who appears as a party, or who holds power of attorney (patrocinio y poder) in the case, logs into the Oficina Judicial Virtual with their own credentials — Clave Única or Poder Judicial credentials — and accesses the full case file, including restricted cases they are a party to. It is not a special permission or a procedure to request: it is the access that comes with being a party to the case.

It is worth highlighting three limits of that access, because they get confused.

• It is tied to the person, not the organization. The credential identifies a specific lawyer. If that lawyer is not on the case, they won't see the case, even if their firm is.
• It is not a master key. It grants access to one's own cases, not to the full set of restricted cases in the system.
• It is not shared. A borrowed credential doesn't extend access: it hands it to someone who lacks it, and makes the credential holder responsible for whatever is done with it.

That is why any tool that helps with this has a clear limit. It can automate the repetitive work of retrieving the case file, but access has to remain the access of the lawyer who is actually a party to the case. There is no technical shortcut that replaces that condition, and anyone offering one is offering something else.

6What that access does not authorize

Legitimately accessing a restricted case file doesn't turn its content into public information. The restriction protects the people in the case, not the court, and it stays in place after the download.

In operational terms, that means the documents from a restricted case are handled as sensitive data: access limited to those working on that case, traceability of who opened them, and no reuse outside the professional engagement. It is the same discipline already applied to a medical expert report or a victim's statement — the only difference is that the file now sits in a shared folder and is easier to move.

7Closing

A restricted case is not a technology problem. It is a deliberate decision by the judicial system to protect certain information, and it is right that it exists. The problem is one of management: whoever runs a portfolio needs to know those cases are there, that they are moving forward, and that tracking them requires a different path from the rest.

At Motex that path exists and is explicit. The lawyer registers their own Poder Judicial credentials once and, with them, the platform pulls the case file of the restricted cases they are a party to. The password is never stored at Motex. And the scope is exactly the lawyer's own: not one case more.