-
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
-
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
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
-
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
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
-
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
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
-
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
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
-
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
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
-
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
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
-
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
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
-
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
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
-
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
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
-
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
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
-
Page 1 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.
How long does it take for a document to be made available to the
public?
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.
How long does it take for a document to be made available to the
public?
Broward County's goal is to stay within the CCOC performance
standards for timeliness; i.e., two days