AGENDA Florida Courts Technology Commission (FCTC) Meeting. 425 North Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801

Transcription

1 Access Governance Board Wednesday, February 10, 2016 Document Storage Workgroup Wednesday, February 10, 2016 E-Portal Subcommittee Wednesday, February 10, 2016 CCIS Subcommittee Wednesday, February 10, 2016 FCTC/RJA Joint Workgroup Wednesday, February 10, 2016 FCTC Meeting: Thursday, February 11, 2016 AGENDA Florida Courts Technology Commission (FCTC) Meeting Orange County Courthouse 425 North Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida :00 a.m. 10:45 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 12:45 p.m. 2:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m. 4:30 p.m. Orange County Courthouse Medina Conference Room, 23 rd Floor Orange County Courthouse Medina Conference Room, 23 rd Floor Orange County Courthouse Medina Conference Room, 23 rd Floor Orange County Courthouse Medina Conference Room, 23 rd Floor Orange County Courthouse Medina Conference Room, 23 rd Floor Orange County Courthouse Medina Conference Room, 23 rd Floor I. Welcome Judge Lisa Munyon, FCTC Chair a. Roll call and introduction of guests II. III. IV. Approval of November Minutes a. Motion to approve the minutes from the November 19, 2015 meeting of the Florida Courts Technology Commission as ed to the Commission on February 1, FCTC Approved Items from November 2015 Meeting Court Application Processing System (CAPS) Update Alan Neubauer a. CAPS viewer implementation timeline V. E-Portal/E-Filing Progress Report Carolyn Weber a. E-filing progress report b. Service desk report VI. VII. VIII. IX. Appellate Portal Interface Update John Tomasino DIY Florida Update (informational item) Judge Munyon CCIS Subcommittee Update Judge Perkins E-Portal Subcommittee Update Judge Bidwill a. E-filing search warrant returns Page 1

2 b. E-service recommendation from the State Attorneys and Public Defenders c. Local document receiving X. Department of Corrections Portal Workgroup Update Judge Bidwill XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. Standards for Third Party Vendors Carolyn Weber Proposed Order Workgroup Update Judge Bidwill Interpreter Data Workgroup Update Tom Genung Docket Code Workgroup Update Karen Rushing Access Governance Board Update Judge Hilliard a. Approval of counties to begin implementation of their online electronic records access system b. Monroe County extension request c. Updating the Access Security Matrix Data Exchange Workgroup Update Robert Adelardi a. Draft Data Exchange Standards b. CCIS Documentation Document Storage Workgroup Update Steve Shaw XVIII. Standards Consolidation Workgroup Update Jannet Lewis XIX. XX. XXI. FCTC/RJA Joint Workgroup Update Murray Silverstein a. Portal Filing Certification b. Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 12-2 c. RJA Committee Actions Update Retention of Paper Documents Tom Genung Other Items/Wrap up Page 2

3 Agenda Item II. Approval of November Minutes

4 Florida Courts Technology Commission Meeting FCTC Action Items / Summary of Motions November 19, 2015 A meeting of the Florida Courts Technology Commission was held at the Duval County Courthouse in Jacksonville, Florida on November 19, The meeting convened at 9:00 A.M., Chair Judge Lisa T. Munyon presiding. Members of the Commission in attendance Judge Lisa T. Munyon, Chair, 9 th Circuit Judge Martin Bidwill, 17 th Circuit Judge Josephine Gagliardi, Lee County Judge Terence Perkins, 7 th Circuit Thomas Genung, Trial Court Administrator, 19 th Circuit Ken Nelson, CTO, 6 th Circuit Karen Rushing, Clerk of Court, Sarasota County Sharon Bock, Clerk of Court, Palm Beach County Jim Kowalski, Jr., Esq., Jacksonville Area Legal Aid (JALA) Members not in attendance David Ellspermann, Clerk of Court, Marion County Mary Cay Blanks, Clerk of Court, 3 rd DCA Matt Benefiel, Trial court Administrator, 9 th Circuit Sandra Lonergan, Trial Court Administrator, 11 th Circuit Judge Robert Hilliard, Santa Rosa County Judge Ronald Ficarrotta, 13 th Circuit Judge Scott Stephens, 13 th Circuit Murray Silverstein, Esq., Tampa Jannet Lewis, CTO, 10 th Circuit Christina Blakeslee, CTO, 13 th Circuit Elisa Miller, Akerman LLP Tanya Jackson, Adam Street Advocates Judge C. Alan Lawson, 5 th DCA Laird Lile, Esq., Naples John M. Stewart, Esq., Vero Beach Judge Stevan Northcutt, 2 nd DCA Supreme Court Justice in attendance Justice Ricky Polston, Supreme Court OSCA and Supreme Court Staff in attendance Eric Maclure John Tomasino, Clerk of the Supreme Court Brian Peterson Jeannine Moore Other Attendees Dennis Menendez, CIO, 12 th Circuit Craig McLean, CIO, 20 th Circuit Steve Shaw, CTO, 19 th Circuit Terry Rodgers, CTO, 5 th Circuit Mike Smith, CTO, 4 th Circuit Blan Teagle Alan Neubauer Lakisha Hall Noel Chessman, CTO, 15 th Circuit Robert Adelardi, CTO, 11 th Circuit Fred Buhl, CTO, 8 th Circuit Isaac Shuler, CTO, 2 nd Circuit John Lake, CTO, 3 rd Circuit Page 1 of 20

5 Gerald Land, CTO, 16 th Circuit Jon Lin, Trial Court Administrator, 5 th Circuit Paul Silverman, Trial Court Administrator, 8 th Circuit Melvin Cox, Director of Information Technology, Florida Court Clerks and Comptrollers Carolyn Weber, Florida Court Clerks and Comptrollers Court Tom Hall, Florida Court Clerks and Comptrollers Harold Sample, Pasco County Clerk of Court Justin Horan, Clay County Clerk of Court Kimberly Stenger, Polk County Clerk of Court Doris Maitland, Lee County Clerk of Court Gary Blankenship, The Florida Bar Nichole Hanscom, Public Defenders Association Repps Galusha, Orange County Clerk of Court Paul Jones, Palm Beach County Clerk of Court Akilya Drake, Palm Beach County Clerk of Court Cindy Guerra, Palm Beach County Clerk of Court David Winiecki, Sarasota County Clerk of Court Laurie Reaves, Miami-Dade County Clerk of Court Brian Murphy, Mentis Technology Solutions Ernie Nardo, Broward County Clerk of Court Ebony Tisby, Florida Department of Law Enforcement Mark Rivera, 4 th Circuit Thomas Morris, State Attorney 8 th Circuit Paul Regensdorf, Esq., Jacksonville Christopher Campbell, Florida Court Clerks and Comptrollers Ken Kent, Executive Director, Florida Court Clerks and Comptrollers Jennifer Fishback, Florida Court Clerks and Comptrollers Brent Holladay, Lake County Clerk of Court Tony Landry, Volusia County Clerk of Court Krys Godwin, The Florida Bar Amy Borman, 15 th Circuit Gerald Cates, Duval County Clerk of Court Laurie Rice, Brevard County Clerk of Court Tyler Winik, Brevard County Clerk of Court Carole Pettijohn, Manatee County Clerk of Court Steve Moerbe, Tyler Technologies Toni Bleiweiss, Lee County Clerk of Court Victor Lee, Computing System Innovations Lee Herring, Florida Department of Law Enfocement Before the meeting began Chief Judge Mark Mahon and Clerk Ronnie Fussell said a few words welcoming the commission members to the Duval County Courthouse and expressed sincere gratitude for the work of the commission. Judge Munyon welcomed the commission members and other participants to the meeting. She recognized Justice Polston as the Supreme Court liaison to the Florida Courts Technology Commission (FCTC). Judge Munyon welcomed Chief Judge Terence Perkins from the Seventh Judicial Circuit. Judge Munyon called the meeting to order and advised everyone that the meeting was being recorded. AGENDA ITEM II. Approval of August Minutes Motion to approve the minutes from the August 7, 2015 meeting of the Florida Courts Technology Commission. MOTION OFFERED: Murray Silverstein MOTION SECONDED: Judge Josephine Gagliardi MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Page 2 of 20

6 AGENDA ITEM III. Approval of FCTC Approved Items Motion to approve the Florida Courts Technology Co mmi ssi on s Approval Items from the August 7, 2015 meeting. MOTION OFFERED: Judge Josephine Gagliardi MOTION SECONDED: Murray Silverstein MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AGENDA ITEM IV. Court Application Processing System (CAPS) Update a. Brian Peterson gave an update on the vendors who are certified with the Functional Requirements Document for Court Application Processing System version 3.0 and AOSC09-30 version The Eighth Judicial Circuit, the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, and Pioneer demonstrated compliance with all of the requirements in CAPS 3.0 and AOSC09-30 version 14.0 and received full recertification, while Mentis Technologies only met some of the requirements and received provisional recertification. The Seventeenth Judicial Circuit demonstrated their CAPS viewer and received provisional certification. The Fifteenth Judicial Circuit demonstrated their CAPS viewer and received full certification. The Fourth Judicial Circuit deferred their certification and will come before the certification subcommittee at a later date. Fifty counties have a CAPS viewer implemented in the civil and/or criminal divisions. Fourteen counties have reported that they will have a CAPS viewer implemented by April 1, The remaining three counties will not have a CAPS viewer implemented for either lack of funding or lack of a case management system to pull the information from. Judge Munyon stated that fully implemented does not mean everything is fully functional. A system will be fully functional when judges have the capability to electronically sign and file orders through the eportal. AGENDA ITEM V. Certification Subcommittee Update Judge Perkins said the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit should be applauded for complying with all of the requirements and receiving full certification on its initial attempt which is something no other vendor had achieved. In the past, the Trial Court Integrated Management Solutions (TIMS) subcommittee updated the CAPS standards. Because the TIMS subcommittee has been inactive for over a year, the certification subcommittee will now be responsible for updating the CAPS standards. The Certification Subcommittee would like to include a cost/benefit analysis in the next iteration of the CAPS standards. This will allow the circuits to know in advance how much it would cost to have their judicial viewer comply with the updated standards. Tom Genung was in agreement with a cost/benefit analysis. At the circuit level, chief judges and trial court administrators grapple with how to implement the new requirements without funding. He suggested the FCTC should be cognizant of the cost impact of all directives it issues. Clerk Karen Rushing said a cost/benefit analysis would be helpful when going before the legislature to get funding for certain things. Judge Stephens said the primary reason many of the proposals got rejected in the original formulation of the standards was because the TIMS subcommittee thought it would be too costly. Justice Polston asked if a cost/benefit analysis would be done for all the individuals involved. There are a lot of different systems and the cost/benefit may vary for different people. Chris Blakeslee said in the past the proposed standards were sent to the vendors for their input. Some standards were removed based on the Page 3 of 20

7 cost to implement. Motion that a cost/benefit analysis be a part of the Certification Subcommittee s charge in making recommendations to the Florida Courts Technology Commission. MOTION OFFERED: Judge Terence Perkins MOTION SECONDED: Tom Genung MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AGENDA ITEM VI. eportal/efiling Progress Report a. Carolyn Weber discussed the eportal usage statistics. In the month of October, there were 1,208,416 filings through the eportal and a total of 99,363 registered users. The day with the highest volume was October 20, 2015, with 57,919 documents submitted. It took approximately 0.95 days for a document to be approved by a clerk and reach the docket. This dropped almost a full day from September 2015 when it took approximately 1.90 days for a document to reach the docket. Tom Genung asked if there was an anomaly for the month of September as it took significantly longer for documents to be docketed. Judge Munyon said the anomaly could be due to the clerk s budget issues at the end of their fiscal year. Approximately 2.14% of filings were returned to the filer for correction. Roughly 25,809 submissions were in the pending queue for returns to the filer. Of those returns, only 1.86% were by self-represented litigants, while 94.7% were by attorneys. State and local agents, creditors, and the media were added to the eportal in October. In total, they submitted 177 filings through the eportal. The eportal was up and operational 100% of the time. Carolyn gave an update on criminal e-filing. Extensions to implement criminal e-filing were given to circuits in AOSC Pinellas County is in production, Pasco County is in testing, and Miami- Dade County State Attorney is complete. The eportal Projects Team is continuing to implement the remaining State Attorneys and Public Defenders with bulk e-filing and working with third party vendors to allow bulk e-filing. A maintenance release is scheduled for November 20, Release of version is scheduled for production in April Carolyn Weber gave a quick status update on judicial e-filing implementation. She referred everyone to the documents in the materials that outline the counties and circuits and the number of judicial filings. She pointed out that Brevard County has 100% of their judges electronically filing through the eportal. b. Carolyn Weber gave an update on the eportal service desk. The service desk takes calls regarding customer service incidents along with technical and system support incidents. Roughly 3,282 customer service incidents were received during October Of that total, 2 were from judges, 356 were from pro se filers, and 2,924 were from attorneys. On average it took 1 hour and 6 minutes to respond to an incident and 1 hour and 52 minutes to resolve an incident. Roughly 497 technical/system support incidents were received during October On average it took 50 minutes to respond to an incident and 4 hours and 9 minutes to resolve an incident. Carolyn showed the top 10 types of incidents the service desk receives from attorneys, judges and pro Page 4 of 20

8 se filers. c. Carolyn Weber discussed eportal Release which is scheduled for April 15, Two big functionalities will be included in this release. The eportal will be able to accept the submission of proposed orders and route to the appropriate judicial circuit. Judges will be added to the E- service list on the eportal with an specific for being served. Carolyn also pointed out that the Florida Court Clerks and Comptrollers (FCCC) would like to increase the file submission size from 25MB to 50MB. The FCCC is reluctant to do this until the attachment file size is increased to 10MB. This would require a rule change, as Rule 2.516, Service of Pleadings and Documents, prohibits the attachment file size to exceed 5MB. The FCCC will not increase the file submission size if the mail attachment size is not increased. Murray Silverstein said the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee is amending this rule. Another enhancement is the Save My Settings/Preferences tab. This allows the filer to conform the eportal to look the way they want it to upon logging in. The filer will be able to establish preferences such as case type, division, work queues, etc. AGENDA ITEM VII. Appellate eportal Interface Update John Tomasino gave an update on the Appellate eportal Interface. The efacts Change Advisory Board (CAB) has approved the following three items that involve meeting with eportal staff: 1) investigate differences in edca filing and filing through the eportal; 2) discuss a single entry point for filers to see their documents and filings; and 3) discuss integrating the eportal e-service list into unified appellate case management system. AGENDA ITEM VIII. Pro-Se Litigant Filing Update Sharon Bock gave background information on the Access to Justice project (A2J) over the past year. The E-Filing Authority Board approved pro se litigants to use the eportal in June Florida has a distinct advantage over other states by embedding the A2J software into the eportal allowing a pro se user to seamlessly file with the push of one button. The Florida Bar Foundation created the Justice Center. The Justice Center is creating a software program that will be an algorithm to allow a pro se user to determine whether they should complete a document, whether they need legal help, or whether they qualify for legal aid, etc. Clerk Bock said there are over 25,000 registered pro se users on the eportal and over 66,000 e-filing submissions. Approximately 1.2% of the filings are returned for correction. This indicates pro se filers understand how to use the eportal. Pro se users are e-filing in circuit civil, domestic relations, and county civil the most. Clerk Bock went on to say one of the issues the FCCC s Pro Se Committee is dealing with is developing a process and procedure for items to be reported to the Access to Justice Commission. The previous day, the Access Governance Board (Board) discussed how long a form that has been developed and vetted by the JMC should remain in the test environment to allow everyone time to test the form and make comments on the form. The Board decided 60 days was a sufficient amount of time for the forms to remain in the test environment. Applying a timeframe for how long a form stays on the test site before being given to a specific committee is an important step. The small Page 5 of 20

9 claims form has been on the eportal s test site for 17 months. Clerk Bock suggested OSCA, the E- Filing Authority Board, and the Clerks advertise that the forms are available on the test site for people to test the forms. Murray Silverstein suggested disseminating the forms on the Florida Bar s website to allow attorneys to test the forms. Blan Teagle said in the currently approved Implementation Plan there are two parallel tracks: one for family and another for all case types other than family. Once the programming is done in the A2J and the interviews become available on the eportal s test site, there is an affirmative responsibility placed upon staff to circulate the forms to the Florida Bar entity that worked with the JMC on the decision logic, judges, and non-attorneys to provide them the opportunity to review the forms in the test environment. Afterwards, the workgroup can submit its recommendation for approval to the Supreme Court. Judge Munyon said it is important to have a time period to ensure there is enough time to vet the questions, but also people need to understand that their job needs to be done at a particular point. Chris Blakeslee said 60 days should be sufficient for the forms to remain on the test site if they are vetted on the frontend. Clerk Bock said the Bar committees do not need to get together. They can log onto the eportal test site from their office. Motion that once the forms have been vetted by the Judicial Management Council and are on the eportal s test site for at least 60 days, the forms should then be provided to the Supreme Court or the JMC for approval to be moved into production on the eportal. MOTION OFFERED: Sharon Bock MOTION SECONDED: Chris Blakeslee Judge Munyon suggested to recommend that the JMC update the chart in the Implementation Plan to include a 60-day window on the test site. Clerk Bock amended her motion and Chris Blakeslee accepted the amendment. Amended motion that once the forms have been vetted by the Judicial Management Council and are on the eportal s test site for at least 60 days, the forms should then be provided to the Supreme Court or the JMC for approval to be moved into production on the eportal. Also, recommend that that the JMC update the chart in the Implementation Plan to include a 60-day window on the test site. Murray suggested asking the JMC to create a non-family law forms workgroup. Clerk Bock said it took about eight months for the Clerks to work diligently on creating the first interview forms. Blan said this is something he could take up with the JMC. Justice Polston suggested having the Florida Bar create different committees based on an individual s expertise. Judge Munyon asked who would make the recommendation to the Supreme Court that the forms go to production. Blan said the Implementation Plan states the appropriate group, subgroup, or entity of the Florida Bar submits a recommendation for approval to the Supreme Court in all areas except for Family Law; however, for Family Law, the Family Law Forms Workgroup submits the recommendation for approval to the Supreme Court. Blan said the FCTC could make a recommendation to the Supreme Court, or make a recommendation through the JMC to the Supreme Court. Murray proposed amending the motion Page 6 of 20

10 for the FCTC to make a recommendation to the Supreme Court that the forms remain on the test site for no more than 60 days before final approval is sought. Clerk Bock and Chris Blakeslee both accepted Murray s friendly amendment. Second amended motion that once the forms have been vetted by the Judicial Management Council and are on the eportal s test site, the FCTC should make a recommendation to the Supreme Court that the forms remain on the test site for no more than 60 days before final approval is sought. Also, recommend that the JMC update the chart in the Implementation Plan to include a 60-day window on the test site. Tom Genung suggested copying the JMC on the letter to the Supreme Court as well. Justice Polston asked if it would be a problem if the implementation schedule was changed in the Implementation Plan to reflect that after the forms have been vetted by the JMC and remained on the test site for at least 60 days, the FCTC has the authority to make a recommendation to move final approval of the process to the Supreme Court as opposed to the different Florida Bar committees. Blan said as long as the Bar committees are given an opportunity to offer a critique or their opinion. Judge Munyon was concerned with the no more than 60 days stipulation as the FCTC meets quarterly. The issue needs to be vetted in a full commission meeting. Jannet Lewis asked if the timeframe should be changed to no more than 90 days. Clerk Bock said the FCTC could meet after the 90 day timeframe and the approval of the forms would be pushed back to the next FCTC meeting. Clerk Bock offered a friendly amendment to Murray Silverstein s amended motion. Murray Silverstein and Chris Blakeslee accepted the friendly amendment. Third amended motion that once the forms have been vetted by the Judicial Management Council and are on the eportal s test site, the FCTC should make a recommendation to the Supreme Court that the forms remain on the test site for no more than 60 days and be brought back to the FCTC at its next meeting before final approval is sought. Also, recommend that the JMC update the chart in the Implementation Plan to include a 60-day window on the test site. Tom Hall asked how the issue would be brought before the Supreme Court. Judge Munyon said the FCTC normally sends a letter to the Supreme Court with their recommendation. Clerk Bock amended her previous motion. Murray Silverstein and Chris Blakeslee accepted the friendly amendment. Motion that once the forms have been vetted by the Judicial Management Council and are on the eportal s test site, the FCTC should make a recommendation to the Supreme Court that the forms remain on the test site for no more than 60 days and be brought back to the FCTC at its next meeting before final approval is sought. Also, recommend that the JMC update the chart in the Implementation Plan to include a 60-day window on the test site. Once approved by the FCTC, the FCTC would ask the Supreme Court to review and approve the recommendation through an administrative process. Page 7 of 20

11 MOTION CARRIED Clerk Bock discussed moving the landlord complaint forms off of the test site and into production as the forms have been on the test site for 17 months. Although having a complete set of landlord and tenant documents would be fair, it is possible to allow the landlord to file the complaint through the A2J document builder because statistics in the Clerk s office have shown about 70% of tenants do not file an answer and the case proceeds to a default judgment. Judge Munyon asked if an existing form answer was in the Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Hilliard said there was not. Blan Teagle said by the end of 2015, the Housing Umbrella Group (HUG) should have a complete landlord/tenant packet developed. The approach that the JMC Access Workgroup and the Bar committees have taken in the development of these forms is that Family, Small Claims, and Landlord/Tenant forms should not be released until a pleading for both the plaintiff and respondent are available. Judge Munyon said she could understand that approach if the Supreme Court forms contained both; however, the Supreme Court only published one form and it could take upwards to a year and a half to get another form approved through the rules process. James Kowalski said the forms for landlords exist, but the forms for tenants do not. There is a statewide perception of inequity in the forms. Judge Munyon said she did not see a form answer in the Rules of Civil Procedure. Clerk Bock said there are a lot of forms used at the local level that have been created by administrative order as a result of the lack of Supreme Court forms. Judge Munyon pointed out an answer form does not exist for small claims either. It appears rules work needs to be done before the forms are incorporated into the A2J software if approved Supreme Court forms do not already exist. Tom Hall said the approval of the forms is a much longer process. Judge Munyon stated the approval of the forms should be done ahead of the interview questions. Tom stated there are certain forms that the Florida Bar does not consider as approved, for example, the forms attached at the end of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Gagliardi said the summons tell people to file a response and answers to the petitions come in regardless if there is an answer form or not. Motion to move the landlord complaint forms currently on the test site into production on the eportal. MOTION OFFERED: Sharon Bock MOTION SECONDED: Karen Rushing MOTION CARRIED Judge Munyon clarified that the motion immediately above was subject to the previous motion regarding the FCTC s recommendation to the Supreme Court about the forms. The Court ultimately has final approval on that issue. In the letter to the Court, Judge Munyon will indicate the FCTC s recommendation to proceed with adding the landlord complaint forms to the eportal and additionally present the minority view that landlord and tenant forms should be available on the eportal simultaneously. Page 8 of 20

12 AGENDA ITEM IX. A2J Forms Update Blan Teagle gave an update on the Do It Yourself (DIY) Florida Project. The project provides selfrepresented litigants access to web-based interactive document assembly software that allows them to build their own customized pleadings and documents suitable for filing in court throughout the pendency of a lawsuit. This project was an initiative of the Judicial Management Council (JMC) Access Workgroup. It was recommended by the full JMC, under then Chief Justice Polston s leadership, to the Supreme Court and approved by the Supreme Court in the spring of An Implementation Plan was approved by the Supreme Court in the summer of The JMC learned the FCCC already had A2J software. A2J is the software that allows self-represented litigants the ability to do the document assembly. The JMC collaborated with the FCCC to work on the project. The Implementation Plan that was approved by the Supreme Court required the JMC to immediately begin work on family law pleadings. The JMC was also allowed to simultaneously work on small claims and landlord/ tenant forms as long as this did not impede the progress of the family work. This was able to be accomplished because the Supreme Court has a Family Law Forms workgroup. This workgroup developed an entire packet for dissolution of marriage with no dependent or minor child(ren) or property for self-represented litigants to file and complete. At the beginning of November, the JMC submitted a complete family law package to the FCCC for programming. The FCCC had made a tremendous amount of progress in developing initial pleadings in Small Claims-Money Lent. Per the Implementation Plan, the JMC worked with the Florida Bar s Small Claims Rules Committee and reviewed the existing documents that the FCCC already had. The JMC provided critiques, suggestions, and directions on how those documents could be completed and instructions on how to complete documents for both a plaintiff and a defendant. The JMC worked with the Florida Bar s Public Interest Law Section, the Florida Bar s Consumer Protection Law Committee, and the Housing Umbrella Group (HUG) to develop a complete packet for landlords and tenants. The JMC is expecting to have a complete packet for review from the Consumer Protection Law Committee and the HUG by the end of December. This will provide pleadings and document assembly capabilities for both the landlord and the tenant. Currently, pleadings only exist for a landlord. The HUG is completing document assembly capability for the tenant. Two sets of materials could potentially be ready for self-represented litigants to use in both family law and small claims. Judge Munyon asked how long programming would take to implement this on the eportal. Blan indicated that programming has begun on family, but the JMC needs to get with the FCCC to clarify suggested edits before programming can begin for small claims. Melvin Cox said the FCCC will have something on the test site for review in mid-january. Murray Silverstein asked if the forms have to be approved by the Supreme Court. Blan said there is an approval process identified in the Implementation Plan. There are small groups looking at the logic of the decision tree flowcharts. The questions should be asked in specific sequence. Murray asked where the documents would reside for ease of access. Blan said the ultimate goal is to have the documents available on the eportal. Murray said the Florida Bar may want the documents to be included in the Rules of Court, Rules of Judicial Administration, Small Claims, Civil, Family etc. because the documents are currently in those locations. Tom Hall asked if these would be the only approved interactive documents. There are numerous private vendors who offer these forms. Clerk Bock said maintaining the forms on the eportal will allow seamless filing as opposed to other interactive forms available on the internet that would require downloading, printing, and conforming the document to meet Supreme Court rules. Page 9 of 20

13 These forms will be interactively filled out by the pro se filer, usable by the judge, and be able to file the form seamlessly in one action. Blan said the idea of the project was never to say the A2J forms would be the only legally sufficient way to file documents. There are multiple case types where there are not Supreme Court approved forms. This will assure self-represented litigants that they are building the proper pleading to be filed. Murray asked if the interactive process only applies to existing forms or will there be an interactive process for new causes of action. Blan said the goal is that eventually there will be. Clerk Bock said to keep in mind these are not forms, but instead an interactive process where logic is applied. It is a long and difficult process that will not take the place of the forms. Blan said the Implementation Plan allows the FCTC to decide which case type will follow the already approved interactive process for simplified dissolution of marriage, small claims, and landlord/tenant. Judge Munyon suggested that the Supreme Court approved forms will be worked on first and new forms will be vetted by the appropriate Florida Bar committee. AGENDA ITEM X. CCIS 3.0 Update Linda Doggett said the Comprehensive Case Information System (CCIS) is the statewide comprehensive database for Florida. There are approximately 38,000 users. The upgrade to CCIS 3.0 will be completed by October 31, Additional data fields, AOSC15-18, access security, and real time court case information have been incorporated in CCIS 3.0. The quality of data will be verified through new validation processes. Clerks will eventually have the capability to run and verify reports using CCIS as a data source. The CCIS subcommittee will be examining the capabilities within CCIS to identify related cases across the state of Florida. CCIS has a party matching algorithm to relate criminal cases. Clerk Doggett suggested making a policy decision to have more joint IT strategic planning conversations with CCIS as a foundational part of the technology strategies. This enables the Courts and the Clerks to set priorities for scarce resources that are managed daily. Murray Silverstein asked if CCIS 3.0 would include a statewide uniform system with a single source login for all filers to access their local CMS database through the eportal. Clerk Doggett said CCIS has this capability and should be part of the discussion. Judge Perkins said this is not a part of CCIS 3.0, but perhaps it could be included in CCIS 4.0. At this time, CCIS is a state agency user system and is not for attorneys, but hopefully once access and security is improved, attorneys could be added as a user to CCIS. Melvin Cox said some time ago one of the issues before the Access Governance Board was whether there would be a single statewide login to access all counties in Florida, or would every county have their own site. It was decided that every county would have their own site and this issue would be readdressed in the future. Judge Munyon asked if Clerk Doggett wanted the collaboration between the CCIS subcommittee to continue or if formal joint IT strategic planning be done between the FCCC and the Court. Judge Perkins said the context of the CCIS subcommittee came from a request received from Justice Pariente asking if there was a way to identify related cases. The first step of the CCIS subcommittee is to figure out what information is available in CCIS. Algorithms will need to be developed to get that information and incorporate it into the judicial viewers and the Clerk s systems. The CCIS subcommittee will develop recommendations for the FCTC to consider. AGENDA ITEM XI. eportal Subcommittee Status a. Judge Bidwill said a request from the Supreme Court was received to take up the issue of electronic Page 10 of 20

14 service of judges. Carolyn Weber touched on this in her eportal release update earlier. Basically, a filer will be able to add a judge to each individual pleading for e-service. The judge will not be permanently added to the service list and the filer will not have access to the judge s address. b. Judge Bidwill said a couple of years ago the legislature authorized the electronic application and issuance of search and arrest warrants. The Seventeenth Judicial Circuit has been doing this for a couple of years. There is a dedicated secure line with all of the police agencies that allows them to electronically submit the application for search and arrest warrants. The judge reviews the warrant, and, if approved, signs it and submits it back electronically. Even after this electronic process, the search warrant return has to be printed and filed in the Clerk s office. In most of these matters there is not a case initiation so that is a problem with the eportal. Judge Bidwill plans to sit down with his Clerk and law enforcement to see how this could be done and develop a schematic if it can be done. c. Judge Bidwill said there are a lot of things the Court could be doing electronically with the Department of Corrections (DOC). The eportal has a dedicated line that allows the Clerks to send release documents directly to DOC. Judge Bidwill would like to look into electronically filing VOP warrants and post-conviction matters to DOC. Judge Munyon authorized Judge Bidwill to contact them to discuss ways to improve efficiencies with DOC. AGENDA ITEM XII. Private Attorney Batch Filing Presentation Melvin Cox said a number of large law firms have requested the ability to batch file directly to the eportal from their local computer system. This type of filing is needed for large volume operations to increase efficiencies. In 2013, batch filing was implemented on the eportal for State Attorneys and Public Defenders. If added for civil cases, this would be considered an added value service provided to private attorneys. Several things have to be considered to develop batch filing for private attorneys: development work would have to be done on the interface; new case initiation would have to be added; e-commerce component would have to be added; and mapping and processes for docket codes. The FCCC would have to come up with resources to work on this and provide technical support to assist large law firms who would be interested in implementing batch filing. The FCCC proposes the following to address civil batch filing: develop interface standards; publish the standards for the law firms or vendors to test against; allow private vendors (via a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the vendor and the eportal) to offer this service with a standard pre-defined fee to connect with the eportal; the E-Filing Authority Board would approve each vendor based upon successful compliance with the interface standards. This is optional and takes place on the filer s side. Regardless of how a document is filed in the eportal, it looks the same once it is received in the Clerk s office. Judge Stephens asked how authentication is maintained between the third party provider and the attorney. Melvin said the transaction has to include the Florida Bar number and the credentials of the filer which has to be maintained throughout the process. Amy Borman asked would the provider or the attorney do the actual filing of the document. There was a Florida Bar ethics opinion stating only an attorney who has signed the document can actually file the document. Melvin said the original source of the filing would reside with the filer. The provider would provide software and assistance. Amy said some providers may sell filing the documents as a service. Melvin said the MOU would indicate the limits of what the third party provider could do. Page 11 of 20

15 AGENDA ITEM XIII. Proposed Order Workgroup Update Judge Bidwill said the proposed order functionality will be included in the April 2016 eportal release. The specifications will be forthcoming for any circuit wishing to utilize this functionality. AGENDA ITEM XIV. Interpreter Data Workgroup Update Tom Genung discussed a survey that was sent to the Clerks of Court and Court Administrators inquiring if they have the ability to capture this information at the CMS level in their judicial viewers. Forty-eight clerks have a field available for interpreter data information and nine counties do not have a field available. Forty-eight counties also have staff available to input foreign language interpreter data into their CMS and ten of the counties do not. After the Interpreter Data Workgroup meeting on November 17, 2015, it was determined that some Clerks may have the ability to capture that information but did not know they had the ability because the fields are hidden. Six Court Administrators have a field in their judicial viewer to capture the interpreter data information and fourteen circuits did not have the field available. Eleven circuits felt the best way to obtain the information was when the judicial viewers pulled the information from the CMS. Three circuits felt the best way to obtain the information was for Court Administration staff to input the data directly. The workgroup will find out if the Clerks are able to capture this information in their CMS for different divisions. Although the Court is only responsible for providing interpreters in certain types of proceedings, the Florida Rules for Certification and Regulation of Spoken Language Court Interpreters applies to all court events and court related events. There is some indication from the Department of Justice (DOJ) that they would like the Court to provide interpreters in all proceedings, but that is cost prohibitive at this time. Tom said modifications would need to be made to the CMS and judicial viewers in order to capture the information and move it to the courts. Tom offered the following motion for data gathering. Motion for the FCTC to encourage the Clerks to modify their CMS and associated integration to capture interpreter needs and specific language; Clerks contact vendors and report on costs required and time required to make modification; and encourage justice partners to cooperate in the gathering of interpreter needs for inclusion in the case party documentation. MOTION OFFERED: Tom Genung MOTION SECONDED: Judge Scott Stephens Kim Stenger asked if a field would be added to ask if the individual needs an interpreter and would a second field be added to identify the language. She said the clerks would need to know what is being asked to be added to their CMS for standardization. Tom said two fields would need to be added. Judge Perkins asked if there needs to be a designation for the exact type of proceeding for which an interpreter is required. Tom said Florida law only requires interpreters to be provided in certain types of proceedings and right now it is case type driven. The DOJ thinks state courts should be providing language access to everyone and by not doing so means the Court is excluding access. Florida has an active plan to provide language access, but that is limited to specific proceedings and cannot be provided across all case types. Judge Perkins said the Court is recording this information to Page 12 of 20

16 determine if the Court at its own cost has to provide an interpreter for that proceeding. In order to make that determination, the Court needs to know if an interpreter is needed, the type of interpreter needed, and the type of proceeding the interpreter is needed for. If this is not currently being recorded it may need to be added. Tom said if the information is captured in all of the court proceedings the Court would be ahead of the game, but on the other hand it may be determined if the Court is capturing that information they should be responsible for providing interpreters in all of the proceedings, because the Court is already capturing all of the information. Tom stated it is up to the FCTC to decide if the interpreter information should be limited to the case types that are currently required by law, or make it more expansive and capture that information for all court proceedings. Tom said a report can be run listing the case types for which interpreters are needed as long as the data is there. MOTION CARRIED AGENDA ITEM XV. Docket Code Workgroup Update Clerk Rushing said there were two phases in standardization that relates to docket descriptions. On September 7, 2015 the Clerks implemented standardized subdivisions of the case types promulgated through the Summary Reporting System (SRS) on the eportal. Filers should see the same dropdown selection process regardless of which county they are filing in. In addition, Clerks have put in a uniform approach on criminal cases, but not for civil cases. The Clerks have initiated an effort to standardize the civil docket descriptions. There are 327 document description types on the eportal. A Best Practice workgroup has been created. A final phase of the docket descriptions will be implemented in December. The Clerks are providing a minimum standard on the eportal for the filer. There are different docket descriptions being used inside the CMS which is driven by the work processes in the Clerk s office as well as preferences from the judiciary about how certain things should be titled for the judiciary review and use. Clerk Rushing said standardization is there and the Clerks are continuing to work on refining it. AGENDA ITEM XVI. Access Governance Board Update a. Judge Hilliard briefly discussed Lee County s Amended application for Online Electronic Records Access. Motion to approve Lee County s Amended Online Electronic Records Access application. MOTION OFFERED: Judge Robert Hilliard MOTION SECONDED: Judge Josephine Gagliardi b. Brian Peterson said the Access Governance Board received 13 requests from Clerks of Court to move their online electronic records access system from the pilot phase into production. OSCA is working with the FCCC to develop an audit process for Clerks to comply with the administrative order. c. Judge Hilliard provided a list of the 13 counties wishing to move their online electronic Page 13 of 20

17 records access system from the pilot phase into production. Motion to approve Alachua, Broward, Citrus, Duval, Leon, Pinellas, Charlotte, St. Johns, Gadsden, Miami-Dade, Okaloosa, Bay, and Sarasota counties to move their online electronic records access system from the pilot phase into production. MOTION OFFERED: Judge Robert Hilliard MOTION SECONDED: Judge Josephine Gagliardi Judge Munyon asked how the Access Governance Board envisioned the 13 counties fitting into the audit process to comply with amended AOSC14-19 and AOSC Brian Peterson said these are the counties that submitted a letter to move forward and the counties can be approved to do so, but the Clerks still need to comply with the quality assurance aspect of the administrative orders. Clerk Rushing asked what is the next step. Brian said an audit process has to be developed before a county can be approved to end its pilot. Brian would like for OSCA and FCCC to collaborate and develop a process that meets the needs of the Court and the Clerks. Judge Munyon asked if the audit process could be disseminated to the FCTC via in order to accelerate approval of the process prior to the next FCTC. There was agreement with this approach. Judge Munyon reminded everyone that the Supreme Court would have to approve a system before it can move into production. Clerk Rushing said some Clerks have provided access in a broader manner than what the current AO prescribes and the Supreme Court had interest in Clerks not providing that broad access. Are Clerks supposed to terminate the broader access and operate on the pilot access? Judge Munyon said the Supreme Court s approval is what will permit a Clerk to move into production. MOTION CARRIED d. Judge Hilliard informed the members that the Board received two requests from Holmes and Wakulla counties to withdraw their Online Electronic Records Access application. Motion for the FCTC to accept the letters from Holmes and Wakulla counties to withdraw their Online Electronic Records Access applications. MOTION OFFERED: Judge Robert Hilliard MOTION SECONDED: Tom Genung MOTION CARRIED UNANMIOUSLY e. Judge Hilliard informed the members that the Board received correspondences from the Public Defenders Association and the Department of Corrections asking to include a user group for each entity in the Access Security Matrix and the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records. The Board will review the proposals and have a recommendation at the next FCTC meeting. AGENDA ITEM XVII. Data Exchange Workgroup Update Robert Adelardi said the Data Exchange Workgroup has been developing data exchange standards for Page 14 of 20

18 interaction between the Clerk CMS, the judicial viewers, and the state level Judicial Data Management Services system. The standards will be shared with vendors to receive feedback. After such time, the workgroup will bring the updated standards to the FCTC for approval. Judge Munyon encouraged all members to carefully review the draft standards and be prepared to make a recommendation at the FCTC meeting in February. AGENDA ITEM XVIII. Document Storage Workgroup Update Steve Shaw said while attending the Court Technology Conference (CTC) in September he had the opportunity to attend a presentation by Steve Levenson an IT Specialist who works in the Policy and Planning Division with the U.S. Government. He was active in the development of Pacer. The federal system is using PDF. The workgroup has recommended and the FCTC has approved PDF/A as a storage standard. As the Court emerges down the path from TIFF to PDF, the workgroup is trying to model many systems that are already in place as opposed to reinventing the wheel. PDF/A is the direction a lot of people are moving towards. The reason the federal courts have not moved towards PDF/A is the education of the attorneys. On November 10, 2015 Mr. Levenson and a representative from Adobe participated in a Document Storage Workgroup meeting via conference call. Although there are a lot of paper processes that are important for authenticating a document, Mr. Levenson recommended that the Court steer clear of modeling the paper world. Different hurdles have been identified as the workgroup goes through some workflow processes. The workgroup realizes there are several parallel tracks that need to take place while the workgroup is moving towards PDF/A as a storage standard: differentiate between digital and electronic signatures; educate attorneys and the judiciary on what a PDF is and how to produce a PDF document; and creating ADA compliant documents. By the middle of 2016, the Florida Bar anticipates offering an audio/video presentation educating attorneys on PDF s and producing PDF s. A 20-page document survey to help determine potential implementation timeframes and costs associated with storing and using PDF s was sent to the Clerks. The Clerk Technology Subcommittee did a significant review on the responses received from the Clerk s offices. A second survey will be sent to the Clerks as well. By the end of November, a survey will be sent to the judicial viewer vendors to establish how they will use PDF documents. Currently, judicial viewers do conversion on TIFF documents and will have to do conversion on PDF documents. There are some programming and work processes that have to be changed. The judicial viewer has to be able to use different types of formatted documents to provide records to judges. The workgroup is continuing further research and evaluation of obstacles: potential rule changes that may occur along the way; esignature and enotary may cause PDF/A document corruption; internal and external distribution of ADA compliant documents; and funding resources available and the justification for PDF/A. Melvin Cox presented the PDF/A survey results from the Clerks of Court. In September, the FCCC held a number of regional workshops with Clerks and their staff. One of the purposes of those workshops was to let the Clerks know PDF/A is going to be a standard and the Clerks need to get prepared for that. The survey help get the word out about PDF/A and got a lot of people involved in the process. The FCCC emphasized that PDF/A will help with ADA compliance; help retain original intelligence of documents as they are filed; move towards a true paperless court; and the archiving process allows long-term archival of records. The next step is to evaluate some of the issues that Page 15 of 20

19 arose. For example, the eportal places a stamp on all documents that are received. Just placing that stamp on the document actually alters the document and makes the document invalid. The workgroup has to determine a technical way to put the stamp on the document without invalidating the PDF or maybe eliminate stamps in the digital world. The Clerks reviewed what it would take to intake PDF documents, process PDF documents, view PDF documents, and the infrastructure needed to store and backup PDF documents. From the Clerks perspective, redaction and interaction between the courts and official records systems are two interfaces that are impacted by this change. Redaction vendors gave the Clerks a quote and where they are in relation to that technology. A lot of the documents in the court get passed back and forth and filed as official records. All of the vendors are on notice that this standard is coming. It will take on average three years to implement PDF/A. The FCCC grouped counties together by their size and referred to them as Similarly Situated Clerks (SSC). It will cost approximately $17 million to implement this change statewide. The average cost per county ranges from $30,594 for small counties to $724,995 for mega counties. Roughly half of the estimated $17 million is for infrastructure and the other half is for software. The FCCC will continue to work with the Document Storage Workgroup to figure out specifications on dealing with some of the technology obstacles. Some counties can move forward with this implementation quicker than others and the FCCC will encourage those counties to do so once the specifications are in place. The eportal is a big part of this implementation. Once the standard is implemented, the eportal will only send PDF/A documents to the Clerk s case maintenance systems. The eportal needs to be in place so counties will have the ability to test these documents by receiving the documents, running the documents through their CMS, and take the documents through their workflow. There will probably be a discussion on how the eportal can be positioned to process and support PDF/A at the E-Authority Board meeting in January. Murray Silverstein asked if state funds were available to help pay for this project. Judge Munyon said a three to five year timeline could allow the Clerks time to request funding from the Legislature to get this accomplished in order to comply with Florida statute. AGENDA ITEM XIX. E-Warrants Update Judge Munyon reminded everyone that FDLE gave a presentation to the FCTC over a year ago. FDLE had received a grant from the Department of Justice to put together an electronic warrants (e- Warrants) pilot project. Lee Herring gave an overview of the e-warrants system. The project started in 2011 with a grant from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. FDLE received the grant to build the system with the key factors of success being timeliness of entering warrants, accuracy and volume. Timeliness included automating a paper process, accuracy allowed the information to only be entered once, and volume would increase by allowing more warrants to be entered into the Florida Crime Information Center (FCIC) and National Crime Information Center (NCIC) system so the information could be used to disqualify purchases of firearms. FDLE started with workgroup counties in Alachua, Lee, Miami-Dade, Okaloosa, Palm Beach, and St. Lucie counties. FDLE met with each county and discussed their current process for entering warrants. A web-based application was developed. This application will be accessible to any law enforcement or criminal justice agency through the Criminal Justice Network or CJNet. FDLE defined how the system would work through roles and permissions. FDLE built functionality into the system to allow agencies to control their workflows through the use of queues and user permissions. There are five Page 16 of 20

20 roles in the e-warrants system: a requester is an authorized user that initiates the warrant affidavit; a screener is an authorized user (usually someone from the State Attorney s Office) that reviews the charges and probable cause of the warrant; an approver reviews the warrant affidavit for approval (usually a judge or an authorized user acting on behalf of the judge); an issuer (usually someone working for the Clerk of Court) is the recording agency or authorized user responsible for assigning a court case number to the warrant affidavit; and an owner (usually someone from the Sheriff s Office or another authorized criminal justice agency) is the authorized user responsible for entering the warrant into state and local systems, maintaining the warrant, and responding to any hit confirmations when the individual is arrested. There are three levels of permissions: a user has minimum functionality assigned to their duties in the warrant process; a supervisor assigns warrant requests to users and manage queues in the warrant process; and an administrator is responsible for user management, managing user account requests, and editing user information. Ebony Tisby demonstrated the e-warrants system from creating an affidavit to submitting the affidavit to FCIC. Judge Perkins asked if anyone is administering or attesting to the affidavit when the affidavit is sworn, or does an officer only acknowledge that they are giving the affidavit under oath. Ebony said at this time it is only the officer acknowledging the affidavit under oath. Judge Munyon asked if any live pilots are in Florida. Lee said user acceptance testing has been done in St. Lucie County. FDLE plans to create a test environment in the next few months and have a group of people test the system. Judge Bidwill said in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit s warrant system, the law enforcement agency sends the warrant application which is sworn to in front of another police officer. Judge Bidwill asked if FDLE had a legal opinion on swearing to affidavits. Lee said there is functionality built within the system at the requestor role that allows the requestor to forward the affidavit to a chain of command to get approval to request the warrant. Judge Bidwill said F.S (3)(b) states, is supported by an oath or affirmation administered by the judge or other person authorized by law to administer oaths. Lee said they will take this information back to FDLE s general counsel. Judge Bidwill asked if discussions have been had with DOC for violation of probation warrants. Lee said FDLE has not had discussions with DOC, but any criminal justice agency could be set up as a requestor. There should not be any limitations in the functionality of the system to set those entities up within the e-warrants system and forwarding it through. At this point, FDLE is trying to get the person s warrant standard process up and running and expand on the functionality from there. There are a lot of moving parts with a lot of different players. AGENDA ITEM XX. Standards Consolidation Workgroup Update The Standards Consolidation Workgroup combined all of the technology standards into one document. Jannet Lewis gave a high-level overview of the consolidated technology standards. The standards are formatted in a way that they can expand and contract to allow the combining of all of the standards, but at the same allows distinct separation for major parts. This new format allows easy review and cite sections that specifically reference rules. Although retired, Jannet wanted to acknowledge Judge Reynolds for taking the lead on the final format. The Technology Standards are renumbered in a more user-friendly way for reference purposes. Part 2 deals with e-filing, Part 3 deals with access to court records, Part 4 deals with CAPS, Part 5 deals with integration and interoperability, and Part 6 deals with notifications by Clerks for system modifications. For example, any standard beginning with the number 2 relates to e-filing. The workgroup added an appendix at the end of each related part. In addition, the Page 17 of 20

21 workgroup plans to add footnotes at the end of the standards to track historical changes. Jannet commended Lakisha Hall for combining all of the technology standards into one standards document with the new format. Once the standards are approved by the Supreme Court, all of the administrative orders that reference the separate discrete standards will have to be addressed. Motion to approve the consolidated version of the technology standards in the new format. MOTION OFFERED: Jannet Lewis MOTION SECONDED: Murray Silverstein MOTION CARRIED UNANMIOUSLY Jannet continued discussing future changes to the standards: develop a method to have discrete hyperlinking to maximize available technology; focus on eliminating duplication; clean up the language; decide where the master document would reside; and develop an archival process to keep track of historical versions. Jannet pointed out the proposed changes the workgroup made to the standards thus far. Justin Horan went over section Confidentiality and Sensitive Information. He said this section refers to the second button on the eportal. The language on the eportal does not take into account Rule Public Access to and Protection of Judicial Branch Records and Rule Minimization of the Filing of Sensitive Information. Currently if a filer chooses button 2, they would not be allowed to file a motion, instead they would have to file a notice of confidentiality which is against the Rules of Judicial Administration. Carolyn Weber is going to add the capability for a filer to file a motion. Justin and Murray Silverstein are working on developing language for the eportal and the standards. The language on the eportal needs to mirror the language in the standards. Murray said the standards document is dynamic and evolving. The document will be updated as the FCTC/RJA Joint Workgroup review the rules and omit technology standards from the rules. Judge Munyon asked that once the final document is ready for the FCTC s vote, the workgroup gives the FCTC at least two weeks to delve all of the changes because there is a lot of information to absorb in the document. Motion to approve the changes to the consolidated document minus section Confidentiality and Sensitive Information. MOTION OFFERED: Jannet Lewis MOTION SECONDED: Judge Robert Hilliard MOTION CARRIED UNANMIOUSLY AGENDA ITEM XXI. FCTC/RJA Joint Workgroup Update Murray Silverstein gave an update on the work of the FCTC/RJA Joint Workgroup. The workgroup s objectives were to look at the E-Filing standards and the Rules of Judicial Administration that particularly dealt with e-filing (rule 2.525) and e-service (rule 2.516) and identify overlapping issues and eliminate the duplication. A subgroup of the workgroup was formed to begin the challenging process of drafting amendments to the RJA and the standards. The workgroup is going to propose Page 18 of 20

22 adding a new section called Electronic Standards. This rule will essentially say all electronic filings must comply with the technology standards. AGENDA ITEM XXII. RJA Committee Actions Update Amy Borman discussed the four referrals the RJA Committee received from the FCTC. Two of the referrals, service list origination and deletion of the filing and service size of documents within Rules and 2.516, have essentially been put on hold as the RJA/FCTC Joint Committee have been going through the RJA rules. The RJA Committee is in the process of working on the other two referrals; studying the creation of a rule authorizing electronic judicial signatures and adding additional certification to the attorney signature Rule that the filer certify compliance with the ADA requirements of Rule The next RJA meeting will be held in January at the Florida Bar meeting. AGENDA ITEM XXIII. Retention of Paper Documents John Tomasino discussed a letter received from the FCTC regarding the retention of court records. The preference of the Judicial Records Committee is to not do a top to bottom review of the records retention schedule that is appended to the RJA. This appendix only deals with the records that are in possession of Court Administration. Rule Records Retention deals with records that are in possession of the Clerks of Court. The Supreme Court would like the FCTC to make specific suggestions regarding what changes that might be needed to the records retention schedule that deals with the court administrative records. The Supreme Court may be able to get those changes done expeditiously as opposed to doing a top to bottom review of the entire appendix. Judge Munyon said the FCTC had some concern that many of the rules that deals with the retention of court records by the Clerks are for paper documents. Chris Blakeslee said Clerks have to keep paper copies of affidavits. The rule needs to be looked at to identify what could be kept electronically versus paper. Judge Munyon said the FCTC referred things to the RJA, the Probate Rules Committee, and the Criminal Rules Committee because they all have specific requirements for the retention of paper documents in their rule sets. Murray Silverstein said the hope is to add the technology standards as an appendix to the RJA. The records retention schedule could be updated to cover the remaining paper documents and the new retention schedule for digitized records. The retention schedule could be eliminated and a standard for court records maintained by the Court could be added. Judge Munyon said the current retention schedule is only for court administration records and does capture electronic data in addition to paper records. John Tomasino said the retention schedule does not address what happens once a paper record is digitized. Tom Hall said the original set was drafted using the Secretary of State standards as a model. Tom said under the current definition of court records, all of the records in the eportal are not court records. The eportal is a local agency that is governed by the Secretary of State s retention schedule. Their retention schedule has nothing in it that resembles a court record retention schedule. Tom Genung will get with the Court Administrators to look at the retention schedule and develop a list of changes that could be made in the interim until a complete revision of the retention schedule is appropriate and look at adding language that addresses what happens once a record is converted into digital format. Clerk Bock said there are several issues for electronic storage: a tremendous cost; determining what needs to be kept indefinitely; and security to maintain the records for an indefinite Page 19 of 20

23 amount of time. Tom Hall said at one point there was a committee that dealt with these types of issues. Tom Genung said the committee still exits. Tom Genung will report his findings from the Court Administrators at the next FCTC meeting. AGENDA ITEM XXIV. Other Items/Wrap Up Judge Munyon advised everyone the next FCTC meeting is scheduled for February 10-11, 2016 in Orlando. Motion to adjourn the FCTC meeting MOTION OFFERED: Judge Terence Perkins MOTION SECOND: Chris Blakeslee MOTION CARRIED UNANMIOUSLY Page 20 of 20

24 Agenda Item III. FCTC Approved Items from November 2015 Meeting

25 FCTC - Approved Items November 2015 FCTC approved a motion from the Certification Subcommittee that a cost analysis be part of the Certification Subcommittee s charge in making recommendations to the FCTC. FCTC approved a motion to recommend to the Supreme Court that once the interview questions and decision trees have been vetted by the Judicial Management Council and are on the Portal s test site, the items remain on the test site for no more than 60 days and be brought back to the FCTC at its next meeting for final recommendation. Also, recommend that the JMC update the chart in the Implementation Plan to include a 60-day window on the test site. Once approved by the FCTC, the FCTC would ask the Supreme Court to review and approve the recommendation through an administrative process. FCTC approved a motion to recommend to the Supreme Court that the existing Landlord Complaint interactive forms currently on the test site be moved into production on the Portal. FCTC approved a recommendation from the Interpreter Data Workgroup for the FCTC to encourage that the Clerks modify their CMS and associated integration to capture interpreter needs and specific language; that Clerks contact vendors and report on costs required and time required to make modification; and encourage justice partners to cooperate in the gathering of interpreter needs for inclusion in the case party documentation. FCTC approved a recommendation from the Access Governance Board to approve Lee County s amended Online Electronic Records Access application. FCTC approved a recommendation from the Access Governance Board to recommend that the Supreme Court approve Alachua, Broward, Citrus, Duval, Leon, Pinellas, Charlotte, St. Johns, Gadsden, Miami- Dade, Okaloosa, Bay, and Sarasota counties to move their online electronic records access system from the pilot phase into production. FCTC approved a motion from the Access Governance Board to allow Holmes and Wakulla counties to withdraw their Online Electronic Records Access applications.

26 FCTC approved a motion from the Standards Consolidation Workgroup to approve the consolidated version of the Technology Standards in the new format. Work will continue and the final version will be vetted by the FCTC and forwarded to the Supreme Court for approval. FCTC approved a motion from the Standards Consolidation Workgroup to approve the consolidated document minus section Confidentiality and Sensitive Information. Once completed and approved by the FCTC, the document will be forwarded to the Supreme Court for their approval.

27 Agenda Item IV. Court Application Processing System (CAPS) Update

28 CAPS Viewer Implementation Timeline Circuit County Escambia Okaloosa Santa Rosa Walton Franklin Gadsden Jefferson Leon Liberty Wakulla Columbia Dixie Hamilton Lafayette Madison Suwannee Taylor Clay Duval Nassau Current CAPS Viewer Implementation Date Implemented Current CAPS Viewer Implementation Date Implemented CAPS CMS CAPS CMS Circuit County System System(s) System System(s) Civil Criminal Go-Live Date Go-Live Date Civil Criminal (civil/criminal) (civil/criminal) Mentis March 2016 March 2016 Benchmark Orange Mentis Implemented Implemented November 2014 Odyssey Mentis March 2016 March 2016 Benchmark 9 Osceola Mentis March 2016 March 2016 Benchmark Mentis Implemented Implemented April 2012 Clericus Mentis Implemented Implemented November 2013 Clericus Hardee ICMS Implemented Implemented July 2013 Clericus Highlands ICMS Implemented Implemented July 2013 Clericus 10 Mentis Implemented Implemented March 2014 Clericus Polk ICMS Implemented Implemented August 2014 New Vision Mentis March 2016 March 2016 CDS Mentis Implemented Implemented March 2014 Clericus Dade Mentis March 2016 TBD Odyssey/CJIS 11 Mentis March 2016 March 2016 Benchmark/JIS Mentis Implemented Implemented March 2014 Clericus Desoto Mentis Implemented Implemented September 2014 Clericus Mentis Implemented Implemented March 2014 Clericus Manatee Mentis Implemented Implemented January 2012 Clericus 12 Sarasota Pioneer Implemented Implemented July 2013 Benchmark Mentis Implemented Implemented July 2014 Clericus Mentis Implemented Implemented July 2014 Clericus Hillsborough JAWS Implemented Implemented April 2013/April 2014 Odyssey 13 Mentis Implemented Implemented July 2014 Clericus Mentis Implemented Implemented July 2014 Clericus Bay ICMS Implemented Implemented February 2014 Benchmark Mentis Implemented Implemented July 2014 Clericus Calhoun ICMS Implemented Implemented January 2014 Clericus Mentis Implemented Implemented July 2014 Clericus Gulf ICMS Implemented Implemented January 2014 Clericus Mentis May 2016 Implemented July 2014 CDS/Clericus 14 Holmes ICMS Implemented Implemented January 2014 Clericus Jackson ICMS Implemented Implemented January 2014 Clericus CORE August 2016 August 2016 Odyssey Washington ICMS Implemented Implemented January 2014 Clericus CORE Implemented Implemented November 2012 Showcase CORE December 2016 December 2016 Clericus 15 Palm Beach In-House (JVS) Implemented Implemented 2009 Showcase Citrus Hernando Lake Marion Sumter Pasco Pinellas Flagler Putnam St. Johns Volusia Alachua Baker Bradford Gilchrist Levy Union Mentis Implemented Implemented November 2015 Benchmark Monroe JAWS April 2016 April 2016 Odyssey 16 Mentis Implemented Implemented September 2015 Clericus Mentis Implemented Implemented July 2013 Showcase Broward In-House Implemented Implemented June 2013 Odyssey 17 Mentis March 2016 March 2016 Clericus Mentis Implemented Implemented March 2015 Clericus Brevard ICMS Implemented Implemented September 2015 FACTS 18 Seminole In-House Implemented Implemented September 2014 In-House JAWS September 2016 September 2016 Clericus/FACTS JAWS Implemented December 2016 June 2015/ Odyssey Indian River Mentis Implemented Implemented July 2014 Benchmark Martin Mentis Implemented Implemented December 2013 Clericus Pioneer Implemented Implemented June 2015 Benchmark 19 Okeechobee Mentis Implemented Implemented December 2013 Clericus Pioneer June 2016 June 2016 Clericus St. Lucie Mentis Implemented Implemented September 2014 Benchmark Pioneer Implemented Implemented June 2015 Benchmark Pioneer Implemented Implemented December 2015 In-House Charlotte Mentis Implemented Implemented November 2014 Benchmark Collier Mentis April 2016 April 2016 Showcase ICMS Implemented Implemented 1999 Courtview Glades Mentis Implemented Implemented February 2014 Clericus 20 ICMS Implemented Implemented 1999 Clericus Hendry Mentis Implemented Implemented February 2014 Clericus ICMS Implemented Implemented 1999 Clericus Lee Mentis March 2016 March 2016 Odyssey ICMS Implemented Implemented 1999 Clericus ICMS Implemented Implemented 1999 Benchmark ICMS Implemented Implemented 1999 Clericus In-House systems not CAPS compliant - No certification demos scheduled at this time Note: Implementation dates are subject to change due to available funding Updated: January 25, 2016

29 Agenda Item V. E-Filing Progress Report and Service Desk Report

30 Florida Courts E-Filing Authority Board E-Filing Portal Progress Report Period January 2016 Carolyn Weber, Portal Program Manager

31 January E-Filing Statistics Category Number E-Filing Submissions 1,117,278 Individual Documents Submitted Total Number of Pages 1,651,993 7,486,083 Average Submissions per Weekday 54,810 Highest Volume Day: Jan ,552 Peak # of filings in 1 hour: 3 pm 7,801 New Case Initiation 53,078 Portal Users 106,023

32 Monthly E-Filing Submissions for Jan through Jan ,000,000 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000, , , , ,000 0 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Submissions Documents

33 January Average Hourly Submissions 9,000 8,000 7,801 7,366 7,000 6,729 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 6,027 5,495 5,112 4,408 3,900 3,302 2,000 1, ,644 1, am 1am 2am 3am 4am 5am 6am 7am 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm 9pm 10pm 11pm

34 Average # Days to Docket In January Number of Days Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan

35 % Filings Returned to Filer for Correction in January 2.21% 2.20% 2.28% 2.22% 2.16% 2.18% 2.10% 2.09% 2.09% 2.14% 2.13% 2.06% 1.91% Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16

36 Portal Activity by Filer Role for January Filer Roles Total # of Accounts # of Submissions Attorneys 67,758 1,040,147 Self-Represented Litigants 30,526 4,860 Judges ,640 Mediators 558 1,210 Process Servers ,913 Court Reporters Mental Health Professionals Law Enforcement 330 2,645 State Agents Local Agents 6 13 Creditor Media 42 1,510

37 Pending Queue Returns by Filer Role for January Filer Role No. Submissions Returned % Total Submissions Attorney 20, % Self-Represented Litigant % Clerk % Judge % Mediator % Process Server % Court Reporter % Mental Health Professional % Law Enforcement % State Agent % Local Agent % Media %

38 Self-Represented Litigant Accounts and Submissions 35,000 30,000 25,000 23,953 25,606 27,257 28,821 30,506 22,148 20,000 18,466 20,366 15,000 10,000 10,412 11,750 13,343 15,036 16,730 Accounts Submissions 5,000 3,592 3,630 4,181 4,167 4,018 4,407 4,718 4,977 4,960 5,668 4,839 4,617 4,860 0 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16

39 Criminal E-Filing Implementation AOSC13-48 Extensions Remaining State Attorney and Public Defender Implementation in process 6 th Circuit Pasco Extended to July 1, 2016

40 Portal Projects Team Project Criminal E-Filing Bulk E-Filing Release District Courts of Appeal Department of Corrections DIY Documents Status Continue to implement remaining State Attorney and Public Defenders with Bulk E-Filing Working to implement with Judicial Circuits and their Viewers, Law Enforcement and Third Party Vendors Moves to Production April 15, 2016 and includes submitting Proposed Orders, E-service to Judges, Third Party Vendors As the DCAs convert to efacts, implement E-Filing through the Portal Work with the DOC to assist them with saving the documents submitted by the counties to their DMS and other Projects As approved, add A2J interviews to the Portal to assist the Self- Represented Litigant

41 Judicial E-Filing Implementation Status January 2016 Filings

42 Judicial E-Filing Status Circuit County Docket Codes Judicial E-Filing Method Judicial E-Filing Hearing Officer 1 st Escambia Complete 0 Filings Submitted 1 st Okaloosa Complete Interface Batch 169 Filing Submitted 1 st Santa Rosa Complete 0 1 st Walton Complete 0 2 nd Franklin Complete Single Session 0 Filings Submitted 2 nd Gadsden Complete Single Session 0 Filing Submitted 2 nd Jefferson Complete Single Session 92 Filings Submitted 2 nd Leon Complete Single Session 756 Filings Submitted 2 nd Liberty Complete Single Session 0 2 nd Wakulla Complete Single Session 17 Filings Submitted

43 Judicial E-Filing Status Circuit County Docket Codes Judicial E-Filing Method Judicial E-Filing Hearing Officer 3 rd Columbia Complete Single Session 452 Filings Submitted 3 rd Dixie Complete Single Session 55 Filings Submitted 3 rd Hamilton Complete Single Session 123 Filings Submitted 3 rd Lafayette Complete Single Session 0 Filings Submitted 3 rd Madison Complete Single Session 145 Filings Submitted 3 rd Suwannee Complete Single Session 0 Filing Submitted 3 rd Taylor Complete Single Session 75 Filings Submitted 4 th Clay Complete Single Session 162 Filings Submitted 4 th Duval Complete Single Session 2,219 Filings Submitted 4 th Nassau Single Session 0

44 Judicial E-Filing Status Circuit County Docket Codes Judicial E-Filing Method Judicial E-Filing Hearing Officer 5 th Citrus Complete 0 5 th Hernando Complete 0 5 th Lake Complete Single Session 0 Filings Submitted 5 th Marion Complete 0 5 th Sumter Complete 0 6 th Pasco Complete 0 6 th Pinellas Complete 0 7 th Flagler Complete 0 7 th Putnam Complete 0 7 th St. Johns Complete Single Session 0 Filings Submitted

45 Judicial E-Filing Status Circuit County Docket Codes Judicial E-Filing Method Judicial E-Filing Hearing Officer 7 th Volusia 0 Filings Submitted 8 th Alachua Complete Interface Batch 231 Filings Submitted 8 th Baker 0 8 th Bradford 0 8 th Gilchrist Complete 0 8 th Levy Complete Interface Batch 1 Filing Submitted 8 th Union 0 9 th Orange Complete Single Session 1,517 Filings Submitted 9 th Osceola Complete Single Session 0 Filings Submitted

46 Judicial E-Filing Status Circuit County Docket Codes Judicial E-Filing Method Judicial E-Filing Hearing Officer 10 th Hardee Complete 0 10 th Highlands Complete 3 Filing Submitted 10 th Polk Complete 0 Filing Submitted 11 th Miami-Dade Complete 243 Filings Submitted 12 th Desoto Complete Interface Batch 0 12 th Manatee Interface Batch 0 12 th Sarasota Interface Batch 0 13 th Hillsborough 0 14 th Bay Complete Interface Batch 19 Filings Submitted 14 th Calhoun Complete Interface Batch 0

47 Judicial E-Filing Status Circuit County Docket Codes Judicial E-Filing Method Judicial E-Filing Hearing Officer 14 th Gulf Complete Interface Batch 0 14 th Holmes Complete Interface Batch 0 14 th Jackson Complete Interface Batch 0 14 th Washington Complete Interface Batch 0 15 th Palm Beach Complete Interface Batch 8,052 Filings Submitted 16 th Monroe Complete Single Session 0 17 th Broward Complete Single Session 152Filings Submitted 18 th Brevard Complete Single Session 5,951 Filings Submitted** 100% Participation by their Judges 18 th Seminole Single Session 0 Filings Submitted

48 Judicial E-Filing Status Circuit County Docket Codes Judicial E-Filing Method Judicial E-Filing Hearing Officer 19 th Indian River Complete 19 th Martin Complete Interface Batch Single Session Interface Batch Single Session 75 Filings Submitted 741 Filings Submitted 14 Filings Submitted 320 Filings Submitted 19 th Okeechobee Complete Single Session 25 Filing Submitted 19 th St. Lucie Complete Interface Batch Single Session 138 Filing Submitted 1,340 Filings Submitted 20 th Charlotte Complete Single Session 0 20 th Collier Complete Single Session 0 Filing Submitted 20 th Glades Complete Single Session 0 20 th Hendry Complete Single Session 0 Filing Submitted 20 th Lee Complete Single Session 308 Filings Submitted The Florida Supreme Court Complete Single Session 641 Filings Submitted

49 Florida Courts E-Filing Authority Board Service Desk Report January 2016

50 E-Portal Service Desk Types of Incidents Customer Service Incidents (Section 2) Attorneys Process Servers Mental Health Professionals Pro Se Mediators Law Enforcement Judges Court Reporters Creditors Media Local Agent State Agent Technical and System Support Incidents (Section 3) Clerks Other Stakeholders

51 Customer Service Incidents January 2016 Statistics Policies and Procedures Page 5 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 Incidents Received 2,786 2,182 2,852 Incidents Closed 2,770 2,191 2,830 Incidents Open at End of Month Average Acknowledgement.05 Days.03 Days.09 Days Time per Incident 29 Minutes 14 Minutes Average Resolution.12 Days.09 Days Time per Incident 1 Hour 4 Minutes 48 Minutes # of Filings 1,051,469 1,079,926 1,109,466 # of Documents 1,581,415 1,635,676 1,642, Minutes.16 Days 1 Hour 28 Minutes

52 Judge Incidents January 2016 Statistics Policies and Procedures Page 5 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 Incidents Received Incidents Closed Incidents Open at End of Month Average Acknowledgement.01 Days.00 Days.06 Days Time per Incident 6 Minutes 2 Minutes Average Resolution.02 Days.01 Days Time per Incident 12 Minutes 6 Minutes # of Filings 20,313 22,068 23,632 # of Documents 22,471 24,446 26, Minutes.11 Days 57 Minutes

53 Pro Se Incidents January 2016 Statistics Policies and Procedures Page 5 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 Incidents Received Incidents Closed Incidents Open at End of Month Average Acknowledgement.06 Days.03 Days.11 Days Time per Incident 33 Minutes 18 Minutes Average Resolution.14 Days.09 Days Time per Incident 1 Hour 14 Minutes 50 Minutes # of Filings 4,839 4,617 4,820 # of Documents 8,307 7,855 8, Minutes.21 Days 1 Hour 53 Minutes

54 Attorney Incidents January 2016 Statistics Policies and Procedures Page 5 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 Incidents Received 2,549 1,940 2,569 Incidents Closed 2,535 1,935 2,550 Incidents Open at End of Month Average Acknowledgement.05 Days.03 Days.09 Days Time per Incident 26 Minutes 14 Minutes Average Resolution.11 Days.09 Days Time per Incident 1 Hour 0 Minutes 48 Minutes # of Filings 987,333 1,012,899 1,038,532 # of Documents 1,502,076 1,553,926 1,557, Minutes.16 Days 1 Hour 26 Minutes

55 Technical/System Support Incidents January 2016 Statistics Policies and Procedures Page 5 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 Incidents Received Incidents Closed Incidents Open at End of Month Average Acknowledgement.04 Days.03 Days.04 Days Time per Incident 19 Minutes 15 Minutes Average Resolution.43 Days.28 Days Time per Incident 3 Hours 53 Minutes 2 Hours 29 Minutes # of Filings 5,443 6,015 6,050 # of Documents 6,283 7,096 6, Minutes.35 Days 3 Hours 11 Minutes

56 Top 10 Types of Incidents For: Attorneys Account Set-Up Case Number Not Found Case Question E-Service Issue Login Issues Outage Password Reset Payment Question Pending Registration Referred To County Self-Represented Litigant/Pro Se Account Set-Up Case Number Not Found Case Question Filing Status Check General Question Login Issues Outage Password Reset Pending Queue Reason Referred To County Judges Attorney Access Question E-Service Issue Password Reset Pending Registration Referred To County

57 Agenda Item IX. E-Portal Subcommittee Update

58 E-Service Recommendation from State Attorneys and Public Defenders Nichole Hanscom The State Attorneys and Public Defenders would like to pursue a new feature for e- service on the e-portal where e-service can occur via web service instead of e- mail. The e-portal would queue the e-service and through web service, the PDO or SAO server would login and download the document directly into the case management system, including the XML data identifying the case and the document category information. It would download all documents for any user linked to our agency. In other words, instead of the e-portal ing documents to designated addresses for the offices, we can choose for it to be delivered via web service from the portal. This would eliminate the problems associated with and ideally, it would give us control over how we are notified about eservice. It s an idea very similar in design to the Proposed Orders going to the Judges. This may potentially require a change in the rule to allow alternate forms of electronic service via the e-portal.

59 Local Document Receiving Mike Smith Governance: Florida Supreme Court Standards for Electronic Access to the Courts Local Document Receiving When information has been submitted electronically to the Clerk of Court s Office, via the Florida Courts E-Portal, the Clerk of Court will review the filed document and determine whether it contains the required information for placement into the clerk s case maintenance system. If, during the local document receiving process a determination is made that the filed document conflicts with any court rules or standards, then the clerk shall place the filed document into a pending queue. A filing may be placed in a pending queue for any reason that prevents the filing from being accepted into the clerk s case maintenance system, e.g. documents that cannot be associated with a pending case; a corrupt file1; or an incorrect filing fee. Once placed in a pending queue, the clerk shall attempt to contact the filer and correct the identified issue(s). The filing will remain in a pending queue for no more than 5 (five) business days, after which time the filing will be docketed, as filed, and processed for judicial review. My Issue: This is THE official record. If presented in open court to a judge, the attorney would probably be asked to present a clean copy. That being said (and debated) the other issue is that the document, as is, could not properly be OCR d. In fact I would assume that all of the words that are masked in some way from the vertical line would not be searchable meaning that it would not pass the minimal requirements for JBV s and document storage, etc. Our clerk folks had to accept as is and noted that they tried to get a clean copy because they anticipate a Judge asking for one. As the CTO for the Fourth Circuit I would expect a clean copy for our Judges.

60 Agenda Item XV. Access Governance Board Update

61 Counties requesting to move their online electronic records access system out of the pilot phase and into production 1. Alachua County 2. Baker County 3. Bradford County 4. Calhoun County 5. Columbia County 6. DeSoto County 7. Dixie County 8. Flagler County 9. Franklin County 10. Gilchrist County 11. Glades County 12. Gulf County 13. Hardee County 14. Hendry County 15. Hernando County 16. Highlands County 17. Indian River County 18. Jackson County 19. Jefferson County 20. Lafayette County 21. Lake County 22. Liberty County 23. Madison County 24. Marion County 25. Martin County 26. Nassau County 27. Okeechobee County 28. Pinellas County 29. Putnam County 30. Santa Rosa County 31. St Johns County 32. Sumter County 33. Union County 34. Walton County 35. Washington County

62 Counties requesting to move their online electronic records access system out of the pilot phase and into production with no issues 1. Baker County 2. Bradford County 3. Calhoun County 4. Columbia County 5. DeSoto County 6. Dixie County 7. Flagler County 8. Franklin County 9. Gilchrist County 10. Glades County 11. Gulf County 12. Hardee County 13. Highlands County 14. Indian River County 15. Jackson County 16. Jefferson County 17. Lafayette County 18. Lake County 19. Liberty County 20. Madison County 21. Martin County 22. Nassau County 23. Okeechobee County 24. Putnam County 25. Santa Rosa County 26. St Johns County 27. Sumter County 28. Union County 29. Walton County 30. Washington County

63 Counties requesting to move their online electronic records access system out of the pilot phase and into production with inadvertent release or unauthorized access to confidential information 1. Alachua County 2. Hendry County 3. Hernando County 4. Marion County 5. Pinellas County

64 Agenda Item XV. b. Monroe County Extension Request

65

66

67 Agenda Item XV. c. Updating the Access Security Matrix

68 User Role (Subscribers) Internal Access by Authorization 1. Judges, JA's, Court Personnel, Clerk Personnel Access Security Matrix (PROPOSED WITH PUBLIC DEFENDER INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS) Internet Users (External Access): 2. State Attorney 3. Attorney of Record 4. Party Access 5. Public in Clerk's Office and Registered Users 6. General Government and Constitutional Officers 7. Public Internet (Anonymous) Law Enforcement (local state and federal) 9. Attorney General, Dept. of Children and Family 10. School Board (Truancy) 11. Commercial Purchasers of Bulk Records 12. Public Defender (institutional access) 1 ***VOR Statute List (F.S.): 787, 794, 796, 800, 825, 827, 847, 921 VOR is at the case level A. All but expunged, or sealed under Ch. 943 B. All but expunged, or sealed under Ch. 943 or sealed under rule C. All but expunged, or sealed under Ch. 943 and sealed under rule 2.420; or confidential D. All but expunged, sealed or confidential; record images viewable upon request E. Case number, party names, dockets only F. Case number and party names only G. Case number only H. No access See Access Details Case - Charge/Filing Description PRIVACY UCN Applicable rules and statutes County Criminal Appeals P A B B C D C D B C C D B AP Rule 2.420(d) & (f) County Criminal Appeals Sexual Abuse VOR A B B D D D D B D D D B AP Rule 2.420(d) & (f); (2)(h), F.S.; Chs. 794, 796, 800, 827, & 847, F.S. County Civil Appeals P A B B B D C D B C C D C AP Rule 2.420(d) Circuit Civil P A B B B D C D B C C D C CA Rule 2.420(d) & Rule Jimmy Ryce Act VOR A B B D D D D B D D D B CA Rule 2.420(d); Chapter 119, F.S.; (1)&(2), F.S. Mortgage Foreclosure P A B B B D C D B C C D C CA Rule 2.420(d) & Rule Circuit Civil Private (Sexual Abuse & Medical Malpractice VOR A B B D D D D B D D D D CA Rule 2.420(d)(1)(B)(xiii); (2)(h), F.S.; (1)(h), F.S. & (5)(a), F.S. Circuit Civil - Trusts (Pre 2010) P A B B B D C E B C C E C CA Rule 2.420(d)(1)(B); Chapter 119, F.S. & (5)(a), F.S. County Civil P A B B B D C D B C C D C CC Rule 2.420(d) & Rule County Foreclosure P A B B B D C D B C C D C CC Rule 2.420(d) & Rule Felony P A B B C D C D B C C D B CF Rule 2.420(d) & Chapter 119, F.S. Felony - sexual cases VOR A B B C D D D B D D D B CF Rule 2.420(d)(1) & (2)(h)1.b or c, F.S., Chs. 794, 796, 800, 827, & 847, F.S. Juvenile Delinquency P A B B B G G G B G G G B CJ (1) & (2), F.S.; (2), F.S.; (1), F.S. & (3), F.S. County Ordinance Infractions P A B B B D C D B C C D C CO Rule County Ordinance - Arrests P A B B C D C D B C C D B CO Rule Probate P A D D D D D E D D D E D CP Rule 2.410; (5)(a), F.S. Probate Miscellaneous P A D D D D D E D D D E D CP Rule 2.410; (5)(a), F.S. Criminal Traffic P A B B C D C D B C C D B CT Rule 2.420(d) & (f) Juvenile Dependency P A B B C G G G B B G G G DP Rule 2.420(d); (3)&(4)(a), F.S. Juvenile Truancy P A B B B G G G B B B G G DP (3), F.S. Domestic Relations P A B B B D C E B C C E C DR Rule 2.420(d); Chapter 119, F.S. & (5)(a), F.S. Domestic Relations Adoption (FINAL) P A G D D G G G G G G G G DR (1)(2), F.S. & (4)(i), F.S. DR Adoption (while open and pending) P A G B D G G G G G G G G DR (1)(2), F.S. & (4)(i), F.S. Domestic Relations - Paternity P A B B B D C E B C C E C DR Rule 2.420(d); , F.S. & (5)(a), F.S. Domestic Relations - Paternity -sealed P A F F F F F F F F F F F DR , F.S.; , F.S.; (9), F.S.; (1), F.S. & (5)(a), F.S. Delayed Birth Certificate P A B B B D C E B C C E C DR Rule 2.420(d)(1)(B)(vi); (1), F.S.; (1), F.S.& (5)(a), F.S. Name Change P A B B B D C E B C C E C DR 68.07, F.S. & (5)(a), F.S. Dissolution P A B B B D C E B C C E C DR Rule 2.420(d); (5)(a), F.S.& (1), F.S. Repeat Violence P A B B D D C E B C C E B DR Rule 2.420(d)(1)(B)(xii); (8)(c)5b, F.S. & (5)(a), F.S. Administrative Support Proceeding P A B B B D C E B C C E C DR (2)(d), F.S. & (5)(a), F.S. Parental Notice of Abortion VOR A G B B G G G G G G G G DR Rule 8.805(b); Rule 8.835; Rule 2.420(d)(1)(B)(vii); (4)(e) & Sexual Violence VOR A B B D D D E B D D E C DR Rule 2.420(d) & (f), Chapter (2)(h)1 (b) or (c), F.S. & (4), F.S. Termination of Parental Rights P A B B G G G G B B G G G DR (3) & (4), F.S. URESA/UIFSA P A B B B D C E B C C E C DR Rule 2.420(d) & (5)(a), F.S. Extradition VOR A B B C D D D B D D D C CF Rule 2.420(d) & (f) Guardianship P A B B C D C E C C C E C GA , F.S. & , F.S. Guardianship Miscellaneous P A B B C D C E C C C E C GA , F.S. & , F.S. Non-Criminal Infractions P A B B B D C D B C C D C IN Rule 2.420(d) Juvenile Miscellaneous P A B B G G G G G G G G G DP (1) & (2), F.S. & (2), F.S. Financial Miscellaneous P G B G G G G G G G G G G MM Rule 2.420(d) & Chapter 119, F.S. Miscellaneous Firearms P A B B B D C D B C C D B MM Rule 2.420(d); Chapter 119, F.S. & (4), F.S.

69 User Role (Subscribers) Internal Access by Authorization 1. Judges, JA's, Court Personnel, Clerk Personnel Access Security Matrix (PROPOSED WITH PUBLIC DEFENDER INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS) Internet Users (External Access): 2. State Attorney 3. Attorney of Record 4. Party Access 5. Public in Clerk's Office and Registered Users 6. General Government and Constitutional Officers 7. Public Internet (Anonymous) Law Enforcement (local state and federal) 9. Attorney General, Dept. of Children and Family 10. School Board (Truancy) 11. Commercial Purchasers of Bulk Records 12. Public Defender (institutional access) 1 ***VOR Statute List (F.S.): 787, 794, 796, 800, 825, 827, 847, 921 VOR is at the case level A. All but expunged, or sealed under Ch. 943 B. All but expunged, or sealed under Ch. 943 or sealed under rule C. All but expunged, or sealed under Ch. 943 and sealed under rule 2.420; or confidential D. All but expunged, sealed or confidential; record images viewable upon request E. Case number, party names, dockets only F. Case number and party names only G. Case number only H. No access See Access Details Case - Charge/Filing Description PRIVACY UCN Applicable rules and statutes Baker Act P A B B B D D E C D D E B MH , F.S. Substance Abuse - Emergency Admission P A D B D D D E D D D E D MH , F.S. Substance Abuse cases filed pre disabled P A B B D G G G G G G G G MH , F.S. Incapacity P A B B B D C E C C C E C MH Rule 2.420(d); Chapter 119, F.S. & , F.S. Misdemeanor P A B B D D C D B C C D B MM Rule 2.420(d) Misdemeanor - sexual cases VOR A B B D D D D B D D D B MM Rule 2.420(d) & (2)(h), F.S. Municipal Ordinance Infraction P A B B B D C D B C C D C MO Rule 2.420(d) Municipal Ordinance Arrest P A B B B D C D B C C D B MO Rule 2.420(d) Misdemeanor-Misc VOR A B B B D D D B D D D B MM Rule 2.420(d) Parking P A B B B D C D B C C D B CO Rule 2.420(d) Small Claims P A B B B D D D D D D D C SC Rule 2.420(d) Traffic Infractions P A B B B D C D B C C D B TR Rule 2.420(d) Any case marked sealed S A G G G G G G G G G G G Any case that has a SEALED Privacy at the case level Any expunged case E H H H H H H H H H H H G Any case that has an EXPUNGED Privacy at the case level Sealed Family Law Case S A G B B G G G G G G G G Case by case basis giving Party/Attorney access ***Viewable on Request (VOR) - to ensure that information is properly removed prior to public access, some case types and document types have a special electronic security called viewable on request. Selecting an image of a court document in cases or documents coded viewable on request will not allow the user to view the record at that point. Instead, a request is generated to a clerk, who performs a second examination of the document to remove personal identification information and information about the victims of sexual or child abuse crimes. After the clerk has completed, the requestor then receives a notice that the document is available for viewing. Once a document has been requested and reviewed, it is available for all future access without requiring a request/review.

70 Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records USER GROUPS ACCESS PERMITTED SECURITY REQUIREMENTS Public Defenders The Office of the Public Defender is considered the attorney of record at a defendant s first appearance as permitted by Juvenile Rule of Procedure and Rule of Criminal Procedure Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. The agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order. Access to records as permitted by s , 27.52, 27.58, 27.59, F.S. Access to juvenile delinquency records as permitted by s (2), F.S. and Rule of Juvenile Procedure Access to mental health records as permitted by s (8), F.S. Access to mental health records as permitted by s and , F.S. Access to records of individuals detained under the Involuntary Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act (formerly known as the Jimmy Ryce Act ) as permitted by s and , F.S. Access should be limited to personnel who require access

71 in performance of their official job duties.

72

73

74

75

76