Portal Subcommittee Meeting Agenda November 14, 2019 1:30-3:30 · Certificate of Completion of Parenting Course. 1. Certificate of Completion/Compliance . 1 1 1 1 1 1. Certificate

Portal Subcommittee November 2019 Page 1 of 1

Portal Subcommittee Meeting Agenda November 14, 2019

1:30-3:30

Omni Resort

ChampionsGate Ballroom

Lobby Level

I. Welcome – Judge Martin Bidwill, Chair A. Roll call

II. Portal Progress Update – Carolyn Weber

A. Attorney Registration

III. Docket Code Standardization – Judge Bidwill

A. Standard Docket Descriptions

IV. Service of Pro Se Parties – Group Discussion

V. Confidential Filings – Judge Bidwill

VI. Access to Court Records – Murray Silverstein

A. RJAC Report on Rule 2.420 B. New York State Courts Electronic Filing System (NYSCEF) demo

VII. Docket Numbering Update – Melvin Cox

A. Clerk’s Analysis

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/HomePagehttps://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/HomePage

Agenda Item III.

Docket Code Standardization

P a g e 1 | 3

Docket Code Standardization – Laird Lile

I believe the issue of standardization, whether technically docket codes or more

appropriately referred to in some other fashion, continues to exist for

practitioners. Here is why.

The first two screen shots below – one from Collier and one from Bay – are very

different, for the same case type. These differences are an example of the

frustrating lack of conformity practitioners have from one county to another.

The ability to essentially search in a county for a particular document type is helpful

but the results are still inconsistent. The last two screen shots below show, from

the same two counties, reflect the difference in choices when searching for a

“petition.” These differences are frustrating for practitioners and should be able to

be eliminated with standardization.

These differences that remain today, in late 2019, are inconsistent with the

promises made in the past regarding a standardized experience from one county to

another when we started down the road of efiling.

P a g e 2 | 3

P a g e 3 | 3

Agenda Item III A.

Standard Docket Descriptions

Standard Docket Descriptions-Civil (SDD-Civil)

412 Standard Docket Descriptions-Civil (SDD-Civil)

Phase 1-Top 80=No highlights; Phase 2-Top 80-160=Blue; Phase 3-FINAL=Green CA C

ircu

it

Co

un

ty C

C

Fam

ily D

R

Ap

pe

al A

P

Co

un

ty t

o

Dep

en

de

ncy

DP

Pro

bat

e C

P

Gu

ard

ian

ship

Acceptances and Approvals (group)

Acceptance 1 1 1 1 1

Acceptance of Service 1 1 1 1

Accounting (group)

Accounting 1

Accounting Documentation/Bank Statements/Receipts 1

Amended Inventory 1

Annual Accounting 1

Annual Accounting, value $25,000 or less 1

Annual Accounting, value over $25,000 through $100,000 1

Annual Accounting, value over $100,000 through $500,000 1

Annual Accounting, value over $500,000 1

Inventory 1

Inventory of Personal Representative 1

Simplified Accounting 1

Affidavit and Oaths (group)

Affidavit 1 1 1 1 1 1

Affidavit in Support 1 1 1 1

Affidavit in Support of Motion for Judgment 1 1 1

Affidavit in Support of Summary Judgment 1 1 1 1

Affidavit of Attorney's Fees 1 1 1

Affidavit of Constructive Service 1 1 1 1 1

Affidavit of Corroborating Witness 1

Affidavit of Costs 1 1

Affidavit of Costs and Attorneys Fees 1 1 1 1 1

Affidavit of Diligent Search 1 1 1 1

Affidavit of Heirs 1

Affidavit of Indebtedness/Amount Due 1 1 1

Affidavit of No Florida Estate Tax Due 1 1 1

Affidavit of Non-Compliance 1 1 1 1

Affidavit of Residency 1 1

Affidavit of Service Served 1 1 1

Affidavit of Service Unserved 1 1 1

Affidavit/Acknowledgment of Surrender/Consent & Waiver Notice 1

Amended Financial Affidavit 1 1 1

Financial Affidavit 1 1 1

Military/Non-Military Affidavit 1 1 1

Oath 1

Oath of Guardian/Personal Representative 1

Oath of Witness to Will or Codicil 1

Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) Affidavit 1 1 1

Agreements and Stipulations (group)

Gray shaded box=DocType NOT

used; 1=DocType USED

Rev. 5/8/18 Page 1 of 11




ircu

it

Co

un

ty C

C

Fam

ily D

R

Ap

pe

al A

P

Co

un

ty t

o

Dep

en

de

ncy

DP

Pro

bat

e C

P

Gu

ard

ian

ship

Agreement 1 1 1 1

Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Demand for Jury Trial 1 1

Marital Settlement Agreement 1 1

Mediation Agreement 1 1 1 1

Settlement Agreement 1 1 1 1

Stipulation 1 1 1

Stipulation for Dismissal 1 1 1

Stipulation for Substitution of Counsel 1 1 1 1 1

Answers and Replies (group)

Answer 1 1 1

Answer and Affirmative Defenses 1 1 1

Answer and Counter or Cross Claim 1 1 1

Answer and Counter Petition 1 1 1

Answer and Waiver 1

Answer of Garnishee 1 1

Reply 1 1

Applications and Requests (group)

Application 1 1 1

Application For Appointment of Guardian

Application for Determination of Civil Indigence 1 1 1 1 1

Request 1 1 1 1

Request for Copies 1 1 1 1 1 1

Request for Hearing 1 1 1 1 1

Request for Redaction of Numbers per Fla. Stat. 119.07 1 1 1 1 1 1

Certificates (group)

Birth Certificate Copy 1 1

Certificate 1 1 1 1 1 1

Certificate & Continued Individualized Treatment Plan of Continued (Outpatient) Treatment 1

Certificate of Attendance 1 1 1

Certificate of Completion of Parenting Course 1

Certificate of Completion/Compliance 1 1 1 1 1 1

Certificate of Compliance with Mandatory Disclosure 1 1

Certificate of Conflict of Interest 1 1 1 1 1

Certificate of Disbursement-Proposed 1 1

Certificate of Possession of Note 1 1

Certificate of Service 1 1 1 1 1 1

Certificate of Settlement Authority 1

Certificate of Title-Proposed 1 1

Death Certificate Copy 1 1 1 1

Non-Resident Cost Bond by Surety 1 1

Non-Resident Cost Bond Cash 1 1

Complaint/Statements of Claim (group)

Amended Complaint 1 1 1

Case Management Statement 1 1 1 1 1 1

Rev. 5/8/18 Page 2 of 11




ircu

it

Co

un

ty C

C

Fam

ily D

R

Ap

pe

al A

P

Co

un

ty t

o

Dep

en

de

ncy

DP

Pro

bat

e C

P

Gu

ard

ian

ship

Complaint 1 1 1

Counter Claim 1 1 1

Cross Claim 1 1

Statement of Claim 1 1

Third Party Complaint 1 1

Consents (group)

Consent 1 1 1 1

Consent and Waiver of Notice 1

Consent to Adoption 1

Correspondence (group)

Correspondence 1 1 1 1

Discovery (group)

Amended Notice of Taking Deposition 1 1 1

Answers to Interrogatories

Certificate of Non-Objection 1 1 1

Demand for Discovery 1

Demand for Jury Trial 1 1

Discovery Disclosure 1

Notice of Cancellation of Deposition 1 1 1 1 1 1

Notice of Production from Non-Party 1 1 1

Notice of Service 1 1 1

Notice of Service of Interrogatories 1 1 1

Notice of Serving Answers to Interrogatories 1 1 1

Notice of Taking Deposition 1 1 1

Notice of Taking Video Deposition 1 1 1

Privilege Log 1 1 1

Request for Admissions 1 1 1

Request to Produce 1 1 1

Response to Demand for Discovery 1 1 1

Response to Request for Admissions 1 1 1

Response to Request for Production 1 1 1

Subpoena 1 1 1

Subpoena Duces Tecum 1 1 1

Subpoena Duces Tecum Without Deposition 1 1 1

Subpoena for Deposition 1 1 1

Subpoena to be issued 1 1 1

Supplemental Request to Produce 1 1 1

Exhibits and Transcripts (group)

Addendum 1 1 1

Appendix 1 1 1 1 1 1

Attachment or Exhibit to Pleading 1 1 1

Authenticated Transcript 1

Deposition Transcript 1 1 1 1 1 1

Exhibit 1 1 1

Rev. 5/8/18 Page 3 of 11




ircu

it

Co

un

ty C

C

Fam

ily D

R

Ap

pe

al A

P

Co

un

ty t

o

Dep

en

de

ncy

DP

Pro

bat

e C

P

Gu

ard

ian

ship

Exhibit List 1 1 1

Transcript 1 1 1

Memorandum (group)

Memorandum 1 1 1 1 1 1

Memorandum of Law 1 1 1 1 1 1

Memorandum of Opposition 1 1 1 1 1 1

Motion (group)

Amended Motion 1 1 1

Emergency Motion 1 1 1

Motion 1 1 1 1 1 1

Motion and Notice of Hearing 1 1 1

Motion for Attorney Fees and/or Costs 1 1 1

Motion for Contempt 1 1 1

Motion for Continuance 1 1 1 1

Motion for Continuing Writ of Garnishment 1 1

Motion for Default 1 1 1

Motion for Default and Default 1 1 1

Motion for Default Judgment 1 1

Motion for Deficiency Judgment 1 1

Motion for Emergency Pick-up Order 1

Motion for Enforcement 1 1 1

Motion for Entry of Final Judgment 1 1 1 1 1

Motion for Extension of Time 1 1 1 1

Motion for Leave 1 1 1 1 1 1

Motion for Medical Treatment 1

Motion for New Trial 1 1 1 1

Motion for Order of Contempt and Notice of Hearing 1 1 1 1

Motion for Paternity Testing 1

Motion for Protective Order 1 1

Motion for Relief 1 1 1 1 1

Motion for Return of Firearms 1

Motion for Reunification 1 1 1

Motion for Review Hearing 1

Motion for Sanctions 1 1 1 1 1 1

Motion for Statement of Particulars 1 1

Motion for Substitution of Counsel 1 1 1

Motion for Substitution of Party 1 1

Motion for Summary Judgment 1 1

Motion for Temporary Relief 1

Motion for Temporary Support 1 1

Motion for Writ of Garnishment 1

Motion for Writ of Possession 1 1 1

Motion in Limine 1 1

Motion or Request for Ex Parte Hearing 1 1

Rev. 5/8/18 Page 4 of 11




ircu

it

Co

un

ty C

C

Fam

ily D

R

Ap

pe

al A

P

Co

un

ty t

o

Dep

en

de

ncy

DP

Pro

bat

e C

P

Gu

ard

ian

ship

Motion to Amend 1 1

Motion to Amend Complaint 1 1

Motion to Appear Telephonically 1 1

Motion to Appoint

Motion to Appoint Conflict Counsel 1 1 1 1 1 1

Motion to Appoint Guardian/ Administrator/ or Attorney Ad Litem 1 1 1 1

Motion to Appoint Mediator 1 1 1

Motion to Appoint Process Server 1 1

Motion to Appoint Receiver 1

Motion to Bifurcate 1

Motion to Cancel and Reschedule 1 1

Motion to Cancel Sale 1 1

Motion to Compel 1 1 1

Motion to Consolidate 1 1 1 1

Motion to Correct Scriveners Error 1 1 1 1 1 1

Motion to Determine 1

Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records 1 1 1 1 1 1

Motion to Deviate from Child Support Guidelines 1

Motion to Disburse Funds 1 1 1 1 1 1

Motion to Dismiss 1 1 1 1 1

Motion to Disqualify 1 1 1 1 1 1

Motion to Dissolve Writ of Garnishment 1 1

Motion to Establish Arrears 1

Motion to Intervene 1 1

Motion to Invoke the Rules of Civil Procedure 1

Motion to Lift or Modify No Contact Order 1 1

Motion to Modify 1 1 1 1

Motion to Release Originals 1 1

Motion to Reschedule Sale 1 1

Motion to Set Aside/Vacate 1 1 1 1 1 1

Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Sale 1 1

Motion to Show Cause 1 1 1 1 1

Motion to Stay 1 1 1 1 1 1

Motion to Strike 1

Motion to Suppress 1 1

Motion to Terminate Child Support 1

Motion to Terminate Child Support, Establish Arrearage 1

Motion to Transfer 1 1 1 1 1 1

Motion to Transport 1 1

Motion to Vacate Risk Protection Order 1

Motion to Withdraw 1 1 1 1 1 1

Notice (group)

Amended Notice 1 1 1 1 1

Amended Notice of Hearing 1 1 1 1 1

Rev. 5/8/18 Page 5 of 11




ircu

it

Co

un

ty C

C

Fam

ily D

R

Ap

pe

al A

P

Co

un

ty t

o

Dep

en

de

ncy

DP

Pro

bat

e C

P

Gu

ard

ian

ship

Formal Notice 1

Notice 1 1 1 1 1

Notice Cause is at Issue 1 1 1

Notice of Acceptance by Guardian ad Litem 1 1 1

Notice of Action to be Issued 1 1 1 1 1

Notice of Activity 1 1

Notice of Appeal 1 1 1 1 1

Notice of Appearance 1 1 1 1 1

Notice of Cancellation 1 1 1 1 1

Notice of Cancellation of Hearing 1 1 1 1 1 1

Notice of Change of Address 1 1 1 1 1

Notice of Change of Attorney 1 1

Notice of Change of Firm Name 1 1 1 1 1 1

Notice of Completion or Compliance 1 1 1

Notice of Confidential Information 1 1 1 1

Notice of Discharge/Cancellation of Lis Pendens 1 1

Notice of Dropping Party 1 1 1 1 1 1

Notice of Filing 1 1 1 1 1

Notice of Filing Genetic Test Results 1

Notice of Filing Original Note and Mortgage 1 1

Notice of Final Accounting and Petition for Discharge 1

Notice of Hearing 1 1

Notice of Intent 1

Notice of Intent to Rely on Business Record 1 1

Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena 1 1 1

Notice of Limited Appearance 1 1 1

Notice of Lis Pendens 1 1

Notice of Mediation Conference 1 1 1 1

Notice of Non-Jury Trial 1 1

Notice of Referral to Teen Court 1

Notice of Related Cases 1

Notice of Removal to US District Court 1 1

Notice of Sale 1 1

Notice of Serving Proposal for Settlement 1 1

Notice of Social Security Number 1

Notice of Trial 1 1 1

Notice of Trust 1

Notice of Unavailability 1 1 1

Notice of Voluntary Dismissal 1 1 1 1 1

Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice 1 1

Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice 1 1

Notice of Withdrawal 1

Notice of Withdrawal of Petition for Involuntary Placement 1

Notice to Creditors 1

Rev. 5/8/18 Page 6 of 11




ircu

it

Co

un

ty C

C

Fam

ily D

R

Ap

pe

al A

P

Co

un

ty t

o

Dep

en

de

ncy

DP

Pro

bat

e C

P

Gu

ard

ian

ship

Notice to Defendant on Garnishment 1 1

Three-Day Notice to Tenant 1 1

Orders/Writs-Proposed (If allowed in your county)

Motion and Proposed Order 1 1 1 1 1 1

Proposed Order 1 1 1 1 1 1

Proposed Order Setting Pretrial Conference 1 1 1 1 1 1

Other (group)

Amended Witness List 1 1 1 1

Appraisal of Real Property 1 1

Assignment of Bid 1 1

Assignment of Judgment 1 1

Bankruptcy Document 1 1

Child Support Guidelines Worksheet 1

Civil Cover Sheet 1 1 1

Claim of Exemption 1 1

Creditor's Claim 1

Declaration 1 1 1

Declaration of Preneed Guardian 1

Default for Entry by Clerk 1 1 1

Demographic Information Sheet 1

Designation 1 1 1

Designation of E-mail Address 1 1 1 1 1 1

Designation to Court Reporter 1 1 1 1 1 1

Disclaimer 1 1

Drivers License Copy 1 1

Family Cover Sheet 1

Final Disposition Form 1 1 1

Form A-Plaintiff's Certificate 1

Form B-Notice to Homeowner 1

Funeral Bill 1

Instructions to Clerk 1 1 1 1 1 1

Juvenile Cover Sheet 1

Last Will & Testament-Copy 1

Objection to Claim of Exemption 1 1

Other 1 1 1 1 1 1

Paternity Declaration 1 1

Personal Representative's Release 1

Pre-Trial Compliance 1 1 1 1

Satisfaction 1 1 1 1 1 1

Satisfaction and Release of Claim 1

Satisfaction of Judgment 1 1

Standing Order 1

Suggestion of Bankruptcy 1 1 1

Suggestion of Death 1 1 1 1 1 1

Rev. 5/8/18 Page 7 of 11




ircu

it

Co

un

ty C

C

Fam

ily D

R

Ap

pe

al A

P

Co

un

ty t

o

Dep

en

de

ncy

DP

Pro

bat

e C

P

Gu

ard

ian

ship

Value Calculation for Real Property 1 1 1

Verification Form for Mortgage Foreclosure 1

Vital Statistics Form 1 1

Witness and Exhibit List 1 1

Witness List 1 1

Writ of Execution to be Issued 1 1 1

Writ of Garnishment to be Issued 1

Writ of Possession to be Issued 1

Writ to be Issued 1 1 1 1

Petition (group)

Amended Petition 1 1 1

Amended Shelter Petition 1

CINS/FINS Petition 1 1

Counter Petition 1

Dependency Petition 1

Petition 1 1 1 1

Petition for Administration 1

Petition for Adoption 1

Petition for Appointment of Commissioner 1

Petition for Appointment of Guardian 1

Petition for Appointment of Guardian, Person Only 1

Petition for Appointment of Property Guardian 1

Petition for Appointment of Successor Guardian 1

Petition for Attorney's Fees 1 1 1 1

Petition for Determination of Heirs or Beneficiaries 1

Petition for Discharge 1

Petition for Dissolution of Marriage 1

Petition for Emergency Temporary Guardian 1

Petition for Forensic Treatment FS 916.107(3)(A) 1

Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Dating Violence 1

Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence 1

Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Repeat Violence 1

Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Sexual Violence 1

Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Stalking 1

Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Violence 1

Petition for Involuntary Inpatient Placement 1

Petition for Involuntary Outpatient Services 1

Petition for Involuntary Substance Abuse Assessment and Stabilization (Marchman) 1

Petition for Involuntary Substance Abuse Treatment (Marchman Treatment) 1

Petition for Modification 1

Petition for Name Change 1 1

Petition for Order Designating Depository 1

Petition for Paternity 1

Petition for Relief from Firearm Disability 1

Rev. 5/8/18 Page 8 of 11




ircu

it

Co

un

ty C

C

Fam

ily D

R

Ap

pe

al A

P

Co

un

ty t

o

Dep

en

de

ncy

DP

Pro

bat

e C

P

Gu

ard

ian

ship

Petition for Risk Protection Order 1

Petition for Sale of Real Property 1 1

Petition for Shelter 1

Petition for Simplified Dissolution 1

Petition for Statute of Limitations Extension in Medical Malpractice Action 1

Petition for Summary Administration 1

Petition for Summary Administration, value $1,000 or more 1

Petition for Support 1

Petition for Temporary Ex Parte Risk Protection Order 1

Petition for Termination of Parental Rights 1

Petition to Determine Exempt Property 1

Petition to Determine Homestead 1 1

Petition to Enforce Administrative Order 1

Petition to Establish Parenting Plan 1

Petition to Remove Disability of Non-Age of Minor 1

Petition to Waive 1 1 1 1 1

Petition to Waive Bond 1

Supplemental Petition 1

Supplemental Petition for Modification 1

Truancy Petition 1

Plans, Reports, and Statements (group)

Annual Guardianship Plan 1

Case Plan 1

Guardian Ad Litem Report 1

Home Study 1 1

Initial Guardianship Plan 1

Judicial Review Report 1

Mediation Report 1 1

Medical Report 1 1

Parenting Assessment 1

Parenting Plan 1

Report 1 1 1

Report of Distribution 1

Report of Examining Committee 1

Report of Intended Placement 1

Statement of Judicial Acts to be Reviewed 1 1

Statement Regarding Creditors 1 1

Status Report 1 1 1 1 1

Proofs and Receipts (group)

Certified Mail Receipt 1 1 1 1 1 1

Proof 1 1

Proof of Claim 1

Proof of Formal Notice 1

Proof of Publication 1 1 1 1 1

Rev. 5/8/18 Page 9 of 11




ircu

it

Co

un

ty C

C

Fam

ily D

R

Ap

pe

al A

P

Co

un

ty t

o

Dep

en

de

ncy

DP

Pro

bat

e C

P

Gu

ard

ian

ship

Proof of Publication to Creditors 1

Proof of Publication-Notice of Action 1 1 1 1 1

Proof of Publication-Notice of Sale 1

Proof of Service of Inventory 1

Proof of Service of Notice of Administration 1

Receipt 1 1 1

Receipt and Consent to Distribution 1

Receipt of Beneficiary and Consent to Discharge 1

Receipt of Beneficiary or Ward 1 1

Responses and Objections (group)

Objection 1 1 1 1

Objection to Claim 1

Response 1 1 1 1

Response to Motion 1 1 1 1

Response to Order to Show Cause 1 1 1 1 1 1

Service Documents (group)

Proof of Service 1 1 1 1

Receipt for Certified or Registered Mail Served 1 1 1 1 1

Return of Service 1 1 1 1 1

Return of Service on Order Served 1 1 1 1

Return of Service on Order Unserved 1 1 1 1

Return of Service on Subpoena Served 1 1 1

Return of Service on Subpoena Unserved 1 1 1

Return of Service on Summons Served 1 1 1

Return of Service on Summons Unserved 1 1 1

Return of Service on Writ of Garnishment 1 1

Return of Service Served 1 1 1 1 1

Return of Service Unserved 1 1 1 1 1

Returned Certified or Registered Mail Unserved 1 1 1 1

Subpoena (group)

Subpoena 1

Subpoena for Trial 1

Subpoena to be Issued 1 1 1

Summons (group)

Alias or Pluries Summons to be Issued 1 1

Small Claims Notice to Appear/Summons 1

Summons for Summary Proceedings-5 Day 1

Summons on Third Party-Proposed 1 1

Summons to be Issued by Clerk 1 1 1 1 1

Waiver (group)

Joinder, Waiver and Consent 1 1

Waiver 1

Waiver and Acceptance of Service 1 1

Waiver and Consent 1 1

Rev. 5/8/18 Page 10 of 11




ircu

it

Co

un

ty C

C

Fam

ily D

R

Ap

pe

al A

P

Co

un

ty t

o

Dep

en

de

ncy

DP

Pro

bat

e C

P

Gu

ard

ian

ship

Waiver of Accounting and of Service of Petition for Discharge 1

Waiver of Accounting, Portions of Discharge Petition, and Receipt by Beneficiary 1

Waiver of Bond 1

Waiver of Notice of Administration 1

Waiver of Petition for Discharge 1

Waiver of Priority and Consent to Appointment of Personal Representative 1

Waiver of Service 1 1 1

Total number of DocTypes used in each Division 259 253 219 53 108 189

Dublicates Found and Removed on 10/13/15 from the List Above:

Motion for Transfer 1 1 1 1 1

Motion to Substitute Party 1 1

Subpoena for Trial 1 1 1

Notice of Completion of Parenting Course DUPLICATE Removed 1

Pretrial Notice/Summons to be Issued Duplicate, same as small Claims Notice to Appear/Summons 1

Rev. 5/8/18 Page 11 of 11

Agenda Item V.

Confidential Filings

of 1

CONFIDENTIAL FILINGS

Judge Bidwill-

Given your leadership on the technology committees for our Circuit and the State, I am writing you to share a concern regarding a glitch in our CMS/Efile system.

➢ the CMS system is used by attorneys to schedule hearings and upload documents for the hearings and review by the court. As counsel of record, we can see everything that is uploaded.

➢ The E-portal is used by attorneys to file things with the clerk of the court. ➢ In a case where confidentiality orders are entered regarding certain documents, the system

does not protect the confidentiality of those documents in situations where non-party makes an appearance in the case.

For example:

Party A sues Party B.

The court enters a confidentiality order regarding certain documents filed. When filed, redactions are made, etc.

During the course of litigation, non-party subpoenas are issued. Non-party X files an objection in the E-portal.

Non-party X doesn’t know about, nor is required to execute the confidentiality agreement.

However, when Non-party X accesses the docket through E-portal, they can see all documents, even the ones that were uploaded to the court “confidentially.” In other words, the confidential filings are not confidential to other attorneys who may enter an appearance as a non-party on conceivably a minor issue.

Admittedly, when the public accesses the clerk’s website, the confidential document is locked. However, when a non-party accesses the case through the E-portal, they can see everything, thus violating the confidentiality of the documents, etc.

I am happy to meet and discuss should you deem it appropriate.

Respectfully,

Todd S. Payne, Esq.

Agenda Item VI A.

RJAC Report on Rule 2.420

The Florida Bar 651 East Jefferson Street

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300 Joshua E. Doyle 850/561-5600

Executive Director www.FLORIDABAR.org

MEMORANDUM

To: Hon. Lisa T. Munyon, Chair Florida Coutts Technology Commission

From: Krys Godwin, Staff Liaison

cc: Hon. Josephine Gagliardi, Chair Rules of Judicial Administration Committee

Date: November 4, 2019

Re: Joint Subcommittee on Rule 2.420 Reports

As you will recall, the Court assigned the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee (RJAC) and the Florida Courts Technology Commission (FCTC) the task of reviewing and evaluating alleged "issues concerning apparent delays in access to court records" raised by Carol LoCicero, Attorney at Law. (See Joint Ad Hoc Subcommittee Report, Appendix A.) The joint subcommittee has met numerous times from February through October to address this concern and, with a vote of 6-5, the majority of the joint subcommittee recommends no rule amendment in response to the referral. (See Ad Hoc Joint Subcommittee on Rule 2.420 Report with Exhibits A-G.)

The majority report, with supporting documents, is attached for the FCTC's consideration. (See Appendix I.) Given the Court's referral, however, the minority created proposed rule amendments to be included with the letter to the Court. (See Appendix H.)

The RJAC requests that the FCTC review and approve the joint subcommittee's report, including the majority and minority reports, at the upcoming November meeting. The joint RJAC and FCTC report is due to the Court by December 31, 2019.

Thank you for your attention and the joint subcommittee members' participation in this assignment.

651 East Jefferson Street• Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300 • (850) 561-5600 • FAX: (850) 561-9405 • www.floridabar.org

http:www.floridabar.orghttp:www.FLORIDABAR.org

Ad Hoc Joint Subcommittee on Rule 2.420 Report

To: Judge J. Gagliardi, Chair, Rules of Judicial Administration Committee Judge L. Munyon, Chair, Florida Courts Technology Commission

From: Judge J. Kuntz, Subcommittee Chair Matthew Wilson, Subcommittee Vice Chair

RE: Ad Hoc Joint Subcommittee on Rule 2.420 Report for RJAC October 2019 meeting and updated for FCTC November 2019 meeting

I. REFERRAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

On January 31, 2019, the Supreme Court of Florida wrote to the Chair of the Florida Courts Technology Commission (the "Commission") and the Rules of Administration Committee ("RJAC") about "apparent delays in access to court records." See Ex. A (the "Referral Letter").

The Court's Referral Letter directed "that the Commission, or appropriate subcommittee, and the RJA Committee conduct an expedited review and evaluation of the issues concerning apparent delays in access to court records addressed in the enclosed letter from Carol LoCicero and identified in the enclosed report on access to court records in clerks' offices across the state." The referenced December 31, 2018 letter from Carol Jean LoCicero, and the referenced report enclosed with her letter, are attached as Exhibit B.

The Referral Letter stated:

In considering these important issues, you should seek input from the Florida Court Clerks and Comptrollers Association. The Commission and the RJA Committee should work together to determine whether amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 are warranted. If you will be proposing rule amendments, they should be presented to the Court in a joint out-of-cycle report, filed under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.140(t), and should be published for comment prior to being filed with the Court, as required by rule 2.140(e)(2). The Commission should provide any recommendations that do not involve rule amendments in a separate report that the Court will consider and act on administratively.

After the Court's Referral Letter, the Florida Court Clerks & Comptrollers submitted a "Response of Florida Court & Comptrollers to the News Media Coalition's Report." The Florida Court Clerks & Comptrollers also submitted their "Florida Clerks Position on Rule 2.420 RJA" in May 7, 2019. See Exs. C and D (the "Clerk & Comptrollers Responses").

In reaction to the Clerk & Comptrollers Responses, Ms. LoCicero submitted a reply letter on June 14, 2019. See Ex. E.

II. THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE

In response to the Referral Letter and instead of separately considering rule changes and non-rule amendments to address the issue, the Chair of the Commission and the Chair of the RJAC elected to form a joint subcommittee.

Originally, the following persons were appointed as members of the subcommittee: Thomas Hall, Co-Chair, Amy Borman, Co-Chair, Judge Josephine Gagliardi, Judge Scott Stephens, Hon. David Ellspermann, Cynthia Guerra, Justin Horan, Jennifer Mansfield, Murray Silverstein, and Hon. Lonn Weissblum.

The Chair of the RJAC amended the subcommittee to include the following persons: Hon. Jeffrey Kuntz, Chair; Matthew Wilson, Vice Chair; Amy Borman; Hon. David Ellspermann; Cynthia Guerra; Thomas Hall; Justin Horan; Antonio Jaimes; Jennifer Mansfield; Murray Silverstein; Hon. Lonn Weissblum; and Stephen Williams.

The amended subcommittee held weekly telephonic meetings on July 30, 2019; August 15, 2019; August 29, 2019; September 12, 2019; September 19, 2019; and September 27, 2019. Minutes of the weekly meetings, when available, are attached as Composite Ex. F.

III. PROPOSALS

The subcommittee spent a significant amount of time considering the meaning of Rule 2.420 and the present requirements of a county clerk of court. The subcommittee acknowledges there are two competing good-faith interpretations of Rule 2.420. Some members of the subcommittee interpret the current rule as requiring the county Clerk of Court to review all filings prior to allowing public access to the filing. Other members of the subcommittee believe the rule does not require review by the county Clerk of Court, in the absence of a filed "Notice of

Confidential Information within Court Filing" under Rule 2.420(d)(2). But the subcommittee declines to take a position on the proper interpretation as the Court's inquiry does not require the subcommittee to engage in statutory interpretation. Interpreting the language of the current rule is best left for a live case or controversy.'

The subcommittee did consider three proposals that address the specific issue presented in the Court's Referral. Those proposals are below.

A. Initial Proposal to Amend Rule

The original subcommittee considered a proposal regarding amending Rule 2.420. Six members of the subcommittee voted against the proposal, and 4 members of the subcommittee voted for the proposal. At the time of the vote, Gary Blankenship wrote an article for the Florida Bar News and summarized the two positions as follows: "The committee minority favors eliminating the redaction review for civil filings, arguing that would speed access to the records. The majority contended that many lawyers are not consistently following the rule and ending the clerk review process would result in confidential client information winding up in public court records." See Ex. G.

B. Proposal to Amend Rule to Clarify the County Clerks of Court Do Not Have a Responsibility to Review Filings by Attorneys

The amended subcommittee considered a concept for consideration that proposed amending Rule 2.420 to clarify that a county clerk of court has no independent obligation to review filings by members of The Florida Bar. Six members of the subcommittee voted against further consideration of the concept, and five members of the subcommittee voted for further consideration of the concept. One member of the subcommittee was not present.

The concept considered by the subcommittee is below. I !

Concept II I'

1. All Filers: All filers must identify confidential information. i !!

I ,,

1 The subcommittee notes that such a live case or controversy may in fact exist. See Clerk o[the j! I

Circuit Court. and Comptroller of' Collier Countv, Florida v. Jane Doe, lvlinor and Jane Doe, Ii Parent, Case No. 2D19-2368; and Clerk ofthe Circuit Court, and Comptroller o(Collier County, I Florida v. Jane Doe, lvfinor and.Jane Doe, Parent, Case No. 2D19-2620.

ll

I f

I ii I

2. Attorney Filers a. Attorney filers must identify confidential information in filings. b. If the attorney filer does not designate the filing as containing

confidential information, the clerk will not review the document before publishing the document on the public docket.

c. The location of this potential rule is TBD.

3. Non-Attorney Filers a. Non-attorney filers must identify confidential information. b. The clerk must review all filings by non-attorney filers and

designate and maintain the confidentiality of any information contained within a court record that is described in subdivision (d)(l)(A) or (d)(l)(B) of Rule 2.420.

c. The location of this potential rule is TBD

4. Appellate Courts a. Agencies and lower tribunals must inform the appellate courts

that information being transmitted was deemed confidential in that forum. The appellate courts will treat the information as it was treated below, subject to review by the court.

b. For any document filed by a filer other than an agency or lower tribunal in the first instance in the appellate courts, the appellate courts will proceed as outlined in numbers 1-2 above.

c. For potential inclusion as new Rule 2.420( d)(6).

5. Additional thoughts for inclusion in proposal: a. The Florida Bar must require education about the identification

and redaction of confidential information. b. A reminder requiring affirmative action by the filer must be

required in the portal.

C. Proposal to Recommend that the Commission Consider a PublicFacing Portal to Access Specified Filings Before the Document Is Made Available by the Local Clerk

Finally, the amended subcommittee also considered a proposed recommendation that the Commission consider implementing a public-facing site that could provide access to documents before those documents are made available by the local clerk. Other states such as New York and California use a similar system. Six members of the subcommittee voted against further consideration of the concept, and five

members of the subcommittee voted for further consideration of the concept. One member of the subcommittee was not present.

As an example, instructions for use of the New York system are provided below:

1. Go to the website https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/Login. 2. In the left column under "Account," click on the option to "search as

guest." 3. Complete the CAPTCHA. 4. After the CAPTCHA, you will come to a screen labeled "Case Search." 5. On that screen, look for the "New Cases" tab. Click on the ''New Cases"

tab. 6. Pick a county from the drop down. (An example to pick is Bronx

County.) Use today's date. Click on the "search" button. 7. Several case links should appear. The ones described as "unassigned" are

typically new civil complaints. These complaints are flowing into the system before any processing by a local clerk has occurred.

8. You can click on any of the cases listed, and you will be taken to a document list with links to the actual court filings.

9. You will see the following red notice on the face of any document not yet processed by the local clerk:

CAUTION: THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT YET BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY CLERK. (See below.)

Message below: This is a copy of a pleading filed electronically pursuant to New York State court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5-b(d)(3)(i)) which, at the time of its printout from the court system's electronic website, had not yet been reviewed and approved by the County Cleric Because court rules (22 NYCRR §202.5[d]) authorize the County Clerk to reject filings for various reasons, readers should be aware that documents bearing this legend may not have been accepted for filing by the County Cleric

IV. Proposed Rules of the Subcommittee Minority and Memorandum in Support of the Majority Position

This report, with the exception of this subsection, was shared with the RJAC in advance of that committee's October 2019 meeting. At that time, John Tomasino, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Florida, advised the RJAC that the Court requested

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/Login

the subcommittee minority prepare rules consistent with the rejected proposals. The subcommittee minority agreed to do so and the proposed rules prepared by the subcommittee minority are attached to this report. See Ex. H.

Additionally, when the subcommittee minority was asked to prepare proposed rules, a member of the subcommittee majority requested the subcommittee majority be permitted to submit a written explanation of the majority's position. The subcommittee majority was permitted to do so. See Ex. I.

V. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, a majority of the subcommittee does not recommend any changes to Rule 2.420 and does not recommend the Commission consider the non-rule proposal. A minority of the subcommittee would consider changes to Rule 2.420 and that the Commission consider the non-rule proposal. The subcommittee is willing to provide further consideration of these or any issues if requested by the Supreme Court of Florida, the RJAC, or the Commission.

·.,!,,

[email protected]

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925

CHARJ...ES 'f. CANADY JOHN A. TOMASINO CHIEF JUSTICE CLERK OP COURT

RICKY POLSTON JOROB LABAROA SILVESTER DAWSON C. ALAN LAWSON January 31, 2019 MARSHAL BARBARA LAGOA

JUSTICES

The Honorable Lisa T. Munyon, Chair Florida Courts Technology Commission Ninth Judicial Circuit Court 425 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1130 Orlando, Florida 32801-1515

Mr, Eduardo I. Sanchez, Chair Rules of Judicial Administration Committee United States Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33132-2131

Re: Access to Court Records

Dear Judge Munyon and Mr. Eduardo:

At the direction of Chief Justice Canady, I am writing you, as the chairs of the Florida Courts Technology Commission and the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee, to request that the Commission, or appropriate subcommittee, and the RJA Committee conduct an expedited review and evaluation of the issues concerning apparent delays in access to court records addressed in the enclosed letter from Carol LoCicero and identified in the enclosed report on access to court records in clerks' offices across the state,

In considering these important issues, you should seek input from the Florida Court Clerks and Comptrollers Association. The Commission and the RIA Committee should work together to determine whether amendments to Florida

Exhibit A - 1

mailto:[email protected]

The Honorable Lisa T. Munyon Mr. Eduardo I. Sanchez January 31, 2019 Page:2

Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 are warranted. If you will be proposing rule amendments, they should be presented to the Court in a joint out-of-cycle report, filed under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.140(:t), and should be published for comment prior to being filed with the Court, as required by rule 2.140(e)(2). The Commission should provide any recommendations that do not involve 1ule amendments in a separate report that the Court will consider and act on administratively.

You should report back to the Court on these issues by June 3, 2019. If you will be filing a joint rules report, the joint report should be filed with my office by that date, with copies to Justice Polston, the Court's liaison to the Commission and the RJA Committee, and Deborah Meyer, the Court's director of central staff. If the Commission will be submitting non-rules related recommendations, that report should be submitted to the Chief Justice by the stated due date, with a copy to Justice Polston. If you should determine that more time is required to adequately address these issues, please submit a request for extension of time to my office, indicating when your report or reports can be submitted.

Thank you in advance for your immediate attention to this matter, and please do not hesitate to contact me or Justice Polston, if you have any questions.

Sine?~

L/~--ohn A. Tomasino

JAT/dm/sb

Enclosures

cc: The Honorable Charles T. Canady, Chief Justice The Honorable Ricky Polston, Liaison, FCTC & RJA Committee Ms. Carol Jean LoCicero, Thomas & LoCicero PL

fMs. Krys Godwin, Bar Staff Liaison, RJA Committee Mr. Roosevelt Sawyer, State Courts Technology Officer Ms. Deborah J. Meyer, Supreme Court Director of Central Staff

Exhibit A- 2

(._,

,, Tampa

601 South Boulevard, Tampa, FL 33606 ph 813-984-3060 fax 013·984-3070 toll free 866-395-7100 _lH._l,L_Lju::LJ.W--YL& __ _ South Florida 016 Mlddle River Drive, Ste. 309, Fort Lauderdale, FL 333011 LOCICERO ph 954-703-3~16 fax Q54-400-.5415

www.tlolawfinn.com

Carol Jean Locicero (813) 984·3061

[email protected]

Reply to: Tampa

December 13, 20 18

Justice Ricky Polston John A. Tomasino, Clerk Florida Supreme Court Florida Supreme Court 500 South Duval Street 500 South Duval Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1927

P. K. Jameson, State Comi Administrator ,Flqrida Sso~ SoutTa!, ahassi

4 {

'.J)il?r Just

Taccess dehearing t

tg~G

~\.,

!u

upreme Com1 h Duval Street ee, FL 32399-1900

Re: Follow-up Letter Concerning Florida Court Records & Delays

ice Polston, Mr. Tomasino and Ms. Jameson:

hank you for your time this week. I appreciate your meeting with me to discuss the lay issues identified by the media coalition our firm represents, and your openness to he media coalition's concerns. As promised, I am following up by letter to summarize

for you possible solutions and some of the factual infonnation mentioned at our meeting. You already have the Tour of Florida Courthouses to Access Court Records Repo11 on the journalists' expeiiences al various clerk counters in Florida, so that information is not discussed in detail here.

To summarize, the problems related to delays in access remain a costly, system-wide issue that the coalition has been unable to resolve. The primary reason we have been given by Clerks for delays is their perceived responsibility for reviewing and redacting every filing prior to pennitting access. However, I am hopeful that there are solutions for the delay problems.

Potential Rule-Based Solutions

First, clarification of the intent of Rule 2.420 (d)(l) could potentially rectify the systemic elays often attributed by Clerks lo what they perceive as their duty to review and redact millions f pages ofrecords for confidential infonnation. After our discussion, I understand that the

ntent behind Rule 2.420, however, was that filers would bear the sole responsibility for

() oe,

{'I ;::; .. ~ t ,~ :::~ ~ t-, 0 . !.~ ....

}·.; ~i !'.,~ u z w :x: Q

Cl

doi

Exhibit B - 1

mailto:[email protected]:www.tlolawfinn.com

'-

· Justi€!) Ricky Polston iolin A, Tomasino P.-K. Jameson Pecempe; 13, 2018 Page2

~dentifying records -th~t are.C

Ju~ticp Ricky Polston JQhn A. 1'.cmiasino P. J(. Jameson l;>ect;mb.er 13, 2!)18 Page3

J?rov.ide aecess at the C!)Urthouse, but typic11lly ock~ting takes !iltiget than.1 .• 3 ..... days in

1 some countie:; .. The S!'ptem,ber 2018 E-portal stlltfsHcs show the docket delay increasim · ·

to 1.5 days. · · · ·· · · · ·

· A!lCess to the tilip.g is di,l11yed well beyo11d the posting-of dqc)cet informatio!}, /h nian.y courts, the fiiings relill!in "locked" as their default status until a tequestfa matle·to re4,act and· · r~lease tlie dociJment, In big

' .,.

. .Justice Ricky Polston J.~hn A.. Tomasipo P. K. Jaqieson December 13, 2018 'i.lage4

Clay, Duval, Hillsb.orough, Lee, Le.on, Manatee, Martin, Mirupi-,Dade, Orange, Palm 1;3eaeh, P~ellas, Sarasota, arid Walton couri.ties. The total personhelatela~ed cost for redactiµg and . viewing records· on request was 'more tltan $4.1 million do!fafs for those· counties. Thi;hi.inal redaction so:ftwartl investment for those counties totaled-about $3.4.miilion. We were able to qbtain.tlte llllli\l~lmainten~nce fees ,fot eigh,t ~filiose CQuntje~, w,bicll, totiiled-wi,119ver.$S00,()00 per year. (In Mia~-Dade alone, tlte cl~rk pays $240,000 per-year tQ.ml)intaln softy1111;!' ~at, as

· the access report recounts; regularly generates errors arid breaks-down:} Extiilpo'latiµg froni these figures, the estimated total personnel co~ts for 67 Florida counties exceeds '$20 i,,tllion a year, in addition· to the millions Qf dollars paicl to buy redaction sofiware·and the yearly fees. for jts maintenance. Ctarification of the Clerks' responsibilities cotild resu!Hn huge savings .

· .. stat1twide. .

Clarificatipn of-the rule wquld, hopefully; also re~m.tQis stljte-to it.s hist6ri,c:plgGe 'i!) thi: · . forefront of the nation in providipgjoumalists-witlt tiiiieJy ac~ess to' he)l'l-filmgs 9n 'rei:ei]it. · Neyi' ~lings were general!y ittclud¢ ln i:\ stack,thl\~)ourµalisi/1 ~~ldji;,ru_se dqi,ly. T)rrough thepre~s, : .. the pµblfo was quickly inforined of new matters brought~!>.' th~ epurtiJou.s~ for reso!µtiqn. ·

Clarification of the rule wquld also bring Florida iir liill)·Wit4 inaiiY lit!lte ii]).~ fegeral courts providing eis:cel/ent press- and public aceess i!1, the electronic age that do n9t ))lace th!) . responsibility for redaQtion ojl. the court cler¾;. As ment(dtj:¢d; Flprida .an~ Vermont are.the only states that we are aware of where pourt clerks. are reviewing and redactil)g.rerotds for. confidentiality concerns, based on a mandate ( or lit least ·a perceived one). 2

. Adjacent to Florida, state courts in the metro Atlanta area, and. throughout Alabanu1; . · !11011,g with ii growing !!umber of courts throughout the natj9n, 'irt«;IJ.idir!!i tµose 111 ·New Y. prk-lll].d

Calif9mia and nearfr alff.ederal fyjql eoqrts, provide acc6/l~ 'to_i,ew.~urt fili*gij·upop receipt, ,pri~r to cler~ processing. As nientioti.!ld in our.m¢etlng, ab

Wisconsin iµid-Wyomi.hg. Most oftne other ~tates havl) not sp~ken as to who fs j'~ponsible rot Ii

reqactions. As npt~d, ol).ly Vennqnt- ;md, as interprt1ted,:Floiida -- have affirmatively made Ii clerks responsible for redaction statewide. I

I I II

I I ii

Exhibit B - 4

http:i�id-Wyomi.hg

, . . ~

Justice Ricky Polston John A, Tomasino P, K. Jameson December 13, 2018 Page 5

right away, and it fulfills the promise of an OJ>en and public institution of government made in Florida's State Constitution.

The coalition has a unique vantage point on the system from the perspective of the Fourth Estate, whose job it is to monitor the government, including the courts. We understand that you were likely unaware of the extent oflhe delay issues statewide, and wanted to infom1 you of the issues we are encountering, with the hope of finding a resolution that honors Florida's judicial system. We see !he statewide delays as a critical problem that denigrates Florida's rich access history, public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system, the voter open government mandate in Article I, Section 24, and the First Amendment.

We remain willing to provide additional infonnation or meet again with you if that would be helpful, and know that the Comt values transparency,

Enjoy !he holidays.

Very truly yours,

L 'I I I [i

II cc: Media Coalition I j

~ 11

ii " 11

1! 11 " i i I! ]!

Exhibit B - 5

. l

I _i

' Inlroduction ,,J '

For several years, the Thomas & LoCicero law finn has represented a large coalition of media organizations1 focused on ensuring that principles underlying the constitutional rights of access to the records of the judicial branch remain a priority in our state, particularly as the courts transition to e-filing and court clerks push the public to look for court records online rather than at the courthouse.

Recently, in order to demonstrate how access is working on the ground in Florida's courts, an experienced jownalist, Ryan Abbott, the regional bureau chief for Courthouse News, took a tour through courthouses at the southern and northern ends of the state, while also gathering information from the middle swath. Access, both online and at the counter, is routinely delayed. Here's his description of what happened:

i .i Key West

'I CJ ; I Mr. Abbott started at the southernmost point of the state, in early October. At the Key

West courthouse for Monroe County Circuit Court, he walked into the clerk's office and politely asked to inspect a complaint in a case that had been filed the day before, based on a docket record seen on a public terminal at the courthouse. A counter clerk told him the complaint was in the Odyssey case management system but not publicly available. She told him the only way to see the complaint was to print it out for the price of one dollar per page. So Mr. Abbott paid

I I six dollars for a printout.

From there he drove to the Marathon branch of the court where the counter clerk told him that new cases must first be docketed, redacted and then assigned a case number, a process that takes a day or two. She said a new case can only be inspected if a case number is provided first.

~

! Since there were no public tenninals through which to find case numbers for recent filings, Mr. Abbott left without reviewing a filing.

At the Plantation branch of the court, Mr. Abbott asked to see the new complaints filed 7 I that day. The counter cle1k told him that her office had three days to docket and open a new file.

The clerk said the journalist must wait for the docket to appear on the court's website, then call the branch with a case number, pay over the phone by credit card, and then wait for a copy of the

- J complaint to be delivered via email. She said that in order to inspect the case for free at the

-, I 1 The coalition includes The Associated Press; The Bradenton Herald, Inc.; Courthouse News Service; the

First Amendment Foundation, The Florida Press Association; TEGNA Inc. ( d/b/a WTLV-TV /WJXX-TV, and WTSP-TV); Gannett Co., Inc. (d/b/aF/orida Today, Indian River Press Journal (Treasure Coast Newspapers-Vero Beach), Naples Daily News The News-Press, PNJ.com/Pensacola, The Stuart News (Treasure Coast Newspapers, Fort Pierce), Tallahassee Democrat; Gatehouse Media, LLC ( d/b/a The Apalachicola Times, Crestview News Bulletin, Dally Commercial, Herald-Tribune, Holmes County Times Advertiser, News Chief, Northwest Florida Dally News, Ocala StarBanner, Palm Beach Post, Panama City News Herald, Santa Rosa's Press Gazette, The Daytona Beach News.Journal, The Destin Log, The Florida Times-Union, The Gainesville Sun, The Ledger, The Mirror, The Star, The St. Augustine Record, -, The Walton Sun, and Washington County News); Miami Herald Media Company; The New York Times

• _i Company; NexstarMedia Group, Inc. (d/b/a WFLA-TV, WKRG-TV and WMBB-TV); Orlando Sentinel Communications Company, LLC; Scripps Media, Inc. (d/b/a FOX4, WFTS-TV and WPTV-TV); and

--, Sun-Sentinel Company, LLC.

Exhibit B - 7

f ~l i : u

' ' I i

' . ' --,

l !

-,

I

• I

_J

' i _J

I __J

counter, a reporter must wait for the filing to be docketed and opened online, record the case number, then return to the clerk's office and ask for the cases to be printed out. No images were available online, and there were no public terminals at the courthouse. Mr. Abbott left without reviewing a filing.

Miami

He then drove north to the courthouse for Miami/Dade County Circuit Court and asked a counter clerk for a copy of a complaint filed two court days earlier. The complaint had been docketed but an icon representing the image of the complaint was grayed out, meaning it could not be opened.

The counter clerk said he could not allow Mr. Abbott to review the case for free. Mr. Abbott then asked if he could pay for a printout at a dollar per page. The counter clerk said normally that would be the case, but this complaint could not be printed, A supervisor then invited the journalist into his office to explnin that the document had not yet been sent over to his office from "tech services," which handles redaction by automated software. The supervisor further explained that the redaction software regularly breaks down, but tech services does not inform the rest of the clerk's office of the breakdown. When the software is not broken, and a complaint image is successfully sent over to the clerk's office, it must be hand"redacted by court personnel before it becomes public. The supervisor expressed frustration with what he tenned "a broken system" and rhetorically asked what could be expected from a county that could not even pay for his business cards.

In reviewing the court's records, Mr. Abbott observed that the current delay for free inspection of new complaints filed in Miami ls roughly eight court days. In other words, the court is withholding new filings for eight court days after the day of filing. In the paper era, in the same court, new civil actions could be inspected as soon as they crossed the counter. As a matter of routine on the courthouse beat, journalists in Miami/Dade checked the stack of new civil complaints at the end of the day and looked through the filings from that same day.

Mr. Abbott stopped for the evening in Davie, Florida to attend a fund-raising dinner for the First Amendment Foundation. Columnists Dave Barry and Carl Hiaasen spoke on the theme of public access to government records, training their wit on the electoral process in Florida and the Division of Elections.

Fo.-t Laudel'dale

In the morning, Mr. Abbott set out for Broward County Circuit Court. In the clerk's office, he asked to look at the most recent civil complaints. He was sent to the "copy window" where two window clerks told him new filings could not be seen until they were "validated." Validation, they explained, is the process of reviewing the documents and redacting any confidential information. They said validation is not done on request. Once validation occurs, the filings are available on the court's website and the clerk's office public terminals at the same time.

Based on observation, the amount of delay ebbs and flows in Broward, at times falling behind by three or four days and then being caught up to one day. In order to review the flow of filings - the electronic equivalent of the paper stack of new filings - a reporter needs to pay $1

2

Exhibit B - 8

' I

..., I

r··,

I ,

7 ' ~

I ! ' '

for a search of a series of case numbers. During his visit, the most recent filing Mr. Abbott could inspect was from the previous day.

Palm Beach

At the counter in the clerk's office in Palm Beach County Circuit Court, Mr. Abbott asked to inspect a sel'ies of recent cases based on docket information from public terminals at the courthouse. He was told by a counter clerk that images of new records were "locked" until they are reviewed by a court employee, uploaded, and then available for review remotely and at courthouse terminals, at the same time.

The counter clerk said the whole process takes "up to three days," an estimate that was confinned through observation. The docket is generally posted one day after the filing and redaction takes one to two days more.

Okeechobee

From Palm Beach, Mr. Abbott drove to Okeechobee Circuit Court, entered the clerk's office on the first floor and asked to review recent civil complaints. He was directed to a nearby room with public terminals and found that the most recent docketed complaint was three days old. The docket entry included an image that could be opened up. A counter clerk told him that any new case must be accepted and reviewed before it can be seen.

Mr. Abbott asked if there was any way to see more recent complaints, through an intake log, for example. The counter clerk said, "Before acceptance, we do not know a file exists." Mr. Abbott was unable to see any new complaints less than three days old.

Osceola

Mr. Abbott then drove north on a beautiful sunny afternoon to Osceola Circuit Court, where he entered the clerk's office and found a more chilly environment. On the third floor, he was met outside the elevator door by a desk clerk handing out number tickets. The clerk sent him to a windowless room with a TV monitor displaying ticket numbers. His number came up and he went to the designated window to meet a combative clerk. When Mr. Abbott asked how he could inspect new complaints, she answered, ''You can't do that."

He said he was a reporter and was confident that he was asking for public records. The clerk told him to go online, where, she said, access was "instantaneous." In fact, online access to the complaints themselves is running between three and four court days behind the day of filing. The reporter asked the window clerk if there were public terminals in the courthouse, and she sent him to the "information room."

He found docket information for a case filed that morning, without an image attached. He proceeded to the reception desk in the information room and asked ifhe could see the document. The desk clerk said it would need to be "unlocked." Because the end of the work day approached, he didn't have the time. He suggested that Mr. Abbott register online for access, but then added that registrants needed to be attorneys. Online, a would-be registrant must indeed include a Florida bar number. Mr. Abbott left without seeing any records.

3

ExhibitB - 9

Orlando

In order to report on a court in the middle swath of Florida, Mr. Abbott asked reporter Marilyn Alvarez to visit Orange County Circuit Court and attempt to see any recent civil actions. Tn the clerk's office on the third floor, a counter clerk told the reporter that the court must "accept and approve" a new civil filing before the docket can be seen both at the courthouse and online.

The related documents must then go through a redaction program, the clerk explained. The goal is to redact new filings within 24 to 48 hours, she said, conceding that the office has fallen behind. On the public terminal at the courthouse, a search for the most recent civil case available for inspection showed that the office was in fact withholding cases for six court days after the day of filing. Noted the counter clerk, "Lots of documents, not enough hands."

Tava1·es

Ms. Alvarez went to the infonnation desk in Lake County Circuit Court, and was sent to the check-in window on the first floor, and from there to the reading room next door, a room with computer terminals. A search for the most recent cases showed that a small drawing of a lock was superimposed on the document icons. In order to see a new complaint, she was required to enter her email address and click request.

She then went back to the check-in window and asked if it was possible to see the complaints that were locked or any that were filed that day. The counter clerk said that unless the reporter was a party to the case, she must request the new complaint and wait for it to be redacted. The request goes to the IT department for redaction, and it usually takes two to three business days. The documents are not redacted unless someone makes a request for the document.

DeLand

At the courthouse for Volusia County, Ms. Alvarez was directed to three public computer terminals on the second floor. On a tab titled "daily cases filed circuit civil," no cases from the same day were visible, She went to the counter and talked with a counter clerk and her supervisor who explained that if a new complaint is not available on the computer terminal, it cannot be reviewed.

They further explained that an efiled case first goes into a queue where its reviewed and accepted by a clerk in the courthouse call center and then goes into a second queue where it is reviewed by the civil department which also checks that the fees are paid and hand redacts the document. The document is then machine redacted when it is opened by a member of the public. They said the clerk's goal is to have documents publicly available within three business days.· Actual delays vary from day to day but that estimate was about right overall .

Ynlee

In late October, Mr. Abbott returned to visit courts along Florida's northern border. He took a car for hire to the clerk's office in Nassau County Circuit Court. At the clerk's counter,

4

Exhibit B - 10

fl I :_ J

'

' i

' I '

; ' ' :

I j

-,

J

. J

_J

~ 'j I

~·

7 '

r.

-, ' 1 ' ' . ; i ~- J

! r '

l i_J

i

',I '

. J

.. ' I I

7 i

he spoke to a clerk behind a glass window who turned her own tenninal around, explaining that it was the court's public tenninal. She passed a mouse under the glass to Mr. Abbott and directed him to the court's website.

While she watched, he attempted to open the court's search page but was met by a display saying the page was unresponsive. The clerk said she would call the ''tech people" and left a message with them. While the reporter and the clerk waited, she explained that the clerk must first "accept" a new case, at which point docket information becomes available on the court's website. The images, however, are held for "review," Once a clerk manually reviews the filing, the clerk explained, the document becomes public.

She said a particular case can be requested "on demand," which will move that filing to the head of the redaction line. "We have three days," she said, to complete the redaction. After waiting for roughly 20 minutes, Mr. Abbott left the courthouse without having inspl:lllted any new filings, recent or otherwise. On the way to pick up a rental car, his rideshare driver explained to a fellow fishennan that he successfully fishes for smallmouth bass in culverts by the side of the road while he waits to be pinged for his next fare.

Jacksonville

A rental car secured, Mr. Abbott drove due south to the massive courthouse for Duval County Circuit Court where he proceeded to the clerk's office on the ground floor. He pressed a button to speak by microphone to an apparently disgruntled counter clerk on the other side of thick glass. The clerk refused to answer any questions about the process, sending him instead to the law library on the second floor where he was able to get on a public terminal.

A kindly librarian there instructed him to open an internet browser and go to the court's website, The most recent docket records were for cases filed two days earlier. Each docket was accompanied by a document icon upon which was superimposed the word "LOCKED." Mr. Abbott went back downstairs to the clerk's office and explained that the images were locked. The clerk told him that the public cannot look at the documents "unless you are a party."

Mr. Abbott countered that the records are public and asked for a supervisor. The clerk returned without a supervisor and explained that Mr. Abbott should sign up online for an account. After two days, if the request for an account is granted, he could then ask online for a case to be ''unlocked," a process which generally requires a full court day. Mr. Abbott left without being able to inspect any case.

Macclenny

Mr. Abbott then headed west to Baker County Circuit Court. He walked into a traditional clerk's office where he was able to talk directly to a clerk at a long counter. He was directed to a public computer terminal where he opened a program called "Clericus" and was able to search for new cases.

In a low volume court, the most recent case was from the previous day. The icon was not locked and the associated document opened for review. He then went to the counter to inquire about procedure for making new filings public. The clerk's IT employee overheard the conversation, approached and shook hands with Mr. Abbott, He explained that when a case is

s

Exhibit B - 11

7 I

_I

7 ' ' ' _J .

·--' I . : ,- .

' . ~- .!

r-· : I ' '

r : I [

I i I I '· '

' I I I i_,

' ro

. ' ' I

i'' ' !

' j

. I L.

,~ ~ ' I , ' _,

I .1

-, I ;

~1

filed in paper or electronic fonn, the documents can be seen on Clericus right away, while acceSll on the cmnt's website is delayed by one day.

He also described a security matrix that allows court officials to see documents without clerk redaction but excludes the public and the press. lfthe document clears an initial automated review, he said, it is available right away on Clericus. If it does not, anyone can come to the counter and ask to see a document which will be promptly reviewed and posted.

He then asked If the reporter was involved with the First Amendment Foundation to which Mr. Abbott replied that he had attended a function for the foundation a couple weeks earlier. The court employee expressed strong approval of the foundation's work. Mr. Abbott explained that the court was providing the best access he had yet encountered in Florida. The Court Clerk herself then came forward and introduced herself. In the course of a conversation, she expressed frustration with the redaction rule, saying that one court employee's entire work day was dedicated to redacting every document that came into the courthouse.

Lake City

Mr. Abbott then drove southwest to Columbia County Cirouit Court. He found a public tenninal in the clerk's office and clicked on the Clericus icon, but it required a user name and password. He went up to a counter clerk who summoned an official who told Mr. Abbott, "You can't use Clericus."

She said the program was restricted to clerks processing complaints. She told Mr. Abbott to use the public tenninal to open an internet browser and go to the court's website, in order to search for new filings. On the court's website, the most recent docket was for a case filed the previous day. But the image icon was grayed out, meaning it would not open. Affixed to the public te1IDinal was a printed message that said, "In order to protect confidential infonnation that may be contained in otherwise public records, certain cases are available only after specific request and additional clerk inspection."

Mr. Abbott returned to the counter. A few steps back from the counter, three clerks sat at desks. In the manner of a chorus, they explained that all the complaints are ''locked" and remain locked until a specific unlocking request is made. Then it takes 24 to 48 hours to unlock a complaint, they said, because there is only one clerk to redact documents for the entire building. Mr. Abbott then picked up an order of sushi and spent the night at Holiday Express in Lake City.

Jasper

In the morning, he drove through a terrain of woodlands and open fields to Hamilton County Circuit Court. He entered a small courthouse and found his way to the clerk's counter. In response to a request to see recent civil complaints, the counter clerk looked puzzled and referred him to the processing clerk.

She explained that she processes new filings once a day and the docket can then be reviewed online. She said images of documents are "mostly on demand." She explained that a security matrix allows judges and clerks to see the documents right away but members of the public and reporters must request that the documents be "unlocked."

6

Exhibit B - 12

--, I

LJ

[J

i .

0 ' '

' '

. ' . '

' .

i _'

~ 1

I I I

i ·•-I

.I

r ,

' ' ' '

I ,

:-1 l

,~

, ·1 I i ' . ' I

7

i j

She said the unlocking request is made online and that she is notified "on the computer," pointing to her terminal. She then reviews the documents and unlocks them generally on the following work day. Because the clerk's office had no public terminals, Mr. Abbott was not able to search for the most recently filed case and left without being able to inspect any recent filings.

Madison

Driving due west, Mr. Abbott proceeded to the big, traditional courthouse for Madison County Circuit Court. When he started asking questions, a counter clerk called the Court Clerk on a phone, explaining that a reporter wanted to see some new complaints. The Clerk ardved a short time later, shook hands with Mr. Abbott, and brought him over to talk with the lone processing clerk in the court's records room, which was filled with large bound volumes of docket ledgers.

The processing clerk explained that she keeps a handwritten intake log on a yellow pad, listing the date, case number and parties for each new complaint as it comes in. Mr. Abbott asked to see the most recent case on the intake log. The processing clerk walked to a shelf, pulled a paper file, looked over the document inside, and handed it to Mr. Abbott.

The records room in Madison was like a fossil reminder of the excellent paper access once provided in Florida's courts, and it was the only remaining example of traditional access found by Mr. Abbott on his voyage through the courts of Florida.

Monticello

Proceeding west, with news radio reporting that a Florida man had been arrested over a recent spate of mail bombs, Mr. Abbott drove towards Monticello. In a small town with 14,000 people, the traditional courthouse for Jefferson County Circuit Court sits in the very middle of town at the center of a traffic circle.

At the clerk's counter, an employee showed Mr. Abbott to the ''vault records room," about the size of a large closet and filled with the aroma of dusty books. While an antiquated computer terminal was fired up, the counter clerk explained that dockets and docmnent images could be seen onllne. She said the new filings must be redacted before they can be inspected. She said the clerk's office has Clericus, but it doesn't work.

From the public terminal, Mr. Abbott conducted a search for the most recent case which had been filed ten days earlier in the very low-volume court. He was ahle to review the document itself.

Tallahassee

Driving west towards his final stop on the Florida tour, Mr. Abbott arrived at Leon County Circuit Court, directly across from the state Capitol, on the first day of early voting. In the center of the foyer for the circuit court clerk's office was a room extending out from the clerk's counter titled "HELP ROOM" and containing a row of public terminals, He was able to find dockets for new complaints filed earlier that same day, but no documents could be opened. A box next to each docket item said "req," standing for "request."

7

Exhibit B - 13

,.

L.,

I ' ! .r

I I

1.

I . -,

__l '

_,

7 I

r !

L .I I

Mr. Ryan approached a counter clerk's window and explained that the documents tied to the docket records were locked, and he wanted to see them. She answered that, in order to look at them, he must make a request through the clerk's website. The clerk's office must then review the document and unlock it. However, he could also fill out an application, have it notarized and ·send it back to the clel'k, she told him.

After the application was accepted, Mr. Ryan was able to review a small number of cases from the same day while most were delayed until the following day. That registered access is the same at the courthouse and online. Without registering, Mr. Abbott could either fill out a written form at the courthouse, or make an email request on a courthouse terminal. An automated reply to any such email states, "It may take up to seven business days to fulfill this request."

Mr. Abbott then left for the airpo11, stopping fust by a tavern next to Florida State University on the eve of a football game.

\

8

Exhibit B - 14

1

RESPONSE OF FLORIDA COURT CLERKS & COMPTROLLERS TO THE NEWS MEDIA COALITION'S

REPORT - "TOUR OF FLORIDA COURTHOUSES TO ACCESS COURT RECORDS"

I. Introduction

Florida Court Clerks & Comptrollers (FCCC) submits this response to the repo1t provided by Thomas & LoCicero on behalf of the News Media Coalition (NMC).

The "Tour of Florida Courthouses to Access Court Records" describes reporter Ryan Abbott's visits to various courthouses throughout the State of Florida to test how "access is working on the ground in Florida's courts." The report apparently concludes, although it doesn't explicitly say so, that access is not adequate for NMC's purposes. In fact, the "report" is not a report, as that term is traditionally used in the court system for the purpose of deciding such an important issue; a report would usually have pros and cons, and would not be a one-sided document. This report is nothing more than one person's anecdotal recollections of his interaction with various Clerks' offices to make a limited and specific request for one type of filing. When this issue was last reviewed by the Court, five separate reports were issued over a seven year period: https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/News-Media/Reports-on-Privacy-AccessCourt-Records. Any across-the-board conclusion that Clerks are denying timely access to court records is not supported by the "report," given the limited nature of the requests made and the complete lack of follow up by the reporter.

Florida's Clerks work to provide timely access to court documents, particularly to the media, and to protect the public trust, as required by law or Florida Supreme Court rule. The public at large might have a legitimate claim that the media has actually enjoyed preferential treatment from Clerks for many years. Clerks have nothing to gain by withholding public information from the news media. Clerks believe in the Sunshine Laws and the First Amendment. The Florida Supreme Court has previously concluded that the right of access must be balanced against the constitutional right to privacy.

FCCC is a partner of the First Amendment Foundation and actively takes part in Sunshine Week concepts and promotions. As noted on FCCC's website: "Court

Exhibit C - 2

https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/News-Media/Reports-on-Privacy-Access

2

Clerks have been upholding government transparency and defending citizens' right to access information for nearly two centuries, since the Florida Constitution was signed and established them as elected public trustees. Florida's Clerks promote transparency and open government year-round, especially during Sunshine Week ... in partnership with the First Amendment Foundation."

A major complaint throughout the report is that court records are not immediately available. That is true. Access to documents is not instantaneous. As the joint committee is well aware, court files contain enormous amounts of private information about Florida's citizens, such as Social Security numbers, financial information, and even the identities of minors who have been victims of sexual assault. The volume of documents filed every day is staggering. More than 10,000,000 new pages are filed every month and filings come in 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

There is an orderly, time-tested process in place as a result of the previous reports, that Clerks are required under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 to follow to ensure proper handling of documents filed with the court. The first priority is to review for docketing and then docket the document. Before the document can be made public, the Clerk must screen the document to protect any private or confidential information they are responsible for protecting. Although the redaction process can be labor intensive and time consuming, Clerks work diligently to protect the public and to ensure that no confidential information is released in error.

It is clear that not all information held by a government agency is available to the public. Common law has long commanded that document custodians protect confidential information. Likewise, the Florida Supreme Court through Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 delineates what case types, documents and information within documents are confidential. The Florida Supreme Court, however, is not authorized to make information confidential without statutory authority. Thus, the judicial branch reviewed each exception to the public records created by the Florida Legislature and reviews all new exceptions to the public records created by the Florida Legislature to determine what information should be protected within judicial branch records. Although Clerks do not determine what information is public, they do protect the information and documents that the Florida Supreme Court has determined must be kept confidential in judicial branch records.

Exhibit C - 3

3

Critically in this matter, no Clerk failed to provide a document as requested. The reporter left ifhe could not get instant access to documents. The reporter did not follow up with the Clerk's office in instances where documents were not immediately available. The requests were not in writing, as required by Rule 2.420. Neither the report nor the information Clerks provided indicate that the reporter stated there was a time-sensitive need for access--or if there was, what it was.

FCCC fully recognizes that the allegations and implications contained within the report are serious. FCCC asked each Clerk who was visited to provide a response so the joint committee would have the benefit of both sides of the story. It is apparent many Clerks had a different viewpoint of the interaction than did the reporter. It is imperative that any analysis of the adequacy of access to court records be reviewed by balancing the right of access against the duty to protect confidential information. In this light, it is unreasonable to expect instantaneous access to court records as Clerks have to protect confidential information in a vast amount of filed documents. It is clear from the responses below that each Clerk's office visited attempted to fulfill the reporter's request within a reasonable amount of time under the circumstances. As indicated above, the Clerks' offices take their role as records custodians, as well as the public's right to access the records within its court custody seriously. They do so by balancing the appropriate factors in determining whether a response to a court records request is completed in a reasonable amount of time.

II. Clerk Responses

Key West (Monroe County)

Claim: "At the Key West courthouse ... a counter clerk told him the complaint was in the Odyssey case management system but not publicly available. She told him the only way to see the complaint was to print it out for the price of one dollar per page."

In the Marathon branch, "the counter clerk told him that new cases must first be docketed, redacted, and then assigned a case number, a process that takes a day or two .... Since there were no public terminals through which to find case numbers for recent filings, Mr. Abbott left without reviewing a filing."

Exhibit C - 4

4

In the Plantation branch, "Mr. Abbot asked to see the new complaints filed that day. The counter clerk told him her office had three days to docket and open a new file. The clerk said the journalist must wait for the docket to appear on the court's website, then call the branch with a case number, pay over the phone by credit card, and then wait for a copy of the complaint to be delivered via email."

County's response:

The report accurately described the encounter in the Monroe County Clerk's Office; however, there are times within the report where the reporter was misinformed about the proper process for obtaining court records.

How long does it take for a document to be made available to the public?

The Clerk has between two and four days, depending on case type, to accept the filings according to the Florida Clerks of Court Operations Corporation's (CCOC) timeliness standards. The filing then runs through a redaction process, which takes up to two days. Filings are processed as quickly as possible, and are available within one to five days, depending on staffing levels.

Miami (Miami-Dade County)

Claim: "In reviewing the court's records, Mr. Abbott observed that the current delay for free inspection of new complaints filed in Miami is roughly eight court days. In other words, the court is withholding new filings for eight court days after the day of filing."

County's Response:

The report did not accurately describe the encounter in the Miami-Dade County Clerk's Office.


All filings are available for view upon retrieval of the case docket, except for documents that have not completed the redaction review process and/or have been determined to be confidential. Manual redaction of documents is occasionally performed upon request. Depending on the size of the documents requested, customers are advised as to whether the request can be completed immediately or will require up to 72 hours for the process to be finalized. The time required for documents to be filed, accepted, reviewed and redacted, and made available for

Exhibit C - 5

5

public view fluctuates. Factors that can impact the processing timeline include intake volume of complaints and pleadings, as well as technical complications.

Fort Lauderdale (Broward County)

Claim: "During his visit, the most recent filing Mr. Abbott could inspect was from the previous day."

County's Response:

The report did not accurately describe the encounter in the Broward County Clerk's Office.

The report indicates that filings were made available within one to four days. This supports CCOC's finding that Broward County meets its performance standards for timeliness in all but two divisions.


Broward County's goal is to stay within the CCOC performance standards for timeliness; i.e., two days