AGENDA Florida Courts Technology Commission (FCTC) Meeting August 17-18, 2016

Transcription

1 Access Governance Board Meeting: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 CCIS Subcommittee Meeting: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 Abandoned Filings Workgroup Meeting: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 Portal Subcommittee Meeting: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 Certification Subcommittee Meeting: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 FCTC Meeting: Thursday, August 18, 2016 AGENDA Florida Courts Technology Commission (FCTC) Meeting August 17-18, :00 10:30 AM 10:45 11:45 AM 1:30 2:30 PM 2:45 3:45 PM 4:00-5:00 PM 9:00 4:00 PM West Palm Beach Main Judicial Complex 5 th Floor Conference Room 205 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL Hilton Hotel Coral Ballroom A, B, and C 600 Okeechobee Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL I. Welcome Judge Lisa Munyon, FCTC Chair a. Roll call b. Recognition of local guests II. III. IV. Approval of May Meeting Summary Judge Lisa Munyon a. Motion to approve the minutes from the May 6, 2016 meeting of the Florida Courts Technology Commission as ed to the Commission on July 29, FCTC Action Summary (for informational purposes only) Judge Lisa Munyon FCTC Overview (PowerPoint for informational purposes only) Judge Lisa Munyon V. Court Application Processing System (CAPS) Update Alan Neubauer a. CAPS viewer implementation matrix VI. VII. Portal Progress Report Carolyn Weber a. E-filing progress report b. Service desk report c. Release d. Proposed order functionality Standards for Third Party Vendors Carolyn Weber

2 VIII. IX. Portal Subcommittee Update Judge Gagliardi a. Florida Bar attorney status validation Appellate Portal Interface Update John Tomasino X. CCIS Subcommittee Update Judge Perkins a. Summary results from survey on case types captured in the CMS XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. Abandoned Filings Workgroup Update Judge Gagliardi a. Survey results on E-Filing Pending Queue Access Governance Board Update Judge Hilliard a. Polk County extension request b. Approval of Online Electronic Records Access Applications i. Monroe County ii. Broward County Attorney of Record Commercial Purchasers of Bulk Records Individuals Registered for Subscriber Service c. Updating the Access Security Matrix Certification Subcommittee Update Judge Perkins Document Storage Workgroup Update Steve Shaw Standards Consolidation Workgroup Update Jannet Lewis a. Draft Florida Supreme Court Technology Standards FCTC/RJA Joint Workgroup Update a. E-Service by Judges Murray Silverstein b. Rules for Filing and Service of Electronic Documents Judge Stephens Clerk E-Signatures Murray Silverstein XVIII. Original Documents Murray Silverstein XIX. Other Items/Wrap up

3 Agenda Item II. Approval of May Minutes

4 Florida Courts Technology Commission Meeting Summary May 6, 2016 A meeting of the Florida Courts Technology Commission was held at Tallahassee Community College Capitol Center in Tallahassee, Florida on May 6, 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 Jim Kowalski, Jr., Esq., Jacksonville Area Legal Aid (JALA) Thomas Genung, Trial Court Administrator, 19 th Circuit David Ellspermann, Clerk of Court, Marion County Mary Cay Blanks, Clerk of Court, 3 rd DCA Ken Nelson, CTO, 6 th Circuit Karen Rushing, Clerk of Court, Sarasota County Sharon Bock, Clerk of Court, Palm Beach County Members not in attendance 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 Judge C. Alan Lawson, 5 th DCA Laird Lile, Esq., Naples Murray Silverstein, Esq., Tampa John M. Stewart, Esq., Vero Beach Jannet Lewis, CTO, 10 th Circuit Christina Blakeslee, CTO, 13 th Circuit Elisa Miller, Akerman LLP Judge Stevan Northcutt, 2 nd DCA Tanya Jackson, Adam Street Advocates Supreme Court Justice in attendance Justice Ricky Polston, Supreme Court OSCA and Supreme Court Staff in attendance PK Jameson 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 Gerald Land, CTO, 16 th Circuit Eric Maclure Alan Neubauer Lakisha Hall Noel Chessman, CTO, 15 th Circuit Robert Adelardi, CTO, 11 th Circuit Fred Buhl, CTO, 8 th Circuit Yvan Llanes, CTO, 18 th Circuit Craig Van Brussel, CTO, 1 st Circuit Carole LoCicero, Thomas & LoCicero Page 1 of 12

5 Jon Lin, Trial Court Administrator, 5 th Circuit Melvin Cox, Director of Information Technology, Florida Court Clerks and Comptrollers Carolyn Weber, Florida Court Clerks and Comptrollers Angel Colonneso, Manatee County Clerk of Court Justin Horan, Clay County Clerk of Court Harold Sample, Pasco County Clerk of Court Tony Landry, Volusia County Clerk of Court Kimberly Stenger, Polk County Clerk of Court Doris Maitland, Lee County Clerk of Court Laurie Rice, Brevard County Clerk of Court Paul Jones, 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 Thomas Morris, State Attorney 8 th Circuit Ken Kent, Florida Court Clerks and Comptrollers Jennifer Fishback, Executive Director, Florida Court Clerks and Comptrollers Brent Holladay, Lake County Clerk of Court Mike Phelps, Polk County Clerk of Court Gerald Cates, Duval County Clerk of Court Tyler Winik, Brevard County Clerk of Court Carole Pettijohn, Manatee County Clerk of Court Chris Short, Pinellas County Clerk of Court Toni Bleiweiss, Lee County Clerk of Court Ernie Nardo, Broward County Clerk of Court 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 called the meeting to order and advised everyone that the meeting was being recorded. AGENDA ITEM II. Approval of November Minutes Motion to approve the minutes from the February 11, 2016 meeting of the Florida Courts Technology Commission. MOTION OFFERED: Laird Lile MOTION SECONDED: Judge Josephine Gagliardi MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AGENDA ITEM III. Approval of FCTC Action Summary Motion to approve the Florida Courts Technology Co mmi ssion s action summary from the February 11, 2016 meeting. MOTION OFFERED: Laird Lile MOTION SECONDED: Murray Silverstein MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Page 2 of 12

6 AGENDA ITEM IV. Court Application Processing System (CAPS) Update a. Alan Neubauer gave an update on the progress of the implementation of the CAPS viewers. Fiftythree counties have implemented their viewer in both the civil and criminal divisions; two counties have implemented in either the civil or criminal division; seven counties anticipate implementing both the civil and criminal divisions by September 2016; two counties anticipate implementing only the civil division by September 2016; three counties do not have an anticipated date for implementing the criminal division; and three counties do not have an anticipated implementation date for either the civil or criminal divisions. Judge Munyon said a county has not fully implemented a viewer until a judge can electronically sign and file orders through the Portal. Alan said his report only includes the number of viewers implemented or available for use in each county without all of the functionality. Judge Munyon requested staff with the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) distribute a survey to the counties to determine if they have a fully functional CAPS viewer implemented and report the results at the next FCTC meeting. AGENDA ITEM V. A2J Gateway Triage Pilot Project Jim Kowalski gave a PowerPoint presentation on the Access to Justice (A2J) Gateway Triage Pilot Project. The Florida Commission on Access to Civil Justice was charged with seven tasks; one of which was to significantly increase access to justice for disadvantaged, low income, and moderate income Floridians. Regrettably, there is a crisis of access in Florida. Approximately percent of Floridians are accessing the civil justice system without an attorney. The purpose of a triage gateway is to have the Florida Justice Technology Center, which is the Switzerland of data. This technology center was formed by a bridge loan from the Florida Bar to the Bar Foundation which is being charged with building the gateway or the hub. The job of the hub is to move the users through the civil justice system and connect them to needed resources. The gateway will provide access to community partners; domestic violence shelters; housing counselors; lawyers and legal aid; court records; self-help articles; and a mechanism to assemble documents. The Supreme Court approved forms will be accessible via mobile devices. The role of the algorithms is to place decisions into a logic tree that lets massive computer systems move everything faster. Jim played a brief video of Introduction to Neota Logic Expert Systems which describes different expert systems that can be created to perform analysis and advice; intake and assessment; intelligent workflow; and document automation. New Mexico has a model being built and the Florida Justice Technology Center plans to harness the resources New Mexico already has in existence. They are using Neota Logic and Pro Bono Net as the two pieces of the model. The video displayed how complicated legal problems on a worldwide scale could be answered in seconds using the power of expert systems. A pilot project was launched in Clay County. For now, the triage pilot will focus on family and landlord/tenant cases. Additional case types will be expanded over a period of time. Clerk Bock asked if the pilot gateway in Clay County will be available throughout Florida. Jim said the gateway will be the online door to Florida courthouses. Clerk Bock asked if interactive forms were going to be created. Jim said interactive forms are available in the DIY project and at The goal of the triage is to connect people to the appropriate forms assembly process and ultimately to the Portal. Clerk Bock asked if there will be multiple entry ways to finding and using forms. Jim said there are many ways to enter the gateway. Clerk Bock asked if the user experience will be simplified and automatically connect to the Portal. Jim said the gateway Page 3 of 12

7 is going to tie into existing resources. There are existing document assembly processes that were created by legal aid agencies. The gateway uses a different document assembly system that will be more attractive very soon. It should look similar to the DIY project and seamlessly move into the Portal and work together with all of the systems that have been built. Clerk Bock asked if any costs were associated with using the system. Jim said the Supreme Court has directed that fees should not be charged to users of the system. The funding for the triage comes from a bridge loan from the Florida Bar to the Bar Foundation. Two million dollars was set aside to establish the Florida Justice Technology Center. AGENDA ITEM VI. Portal Progress Report a. Carolyn Weber discussed the Portal usage statistics. In the month of April, there were 1,198,652 filings through the Portal, of which 1,193,762 were submissions to the trial courts; 1,149 were submissions to the Department of Corrections (DOC); 3,000 were submissions to the Second District Court of Appeal; and 741 were submissions to the Florida Supreme Court. Judges in Indian River, Martin and Bay counties have agreed to accept proposed orders electronically through the Portal. Approximately 1.94% of filings were placed in a pending queue to be returned to the filer for correction. The filer can correct and resubmit the document, keeping the original file date and time stamp, or submit a new document generating a new file date and time stamp. If the filer chooses the latter, the clerk eventually updates the status to Filed for Judicial Review. At that time, the filer can no longer update the submission. Roughly 23,151 submissions were in the pending queue for returns to the filer. Carolyn discussed the number of documents returned to the filer for corrections by filer role and the percentage of the documents that were actually resubmitted as opposed to submitting a new document. These statistics assist the Florida Court Clerks and Comptrollers (FCCC) in determining where they need to provide more training on how to resolve filing through the pending queue. The number of self-represented litigants continue to increase. Mary Cay Blanks inquired why the number of registered self-represented litigants was significantly higher than the number of submissions. Carolyn stated sometimes the self-represented litigant only file one time. Judge Munyon asked how long a filer s account stays active and Carolyn replied forever. Carolyn also went over the projects the FCCC is currently working on. Criminal e-filing is pending implementation in Pasco County; the FCCC is working with system-to-system e-filing with third party vendors; a new release is scheduled for October 2016; working with the Supreme Court and the District Courts of Appeal to covert to efacts; working with the DOC to assist them with submitting proposed violation of probation (VOP) warrants to the judges; adding A2J interviews to the Portal to assist self-represented litigants; and providing technical support and training to the judiciary regarding proposed orders. b. Carolyn Weber gave an update on the Portal service desk. The service desk takes calls regarding customer service incidents along with technical and system support incidents. Roughly 3,081 customer service incidents were received during March On average it took 32 minutes to respond to an incident and 1 hour and 49 minutes to resolve an incident. Roughly 575 technical/system support incidents were received during March On average it took 18 minutes to respond to an incident and 4 hours and 45 minutes to resolve an incident. Carolyn showed the top 10 types of incidents the service desk receives from attorneys, judges and pro se filers. She also provided statistics on those types of incidents. Page 4 of 12

8 AGENDA ITEM VII. Demonstration on Proposed Order Functionality Carolyn Weber gave a demonstration on filing proposed orders through the Portal. Judges have a workspace that allows them to review and process proposed orders. There is an icon that differentiates a corrected filing from an original filing. This lets the judge know the document they sent back to the filer has been corrected and returned. The judges have options to download, , or print orders. Karen Rushing asked how the document types are established. Carolyn said the filer chooses the type of proposed order they are submitting. In June 2016, the FCCC plans on adding a sign and file button to the proposed order module. The judge s signature will be embedded and the document will be filed into the case. A judge can also remove a document from their queue without filing it. Mary Cay asked if a document will be lost if it is removed from the queue. Judge Munyon said on occasions judges receive orders that they do not sign. If a judge decides not to sign a proposed order it is removed from the queue and deleted. Karen said there should be a failsafe process to require a notation before deleting proposed orders from the queue to ensure the court does not unintentionally delete a document. Judge Perkins asked if proposed orders could be processed through the CAPS viewers. Carolyn said the CAPS vendor could integrate with the Portal and accept the orders. Laird Lile asked if the filer of the proposed order has the ability to link the order to an existing item. Carolyn said the proposed order does not link back to the docket sheet or a document within a case; however, there is a title document field that allows free text where the attorney can put information regarding the document and that goes back to the judges. Laird suggested a future enhancement that allows the filer to link documents. Judge Perkins said most judges use their viewer and asked why he would ever use the Portal to file a proposed order. Judge Bidwill said each circuit, at its own pace, will have the ability to interface with the Portal; therefore, allowing the orders to be pulled into the viewer. Judge Munyon said judges should not have to go to the Portal to pull information once the CAPS viewers are fully functional. The need for task switching will be alleviated. Carolyn said the judges or judicial assistants should receive a prompt alerting them that a proposed order has been submitted. Murray Silverstein said there is a great disparity around the state with regards to county funding for viewers. Unfortunately, all of the circuits or counties do not have a CAPS viewer. In essence, using the Portal allows judges to file proposed orders without a viewer. Murray also said it is a bad practice to encourage judges to print, sign, and scan a document. He asked if a macro could be developed that will conform with the technology standards on judges signatures. Carolyn said she could show that capability at the FCTC meeting in August. Carolyn also demonstrated an attorney s ability to file a pleading to the clerk or a proposed order to a judge. Attorneys can serve the documents from here as well. Laird asked if cover letters would be added to the Portal. Carolyn stated the cover letters will be added in June The cover letters will be in PDF format that could be attached to proposed orders. Judge Scott Stephens suggested adding a data field that gives limited choices (i.e., all parties have agreed, or they disagree and will send a competing proposed order). A tool tip could be displayed with this information; thereby, allowing the judge to sign the proposed order immediately reducing the processing time. AGENDA ITEM VIII. Standards for Third Party Vendor Update Carolyn Weber said the FCCC is continuing to work with third party vendors. The documentation for Page 5 of 12

9 the specifications is almost complete, but the FCCC has not had a chance to do an end-to-end test. Tom Hall is reviewing the legal documentation. As soon as this is done the FCCC will be ready to present the standards to the E-Filing Authority Board and the FCTC. AGENDA ITEM IX. Appellate Portal Interface Update John Tomasino stated the Second District Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court have the ability to accept filing fees through the Portal. AGENDA ITEM X. Portal Subcommittee Update Judge Bidwill said at a previous meeting, the state attorneys and public defenders made a request for the ability to receive e-service via a web service as opposed to individual s. Rule requires service. The FCTC/RJA Joint Workgroup is looking at modifying the rule to oblige this request. The FCCC is going to develop the specifications necessary to accommodate this request and report back at a later meeting. Murray Silverstein said at the time the language in Rule was drafted, service was not intended to be a limitation; yet, it is viewed as a potential limitation because the phrase web service was not used. service is sending the PDF by and e-service is sending a link via that once clicked will take you directly to the document. Tom Morris said the state attorneys and public defenders would like the document to come directly to their system bypassing the use of . Using web service eliminates spoofing addresses, size limitations, etc. The goal is to have this service work similar to the CAPS viewers. Murray said if the motion is approved, the referral will be made to the RJAC and language will be submitted to the court for consideration. The details and specifications required will be added to the technology standards, while the conceptual language will be added to the rule. The current language in the rule should not be viewed as a limitation or a constraint. Judge Lawson asked if the current request only applies to governmental entities. Murray said yes for now, but large law firms will want the same functionality. Judge Bidwill said the FCCC will build the foundation in the Portal and go from there. Judge Lawson asked if there was a concern with people inundating the Portal with solicitations. He asked if a limitation should be established to control who can use the service. Murray stated he thinks a fee should be charged for the added feature. Judge Munyon said the Court and the E-Filing Authority Board could decide if the service should only be offered to government entities if they do not believe it is fair for the taxpayers to pick up the tab for private for-profit corporations using those resources. Justice Polston said there needs to be a distinction between web-based service, , and e-service. The rule should contain broader language for electronic means of service and the technical standards should include different ways service can be accomplished. Laird Lile said Rule already allows for service through an e-service system that includes sending an with a link to a website. He is concerned with making a recommendation that is too specific. Murray said the reference to the link is e-service. Presently, service is done by . Web-based service is not covered by Rule Mary Cay Blanks said the motion is too specific. Murray said the motion does not require language to be developed, instead the motion is to refer the issue to the RJAC to review the current language and decide if tweaking needs to be done. Page 6 of 12

10 Motion to recommend the FCTC to refer to the RJAC that Rule (Service Rule) be considered for possible amendment to include web-based service, in addition to service by and e-service. MOTION OFFERED: Murray Silverstein MOTION SECONDED: Clerk Karen Rushing MOTION CARRIED Judge Stephens said the FCTC will have a chance to review the proposed language change once the RJAC looks over the current rule and decides if the language needs to be tweaked. AGENDA ITEM XI. DOC Joint Workgroup Update Judge Bidwill said a workgroup consisting of FCTC members and representatives from the DOC to examine if efficiencies could be gained from the interaction between the judiciary and the DOC in certain areas. The workgroup examined the possibility for the judiciary to make the process of receiving, approving, and filing proposed VOP community controlled warrants electronic. The Thirteenth Judicial Circuit worked with the DOC to develop a warrants program that has been working for two months. Carolyn Weber created a proposal for processing VOP warrants. The VOP warrants would be routed directly to the judicial circuit and to the judicial officer; different DOC organizations would be set up as they are established; the DOC would have control over the organizations and have the ability to add probation officers to their organization to allow the filings; and the clerk would link the documents to the filer role enabling them to submit proposed warrants to the judicial officer and any document that needs to be filed with the clerk to the clerk s office. The FCCC would implement this feature in a phased-in approach allowing the circuits and counties to be added when they are ready. The goal is to have the warrants received and approved through the CAPS viewer. A secure pipeline is already set up for submissions to the DOC. Motion for the FCTC to allow the FCCC to work with the DOC on moving forward with implementing proposed warrant submissions through the Portal. The next step would be for the E-Portal Authority Board to consider the proposal and allow the FCCC and the DOC to move further on the project. MOTION OFFERED: Judge Martin Bidwill MOTION SECONDED: Judge Alan Lawson MOTION CARRIED UNANMIOUSLY The workgroup also discussed allowing the judiciary to receive electronic filings from the DOC. The judiciary has to send paper documents and post-conviction rulings back to the litigant at the prison and the attachments can sometimes be voluminous. Additionally, at times the DOC is responsible for storing paper copies of the records on appeal. The workgroup brainstormed different ideas of electronically storing the records on appeal in a format that allows for electronic access in a prison setting. The DOC is interested in continuing the dialog. Clerk Rushing went back to the discussion of VOPs. Typically the affidavit is filed and the warrant is presented to the court. The court relies on the Page 7 of 12

11 affidavit to make a decision. She asked if the affidavit would accompany the warrant. If so, and the court does not sign the affidavit, the affidavit is not recognized as filed. Judge Bidwill said if someone is in custody the DOC does not need a warrant and can just file the affidavit with the clerk. However, if a separate arrest has not occurred, he does not think the affidavit will be given to the clerk at the same time the judge receives an affidavit and warrant. The workgroup and the DOC needs to discuss what goes back to the clerk once the court approves the warrant. Clerk Rushing said the record laws need to be followed as well. Is an affidavit considered a record even if it is not signed by the court? Judge Bidwill said it would probably be a public record with the DOC. If a warrant is rejected, there would be an electronic response to the DOC. Chris Blakeslee said the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit will send the report, affidavit, and warrant back to DOC if something is rejected. Judge Bidwill said oftentimes there are time lags between a submission of a claim of VOP and the electronic system would improve the time between submission and approval. Carol LoCicero said there is a significant issue if there is not a record of the court receiving the record. Those records should be accessible in the judicial system. Simply returning the records to the DOC is a problem. AGENDA ITEM XII. Judicial Review Workgroup Update Judge Gagliardi said the workgroup was tasked with analyzing standard Local Document Receiving in the Standards for Electronic Access to the Courts. Approximately 95% of the documents in the queue never get corrected. The workgroup will work on determining what kind of documents are in the queue and develop a timeframe the documents can remain in the queue. The workgroup respectfully requested to change the name to coordinate with its charge. Judge Munyon stated the name of the workgroup is a misnomer. The filings in the queue never go to a judge for review. Motion to change the name of the workgroup from Judicial Review Workgroup to Abandoned Filings Workgroup. MOTION OFFERED: Judge Josephine Gagliardi MOTION SECONDED: Laird Lile MOTION CARRIED UNANMIOUSLY AGENDA ITEM XIII. Interpreter Data Workgroup Update Tom Genung said the workgroup has been trying to figure out a way to capture the need for an interpreter up front. The workgroup decided the best option to capture this information is for the fields to be available and populated in the case maintenance system. The majority of the counties are able to capture the interpreter need data. The workgroup discussed the need to uniformly capture the data across all divisions in all counties. The Twentieth Judicial Circuit has an administrative order requiring the capturing of that information and the workgroup discussed doing the same on a statewide basis. The workgroup cannot move forward until it can determine the best way to capture the data. The workgroup may enlist the Commission on Trial Court Performance & Accountability to assist in the analysis. Page 8 of 12

12 AGENDA ITEM XIV. CCIS Subcommittee Update Judge Perkins gave an update on the work of the CCIS Subcommittee. The subcommittee oversees the CCIS user interface. The subcommittee is trying to identify related party information to develop related case information for use in unified family courts and perhaps other case specific divisions. The process involves three steps: 1)identify the information that is currently being captured and figure out how additional information, if necessary can be captured; 2)decide how to develop the search algorithms to acquire the information in a useful way; and 3)decide how to display the information to the court, clerk, and possibly the parties. The workgroup is finalizing a survey of the clerks to determine what information is captured. AGENDA ITEM XV. Access Governance Board Update a. Judge Hilliard briefly discussed the request from three counties to move their online electronic records access system from the pilot phase into production. He offered two motions to be voted on simultaneously. Motion for the FCTC to make a recommendation to the Supreme Court that Levy and Palm Beach counties move their online electronic records access system from the pilot phase into production and to discontinue the submission of monthly progress reports be approved. Within 90 days from the Court s approval, the clerk must implement their access system in accordance with AOSC Motion for the FCTC to approve Miami-Dade County s request to move Phase II of their online electronic records access system from the pilot phase into production and to discontinue the submission of monthly progress reports within 90 days of the FCTC s approval. MOTION OFFERED: Judge Robert Hilliard MOTION SECONDED: Laird Lile MOTION CARRIED UNANMIOUSLY b. Judge Hilliard requested permission to defer voting on Monroe County s request to withdraw their Online Electronic Records Access application until the Board could further review the request. c. Judge Hilliard discussed a letter received from the Odyssey Counties of Florida requesting an extension of time to implement docket numbering. Motion to approve Odyssey Counties request for an extension to implement docket numbering. MOTION OFFERED: Judge Robert Hilliard MOTION SECONDED: Clerk David Ellspermann MOTION CARRIED UNANMIOUSLY Judge Hilliard said the Board considered a few additional items at its May 5, 2016 meeting and would like the FCTC s approval. The Board was informed that a couple of the viewable on request (VOR) items on the Page 9 of 12

13 Access Security Matrix are not highlighted like the others. Judge Munyon asked if this was something that would need to go to the Supreme Court for approval and Justice Polston replied no. Motion to highlight the County Criminal Appeals Sexual Abuse and Parental Notice of Abortion rows in the Access Security Matrix to indicate they are viewable on request ( VOR ). MOTION OFFERED: Judge Robert Hilliard MOTION SECONDED: Judge Scott Stephens MOTION CARRIED UNANMIOUSLY Judge Hilliard said AOSC16-14 did not include language indicating the public defenders would have attorney of record access so long as there was not a notice of appearance or an order withdrawing them on a giving case. At the Board s February 10, 2016 meeting, a motion was approved stating, Public defenders will be granted access to defined case types where the statute defines them and grants them party access where the public defender is specifically assigned or no attorney has been assigned. Access will be demoted to General Government and Constitutional officers when the public defender is no longer counsel of record or another attorney is assigned... Motion to submit the motion from the Access Governance Board s February 10, 2016 meeting to the Supreme Court for approval and have the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records reflect such as well as the attorney of record. MOTION OFFERED: Judge Robert Hilliard MOTION SECONDED: Clerk Karen Rushing MOTION CARRIED UNANMIOUSLY Judge Hilliard said the Board discussed if law enforcement from other states should have access to Florida records. After much discussion, the Board decided to change the definition of law enforcement in the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records. Motion to change the definition of certified law enforcement to read, Federal law enforcement agencies and all Florida law enforcement agencies, including but not limited to, Florida state attorneys offices and the Florida state attorney general s office. MOTION OFFERED: Judge Robert Hilliard MOTION SECONDED: Judge Alan Lawson MOTION CARRIED UNANMIOUSLY AGENDA ITEM XVI. Data Exchange Workgroup Update Robert Adelardi said the Data Exchange Workgroup developed draft data exchange standards for interaction between the Clerk CMS, the CAPS viewers, and the state level Judicial Data Management Services system. The standards were shared with vendors to receive feedback. The workgroup received and handled clarifying questions from Miami-Dade Clerk of Courts. In addition, Mentis Technologies Page 10 of 12

14 requested inclusion in the grandfather clause due to possible noncompliance with the data exchange standards. Motion to adopt the Data Exchange Standards. MOTION OFFERED: Judge Scott Stephens MOTION SECONDED: Clerk Karen Rushing MOTION CARRIED UNANMIOUSLY AGENDA ITEM XVII. Document Storage Workgroup Update Steve Shaw said approximately six months ago the Document Storage Workgroup developed a draft set of standards. The workgroup decided to remove font size, filing size, ADA references, and anything that does not specifically relate to how documents should be saved from the standards. The workgroup deals with document storage and not document creation. Plans are still imminent to work with the Florida Bar on educating attorneys. Steve anticipates that the workgroup will have a set of standards to present to the FCTC at its August meeting. AGENDA ITEM XVIII. Technical Standards Subcommittee Update Jannet Lewis said the Technical Standards Subcommittee has been diligently working on updating the Integration & Interoperability (I&I) document. The I&I is one of the oldest technical standards documents used by court technology officers. The document identifies the minimum requirements for hardware and software and is used to request county funding for information technology equipment. Jannet did not go into grave detail on all of the changes made by the subcommittee; however, she did point out that the subcommittee removed the data exchange portion from the document because a standalone data exchange document has been created and she stated the cloud section had been updated. Jannet detailed the approval process, the risks, storage restrictions, best practices and resources in the cloud section. OSCA s general counsel reviewed the cloud section and approved the changes. Motion to adopt section 3.4 Cloud Computing in the Integration & Interoperability document. MOTION OFFERED: Jannet Lewis MOTION SECONDED: Judge Alan Lawson MOTION CARRIED UNANMIOUSLY AGENDA ITEM XIX. Electronic Notary and Certification Judge Munyon skipped this agenda item and stated she referred the topic to a subcommittee for vetting before it comes to the FCTC for discussion. AGENDA ITEM XX. Standards Consolidation Workgroup Update Jannet Lewis said a lot of the standards workgroups are updating their standards. The Standards Consolidation Workgroup will combine all of the technology standards into one document. Jannet hopes to present the consolidated standards to the FCTC in August for approval. Page 11 of 12

15 AGENDA ITEM XXI. FCTC/RJA Joint Workgroup Update Murray Silverstein said the workgroup is working closely and collaborating with the Standards Consolidation Workgroup. Judge Stephens briefly discussed what the RJAC was doing with Rules Signature and Certificates of Attorneys and Parties, Service of Pleadings and Documents, and Electronic Filing. The RJAC is trying to make the rules match the reality that has emerged since the Portal is the central filing facility. The current rules were created when the RJAC had to guess the ultimate form the e-filing system would take. Judge Stephens hopes to have a document presented to the FCTC at its August meeting. AGENDA ITEM XXIV. Other Items/Wrap Up Judge Munyon recognized Judge George Reynolds for his dedication and service to the FCTC. Judge Reynolds was integral to everything the Commission accomplished since his involvement. Judge Reynolds was presented with a plaque for his commitment to the FCTC and the judicial branch. Laird Lile congratulated Judge Reynolds on his career as a judge and spoke briefly on how Judge Reynolds welcomed him to the Commission. He also commended Judge Reynolds for his involvement in bridging the discussions between clerks, technologist, practicing lawyers, and the like. The Bar is appreciative for the work Judge Reynolds has done over the years. Chris Blakeslee spoke about Judge Reynolds on a professional and personal level. She said Judge Reynolds has always had great insight and input on all of the projects he has been involved in. Justice Polston spoke about his appreciation for Judge Reynold s demeanor and professionalism toward the Florida Bar as a practicing lawyer and toward the people of his circuit as a judge. Judge Reynolds has done an outstanding job on the bench and as a member of committees he has served on. Justice Polston discussed his admiration and respect for Judge Reynolds. Judge Reynolds complimented the FCTC for its progress towards achieving the goals it was tasked with. The FCTC is the best reflection of cooperation within the state and within the judicial branch. The court and clerks made a lot of progress to benefit the public. Judge Reynolds said he was honored to serve on the FCTC. Judge Munyon advised everyone the next FCTC meeting is scheduled for August 17-18, 2016 in West Palm Beach. Motion to adjourn the FCTC meeting MOTION OFFERED: Judge Alan Lawson MOTION SECOND: Chris Blakeslee MOTION CARRIED UNANMIOUSLY Page 12 of 12

16 Agenda Item III. FCTC Action Summary

17 FCTC Action Summary May 2016 FCTC approved a recommendation from the Joint FCTC/RJA Workgroup to ask the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee (RJAC) to consider amending rule (Service Rule) to include web-based service, in addition to service by and e-service. FCTC approved a motion from the Department of Corrections (DOC) Workgroup to allow the Florida Court Clerks and Comptrollers (FCCC) to work with the DOC on moving forward with implementing proposed warrant submissions through the Portal. The next step would be for the E-Portal Authority Board to consider the proposal and allow the FCCC and the DOC to move forward on the project. FCTC approved a motion from the Judicial Review Workgroup to change the name of the workgroup to Abandoned Filings Workgroup to coordinate with its charge. FCTC approved a motion from the Access Governance Board to recommend to the Supreme Court that Levy and Palm Beach counties move their online electronic records access system from the pilot phase into production and to discontinue the submission of monthly progress reports. Within 90 days from the Court s approval, the clerk must implement their access system in accordance with AOSC FCTC approved a motion from the Access Governance Board to approve Miami-Dade County s request to move Phase II of their online electronic records access system from the pilot phase into production and to discontinue the submission of monthly progress reports within 90 days of the FCTC s approval. *Note: Miami-Dade County was approved in AOSC16-14 to move Phase I of their online electronic records access system from the pilot phase into production. FCTC approved a motion from the Access Governance Board approving Odyssey Counties of Florida s request for an extension to implement docket numbering. FCTC approved a motion from the Access Governance Board to highlight the County Criminal Appeals Sexual Abuse and Parental Notice of Abortion rows in the Access Security Matrix to indicate they are viewable on request (VOR). FCTC approved a motion from the Access Governance Board to submit the motion from the Access Governance Board s February 10, 2016 meeting to the Supreme Court for approval and have the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records reflect such as well as the attorney of record. Page 1 of 2

18 FCTC approved a motion from the Access Governance Board to change the definition of certified law enforcement in the Standards for Access to Court Records to read, Federal law enforcement agencies and all Florida law enforcement agencies, including but not limited to, Florida state attorneys offices and the Florida state attorney general s office. FCTC approved a motion from the Technical Standards Subcommittee to adopt section 3.4 Cloud Computing in the Integration & Interoperability document. Page 2 of 2

19 Agenda Item V. CAPS Viewer Implementation Matrix

20 Circuit/County CMS (civil/criminal) CAPS (civil/criminal) Status Icon CAPS Viewer Implementation Matrix Implementation Status Status Date 1 Pioneer Viewer Scheduled for Escambia Mentis-v9.2 No August 2016 Benchmark Implementation Pioneer Okaloosa Mentis-v9.2 Yes Fully Implemented System Benchmark Santa Rosa Clericus Mentis-v9.2 Yes Judicial E-Filing Scheduled August 2016 Walton Clericus Mentis-v9.2 Yes Judicial E-Filing Scheduled August Bypass Portal Fully Implemented System/Judicial E-Filing Scheduled Judicial E-Filing not determined Viewer not implemented/scheduled Comments Anticipate CAPS viewer implementation in August 2016, which will include the judicial e-filing module. Franklin Clericus Mentis-v9.0 Yes Judicial E-Filing Scheduled August 2016 Preparing for Clericus test - anticipate judicial e-filing in August 2016 Creative Data No testing planned until after September unknown judicial e-filing Gadsden Mentis-v9.0 Hold Judicial E-Filing Unknown Unknown Solutions implementation date Jefferson Clericus Mentis-v9.0 Yes Judicial E-Filing Scheduled August 2016 Preparing for Clericus test - anticipate judicial e-filing in August 2016 Leon Pioneer Benchmark Mentis v9.2/v9.0 Liberty Clericus Mentis-v9.0 Yes Judicial E-Filing Scheduled August 2016 Wakulla Clericus Mentis-v9.0 Yes Judicial E-Filing Scheduled August Columbia Clericus ICMS-v3.0 Yes Fully Implemented System Yes Judicial E-Filing Scheduled August 2016 Currently testing functionality - anticipate judicial e-filing in August 2016 Dixie Clericus ICMS-v3.0 Yes Judicial E-Filing Scheduled September 2016 Hamilton Clericus ICMS-v3.0 Yes Judicial E-Filing Scheduled September 2016 Lafayette Clericus ICMS-v3.0 Yes Judicial E-Filing Scheduled September 2016 Madison Clericus ICMS-v3.0 Yes Judicial E-Filing Scheduled September 2016 Suwannee Clericus ICMS-v3.0 Yes Judicial E-Filing Scheduled September 2016 Taylor CDS/Clericus Mentis/ICMS-v3.0 Partial Judicial E-Filing Scheduled (criminal only) Civil-Unknown September Tyler Clay Odyssey ICMS-v3.0 No Viewer not implemented TBD Aptitude Duval Showcase ICMS-v3.0 No Viewer not implemented TBD Nassau Clericus ICMS-v3.0 No Viewer not implemented TBD 5 Pioneer Citrus Benchmark Mentis - v9.2 Yes Judicial E-Filing Scheduled March 2017 Hernando Clericus Mentis - v9.2 Yes Judicial E-Filing Scheduled March 2017 Aptitude Lake Showcase Mentis - v9.2 Yes Judicial E-Filing Scheduled March 2017 Tiburon Marion FACTS Mentis - v9.2 Yes Judicial E-Filing Scheduled March 2017 Sumter Clericus Mentis - v9.2 Yes Judicial E-Filing Scheduled March 2017 Legend: Have purchased the Smart Bench efiling module and will begin using it as soon as it can be rolled out in August 2016 Preparing for Clericus test - anticipate judicial e-filing in August 2016 In the process of rolling out to the judges - anticipate judicial e-filing by September 2016 Civil division is utilizing an older version of Mentis that was adapted for use with their CDS platform. Chief Judge has been strongly urging the Clerk to convert their civil division to Clericus to come online with ICMS. Criminal: in process of rolling out to the judges - anticipate judicial e-filing by September th Circuit transitioning to ICMS. No implementation date scheduled. Currently scheduling the e-filing module implementation and anticipate completed in the next six to nine months. (Guestimate: March 2017) Prepared by OSCA-ISS staff Page 1 of 3 August 2016

21 Circuit/County 6 CMS (civil/criminal) CAPS (civil/criminal) Status Icon Pasco Clericus JAWS-v2.0 Partial Pinellas 7 Flagler Tyler Odyssey Pioneer Benchmark JAWS-v2.0 Partial Putnam Clericus Pioneer-v2.7 No CAPS Viewer Implementation Matrix Implementation Status Viewer Scheduled for Implementation (Civil only) Viewer Implemented (Civil- e-sign orders only) Status Date September 2016 Criminal-TBD Criminal-TBD Legend: Bypass Portal Pioneer-v2.6 Yes Fully Implemented System Viewer Scheduled for Implementation December 2016 Pioneer St. Johns Pioneer-2.6 Yes Fully Implemented System Benchmark Volusia In-House Pioneer-v2.7 Yes Fully Implemented System 8 Alachua Courtview ICMS-v3.0 Yes Fully Implemented System Baker Clericus ICMS-v3.0 Yes Fully Implemented System Bradford Clericus ICMS-v3.0 Yes Fully Implemented System Gilchrist Clericus ICMS-v3.0 Yes Fully Implemented System Levy Courtview ICMS-v3.0 Yes Fully Implemented System Union Clericus ICMS-v3.0 Yes Fully Implemented System 9 Tyler Orange Odyssey Mentis-v9.2 Yes Judicial E-Filing Scheduled November 2016 Pioneer Osceola Benchmark Mentis-v9.2 Yes Judicial E-Filing Scheduled November Hardee Clericus ICMS-v3.0 Yes Judicial E-Filing Scheduled March 2017 Highlands Clericus ICMS-v3.0 Yes Judicial E-Filing Scheduled March 2017 Polk New Vision ICMS-v3.0 Yes Judicial E-Filing Scheduled March Dade Odyssey/CJIS Mentis-v9.4 Partial 12 Viewer Scheduled for Implementation (Civil only) October 2016 Criminal-TBD Desoto Clericus Mentis-v9.2 Hold No Plans for Judicial E-Filing None Manatee Clericus Mentis-v9.2 Hold No Plans for Judicial E-Filing None Sarasota Pioneer Benchmark Pioneer-v2.6 Hold No Plans for Judicial E-Filing None Fully Implemented System/Judicial E-Filing Scheduled Judicial E-Filing not determined Viewer not implemented/scheduled Comments JAWS = Judicial Automated Workload System developed by the 13th Circuit In Pasco County, the Clerk s IT programming staff has been assisting and have gotten the JAWS production servers online with basic functionality. It is anticipated implementation in the civil divisions within the next couple of months and this will allow judges to sign, but not efile orders. A programmer position was requested within Pasco county and awaiting funding approval. JAWS = Judicial Automated Workload System developed by the 13th Circuit Pinellas County has implemented JAWS in the civil divisions and the judges are utilizing the system. Judges have the capability to sign but not efile their orders. Pinellas County Business Technology Services (BTS) is currently assisting with programming but limited with other programming needs within the county. Currently working towards direct filing to Odyssey in the civil divisions. Anticipate CAPS viewer implementation by the end of 2016, which will include the judicial e-filing module. ICMS = Integrated Case Management System developed by the 8th Circuit Waiting on Purchase Order from Orange and Osceola Counties to complete the eportal return integration. As soon as Mentis receives the PO, should be able to complete the integration and training within 30 days. (Guestimate: November 2016) ICMS = Integrated Case Management System developed by the 8th Circuit Currently piloting form orders, once piloted and expanded will then work on the proposed order piece. A fair amount of configuration & training involved in getting judicial efiling implemented. (Guestimate: March 2017) Anticipate CAPS viewer (civil) implementation of aismartbench 9.4 in October 2016, which will include the judicial efiling module Criminal: TBD Current versions do not have the ability to sign and file orders. Chief Judge and TCA are not interested in having judges sign into the Portal to sign and file orders. Prepared by OSCA-ISS staff Page 2 of 3 August 2016

22 Circuit/County 13 Hillsborough 14 Bay CMS (civil/criminal) Tyler Odyssey Pioneer Benchmark CAPS (civil/criminal) Status Icon CAPS Viewer Implementation Matrix Implementation Status Status Date Legend: Bypass Portal Fully Implemented System/Judicial E-Filing Scheduled Judicial E-Filing not determined Viewer not implemented/scheduled Comments JAWS - v2.0 Yes Fully Implemented System JAWS = Judicial Automated Workload System developed by the 13th Circuit ICMS-v3.0 Yes Judicial E-Filing Scheduled March 2017 Calhoun Clericus ICMS-v3.0 Yes Judicial E-Filing Scheduled March 2017 Gulf Clericus ICMS-v3.0 Yes Judicial E-Filing Scheduled March 2017 Holmes Clericus ICMS-v3.0 Yes Judicial E-Filing Scheduled March 2017 Jackson Clericus ICMS-v3.0 Yes Judicial E-Filing Scheduled March 2017 Washington Clericus ICMS-v3.0 Yes Judicial E-Filing Scheduled March Palm Beach 16 Monroe 17 Broward 18 Brevard Aptitude Showcase Tyler Odyssey Tyler Odyssey Tiburon FACTS JVS-v1.0 Yes Fully Implemented System JVS= Judicial Viewer System developed by the 15th Circuit JAWS-v2.0 Seminole In-House In-House Partial 19 Indian River Pioneer Benchmark No Viewer Scheduled for Implementation August 2016 JAWS = Judicial Automated Workload System developed by the 13th Circuit. Anticipate CAPS viewer implementation in August CMS-v1.0 Yes Fully Implemented System CMS=Court Management System developed by the 17th Circuit ICMS-v3.0 Yes Judicial E-Filing Scheduled March 2017 Viewer Implemented (e-sign orders only) Mentis - v9.2 Yes Fully Implemented System Martin Clericus Mentis - v9.2 Yes Fully Implemented System Okeechobee Clericus Mentis - v9.2 Yes Fully Implemented System St. Lucie 20 Charlotte Collier Pioneer Benchmark Pioneer Benchmark Aptitude Showcase Mentis - v9.2 Yes Fully Implemented System Mentis-v9.2 Hold No Funding for Judicial E-Filing None Mentis-v9.2 No Viewer Scheduled for Implementation Glades Clericus Mentis-v9.2 Hold No Funding for Judicial E-Filing None Hendry Clericus Mentis-v9.2 Hold No Funding for Judicial E-Filing None Lee Tyler Odyssey Mentis-v9.2 Hold No Funding for Judicial E-Filing None ICMS = Integrated Case Management System developed by the 8th Circuit Fair amount of configuration & training involved in getting judicial efiling implemented. (Guestimate: March 2017) ICMS = Integrated Case Management System developed by the 8th Circuit. Fair amount of configuration & training involved in getting judicial efiling implemented. (Guestimate: March 2017) In-house System developed by Seminole County; not CAPS certified. Viewer does not have e-filing capabilities. Does allow judges to sign orders electronically, but works with the clerk's internally developed CMS. No plan or timeline on when this might change. September 2016 Anticipate CAPS viewer implementation in September 2016 Prepared by OSCA-ISS staff Page 3 of 3 August 2016

23 Agenda Item VI a. Portal Progress Report

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

25 July E-Filing Submissions Recipients Number Submissions to Trial Court 1,138,899 Submissions to Department of Corrections 682 Submissions to Second District Court Appeal 2,901 Submissions to Florida Supreme Court 948 Total E-Filing Submissions 1,143,430 Total Individual Documents Submitted Total Number of Pages 1,691,025 7,666,625 Judicial Circuits - Proposed Orders 130

26 Proposed Orders Circuit 2 Wakulla 45 Leon 49 Circuit 4 Clay 10 Circuit 14 Bay 14 Jackson 8 Holmes 0 Circuit 18 Brevard 3 Circuit 19 Indian River 0 Martin 0 St. Lucie 0 Circuit 20 Lee 1

27 Monthly E-Filing Submissions for July 2015 through July ,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000, ,000 0 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Submissions Documents

28 % Filings Returned to Filer for Correction in July 2.10% 2.09% 2.09% 2.14% 2.13% 2.06% 1.91% 1.97% 1.97% 1.94% 1.89% 1.85% 1.85% Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16

29 Incorrect Submissions Filer options with Incorrect Submissions Correct and Resubmit Of the 21,176 submission returned for correction, 10,699 were corrected and resubmitted Do not resubmit Leave submission in pending queue until Clerk updates status to Abandoned Filing where the filer can no longer update that submission

30 July Corrected Submissions Filer Role # Returned Resubmitted Attorney 19,476 52% Clerk 85 62% Court Reporter 33 70% Judiciary % Law Enforcement 49 53% Mediator 29 45% Mental Health Pro 38 7% Process Server % Pro Se %

31 Self-Represented Litigant Accounts and Submissions 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 20,366 22,148 23,953 25,606 27,257 28,821 30,506 32,355 34,384 36,434 38,623 40,924 43,097 Accounts Submissions 15,000 10,000 5,000 4,718 4,977 4,960 5,668 4,839 4,617 4,860 4,991 5,819 5,728 5,798 6,556 5,936 0 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16

32 Portal Projects Team Project Status Criminal E-Filing Pasco County requested extension to April 1, 2017 System-to-System E-Filing Provide technical support to IT departments implementing system-tosystem e-filing. Applications accepted August 1 15 for first session. Release Scheduled for October 21, 2016 DCA 1, 3, 4, 5 FL DOC DIY Documents Proposed Orders Work to bring in the remaining DCAs as they convert to efacts Working with the DOC to assist them with saving the documents Proposed submission of VOP Warrants to the Judges Sending Commitment Packages through the Portal As approved, add A2J interviews to the Portal to assist the Self- Represented Litigant Provide technical support to Judiciary Vendors and IT to receive proposed orders from the Portal Provide training to Judiciary and assistants

33 Agenda Item VI b. Service Desk Report

34 Florida Courts E-Filing Authority Board Service Desk Report July 2016

35 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 Case Managers Technical and System Support Incidents (Section 3) Clerks Other Stakeholders

36 Customer Service Incidents July 2016 Statistics Policies and Procedures Page 5 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 Incidents Received 2,669 2,885 2,456 Incidents Closed 2,641 2,890 2,432 Incidents Open at End of Month Average Acknowledgement Time per Incident.09 Days 46 Minutes.04 Days 20 Minutes.03 Days 15 Minutes Average Resolution Time per Incident.20 Days 1 Hour 48 Minutes.11 Days 1 Hour 1 Minute.07 Days 40 Minutes # of Filings 1,187,207 1,259,385 1,287,599 # of Documents 1,770,557 1,868,910 1,926,162

37 Judge Incidents July 2016 Statistics Policies and Procedures Page 5 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 Incidents Received Incidents Closed Incidents Open at End of Month Average Acknowledgement Time per Incident.03 Days 17 Minutes.02 Days 9 Minutes.01 Days 4 Minutes Average Resolution Time per Incident.05 Days 25 Minutes.03 Days 14 Minutes.01 Days 5 Minutes # of Filings 36,062 44,448 33,590 # of Documents 39,309 48,158 36,639

38 Pro Se Incidents July 2016 Statistics Policies and Procedures Page 5 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 Incidents Received Incidents Closed Incidents Open at End of Month Average Acknowledgement.10 Days.04 Days.03 Days Time per Incident 52 Minutes 24Minutes Average Resolution.20 Days.13 Days Time per Incident 1 Hour 50 Minutes 1 Hour 8 Minutes # of Filings 5,798 6,556 5,808 # of Documents 10,135 11,980 10, Minutes.08 Days 41 Minutes

39 Attorney Incidents July 2016 Statistics Policies and Procedures Page 5 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 Incidents Received 2,201 2,404 2,018 Incidents Closed 2,178 2,381 1,999 Incidents Open at End of Month Average Acknowledgement Time per Incident.08 Days 45 Minutes.04 Days 19 Minutes.03 Days 14 Minutes Average Resolution Time per Incident.20 Days 1 Hour 48 Minutes.11 Days 1 Hour 1 Minute.07 Days 39 Minutes # of Filings 1,093,824 1,150,804 1,197,233 # of Documents 1,660,899 1,741,987 1,818,524

40 Technical/System Support Incidents July 2016 Statistics Policies and Procedures Page 5 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 Incidents Received Incidents Closed Incidents Open at End of Month Average Acknowledgement.04 Days.03 Days.02 Days Time per Incident 22 Minutes 17 Minutes Average Resolution.27 Days.31 Days Time per Incident 2 Hours 24 Minutes 2 Hours 45 Minutes # of Filings 6,777 7,097 6,909 # of Documents 7,945 8,283 7, Minutes.34 Days 3 Hours 3 Minutes

41 Top 10 Types of Incidents For: Attorneys Case Question Document Tab E-Service Issue Filing Status Check Login Issues Password Reset Payment Question Pending Queue Pending Registration Referred To County Self-Represented Litigant/Pro Se Account Set-Up Case Look-Up Case Question De-Activate Account Document Tab E-Service Issue General Question Login Issues Password Reset Referred To County Judges Pending Registration

42 E-Portal Service Desk Initiatives Pending Filing Clean-Up: Start Date Count End Date Count Nov. 1, ,000 July 29, ,973 Bad Address Clean-Up: This will be on ongoing project. In the month of July we corrected nearly 5,600 bad addresses on the Portal. These addresses contain invalid characters, spaces or are no longer valid addresses for the filers.

43 Agenda Item VI c. Release

44 Release Enhancement Requests Approved by the E-Filing Authority Board for Release /14/2016

45 Document Organization and Contents Spreadsheet contents Column Heading HEAT Ticket # Enhancement Request Location of Enhancement Description The reference number for each portal change request. Click Bookmarks to display the supporting documentation by ticket number to see the documentation that describes the request. This number is also used in subsequent release notes when the software is implemented. A short description of the portal change request Either affects the Portal for the filers or Portal Review for the counties Release Schedule Month Activity 05/20/ Portal Release 06/10/2016 Maintenance Release 10/20/ Portal Release

46 HEAT # Enhancement Request Location of Enhancement Purge notifications in data files within the Portal which inform the filer of the following Application Data Base actions: 1) filing received; 2) filing moved to pending queue; 3) corrected filing received; 4) processing completed; 5) filing filed for judicial review; 6) filing received - Court; and 7) filing removed from pending queue which are over three years old Add the User Manual and YouTube Help Icons to the Clerk Review pages of the Portal Portal Review Add 'Forgot User Name' to Portal Filer's Interface Request an additional User Option for Clerk Users in the Security Tab for allowing a User to Portal Review move filings to Abandoned Filing queue Add the ability in Clerk Review for a Reviewer to move a large number of filings to a different Portal Review Work Queue at the same time instead of having to go into each submission one at a time to move that submission to another Work Queue Add Spell Check to Docket Text field in Clerk Review Portal Review Fee Waiver option needs to be added to the Portal for F.S. 63 [Adoptions] Filer's Interface Add the ability for a County Portal Admin to be able to view all of the Organizations that Portal Review have been created in the Portal Include in the audit trail within the Portal any changes made by the Clerk Reviewer to the Portal Review case number, category, event type, docket date Add a field on the docket code screen that allows the County Portal Admin to 'mark as Portal Review emergency' whenever that docket code is used by the filers. That way it does not rely on the filer to mark the submission as an emergency. Just selecting that docket code will automatically mark the submission as an emergency Allow the ability to copy a previously entered address from one party to another when Filer's Interface creating a new case and adding parties in the Portal. This will be especially useful in Eviction cases when all of the parties use the same address Allow the County Portal Admin to add users to Organizations they have created in the Portal Portal Review Change Pending Queue to Correction Queue and add enhancements to Correction Queue Filer's Interface Filing #s - We need to build a numbering system that does not exceed six characters so that Application Design the filing ID will be able to populate the Memo field at case initiation

47 Agenda Item VIII a. Florida Bar Attorney Status Validation

48 Florida Courts E-Filing Portal Requirements Gathering Document Software Release Document Version 7/26/2016 HEAT Ticket Short Description: Florida Bar Attorney Status Validation Supplemental Agreement 4.1(a) Business Need/Problem: 1. The Portal should not allow an attorney to file through the Portal if that attorney is not in good standing with The Florida Bar per 2. The Portal receives daily FL Bar batch files that contain the list of attorneys and the status of each attorney Requested Solution: 1. Restrict the attorney portal user functionality based on Florida Bar practice restrictions. Table of Contents Purpose... 1 Analysis... 1 Bar File... 1 Bar Restrictions File... 2 Deceased File... 4 Implications of Real-Time Attorney Status Functionality... 4 The Florida Bar... 4 Purpose RJA states all persons in good standing as members of The Florida Bar shall be permitted to practice in Florida. Currently, the Portal validates attorneys against the Florida Bar Active Attorney file at the time an attorney is trying to obtain a Portal user account. No further automated attorney status validation occurs. If an attorney is disbarred and the Portal Support Center is notified, a manual process is performed by the Portal Support Center staff to change the attorney user account status to Disbarred which prevents the attorney from accessing the portal. The purpose of this document is to define the information that is available from The Florida Bar, determine how to use that information in the Portal and determine if real-time attorney status information is required to perform these edits. Analysis The Florida Bar transmits three files to FCCC on a daily basis: 1. Bar File 2. Bar Restrictions File 3. Deceased File Attorneys appear only in the file that reflects their status as of the time the FL Bar produces the files. Bar File The Bar File is currently accessed to validate an Attorney Bar ID and name entered on Portal User Account Creation. We do not know how long it takes for an attorney to take the Bar exam, pass it, obtain a Bar ID and appear on this file. The Page 1 of 4

49 Florida Courts E-Filing Portal Requirements Gathering Document State Attorneys have stated that they have attorneys that pass the Bar exam but do not receive their Florida Bar ID for a period of time when they are actually eligible to file documents. This is not being researched more at this time, but we wanted to include this information in case it is important. Bar Restrictions File The Florida Bar Restrictions File used by the FCCC contains the following statuses for members and is currently refreshed daily from the file received from the Florida Bar. Code Attorney Status Attorney Restrictions Duration (Permanent or Temporary) AHCX Ex-Authorized House Counsel DELQ Delinquent DISB Disbarred Permanent EXLE CLER Exemption FBBE FBBE License Revoked FRPX Ex-FL Registered Paralegal INAC Inactive INCP Incapacity LAPS Lapsed RESG Resigned RET5 Retired 5 years lapsed/permanent RETI Retired RETP Retirement Permanent REVK License Revoked REVO Discipline Revocation SUSP Suspended The Florida Bar Sub-Type Restriction Codes are associated with which restriction codes? Ask Florida Bar. Code Description Attorney Restrictions Permanent AMFW Active Military Fee Waiver AUTO Automatic reinstatement BSR1 Basic Skills Phase I Delq BSR2 Basic Skills Phase II Delq CLER Continuing Education CONS Consent COST Disciplinary Costs DIVC Diversion Cost DIVF Diversion Fees EMER Emergency FARB Fee Arbitration FEES Dues/Fees FEL Felony FRP Florida Registered Paralegal HRDS Undue hardship INAC Inactive JUDG Judicial MLSV Military NA No subtype required Page 2 of 4

50 Florida Courts E-Filing Portal Requirements Gathering Document Code Description Attorney Restrictions Permanent NRES Nonresident PERM Permanent REH Rehabilitation REST Delinquent in Restitution 1. What is the timing at The Florida Bar when an attorney status changes and they move an attorney from one file to another? 2. Do these sub-types need to be included in the portal attorney user functionality? 3. How do restrictions limit attorney access to the portal? 4. There is potentially more than one portal account per attorney/florida Bar ID. Any impact to the portal user account will also be applied to all active portal accounts with the same Florida Bar ID. 5. Does the portal need to update the attorney user account status with the Florida Bar status? 6. Can attorneys access the portal, but not file documents? a. Manage My Account information including i. User Details 1. Physical address 2. addresses 3. Phone number 4. Portal account security questions ii. Password Management iii. Payment Accounts 1. Removing saved account information iv. Preferences 1. Portal Home Page Default 2. Notifications Opt In/Out 3. Default Filing Path 4. List Display Options 5. Last jurisdiction filed to b. Manage eservice lists c. Manage My Fees d. Obtain filing statuses on My Submissions e. File Pleadings f. Correct pending queue filings g. Receive eservice h. Filing Proposed Orders i. Manage Organization if attorney is the Organization Administrator i. Manage attorney users to their Portal Organization 1. Add attorney to the firm 2. Remove attorney from the firm 3. Reset Portal Passwords 4. Manage all fees for submissions under their organization 5. View the status of all submissions made by attorneys within their organization ii. Update Organization Profile information j. Manage Filer Alerts 7. Is day-old attorney status data sufficient to perform these edits or is a real-time status required? Page 3 of 4

51 Florida Courts E-Filing Portal Requirements Gathering Document Deceased File The Deceased Attorney file contains attorney Bar ID s and names for deceased attorneys. What should happen with a deceased attorney s portal accounts and any eservice lists that the attorney is listed on? Implications of Real-Time Attorney Status Functionality 24/7 access to The Florida Bar web service must be available as attorney file every day and at all times of the day If a web service is down, the status is not obtained unless we continue to import the batch files daily The Florida Bar The Florida Bar will provide us with a well-defined set of practice restrictions. Page 4 of 4

52 Agenda Item X. Summary Results from Survey on Case Types Captured in the CMS

53 Party Attributes Stats from Related Party Workgroup August 12, 2016 meeting Case Type Party Attribute Total Records Number of Counties - Field Populated for less than 50% of Cases Number of Counties - Number of Counties - no Field populated for 50% value provided or more of cases Annulment Address Sexual Violence Injunction Address Sexual Violence Injunction Address Domestic Violence Address Dating Violence Address Felony Address Dissolution Postmarital Agreements, Civil Domestic, Emancipation of a Minor Marriage Address Paternity Address Repeat Vilence Address Postmarital Agreements, Civil Domestic, Emancipation of a Minor Address Child Support Address Name Change Address UIFSA Address Adoption Address Stalking Address Juvenile Dependency Address Felony DOB Domestic Violence DOB Dating Violence DOB Child Support DOB Repeat Vilence DOB Sexual Violence Injunction DOB UIFSA DOB Sexual Violence Injunction DOB Stalking DOB Dissolution Postmarital Agreements, Civil Domestic, Emancipation of a Minor Marriage DOB Paternity DOB Annulment DOB Name Change DOB Postmarital Agreements, Civil Domestic, Emancipation of a Minor DOB Juvenile Dependency DOB Adoption DOB Adoption First Name Domestic Violence First Name Dating Violence First Name Paternity First Name Repeat Vilence First Name Annulment First Name Name Change First Name Postmarital Agreements, Civil Domestic, Emancipation of a Minor First Name Sexual Violence Injunction First Name Child Support First Name Sexual Violence Injunction First Name Dissolution Postmarital Agreements, Civil Domestic, Emancipation of a Minor Marriage First Name UIFSA First Name Felony First Name Stalking First Name Juvenile Dependency First Name Adoption Last Name Domestic Violence Last Name Dating Violence Last Name Paternity Last Name Repeat Vilence Last Name Sexual Violence Injunction Last Name Sexual Violence Injunction Last Name Annulment Last Name Name Change Last Name Postmarital Agreements, Civil Domestic, Emancipation of a Minor Last Name Child Support Last Name Felony Last Name Dissolution Postmarital Agreements, Civil Domestic, Emancipation of a Minor Marriage Last Name UIFSA Last Name Juvenile Dependency Last Name Stalking Last Name Dissolution Postmarital Agreements, Civil Domestic, Emancipation of a Minor Marriage Middle Name Annulment Middle Name Child Support Middle Name Adoption Middle Name Paternity Middle Name Name Change Middle Name UIFSA Middle Name Felony Middle Name Postmarital Agreements, Civil Domestic, Emancipation of a Minor Middle Name

54 Party Attributes Stats from Related Party Workgroup August 12, 2016 meeting Case Type Party Attribute Total Records Number of Counties - Field Populated for less than 50% of Cases Number of Counties - Number of Counties - no Field populated for 50% value provided or more of cases Domestic Violence Middle Name Dating Violence Middle Name Sexual Violence Injunction Middle Name Sexual Violence Injunction Middle Name Repeat Vilence Middle Name Stalking Middle Name Juvenile Dependency Middle Name Felony OBTS Adoption OBTS Annulment OBTS Domestic Violence OBTS Dissolution Postmarital Agreements, Civil Domestic, Emancipation of a Minor Marriage OBTS Dating Violence OBTS Name Change OBTS Postmarital Agreements, Civil Domestic, Emancipation of a Minor OBTS Paternity OBTS Repeat Vilence OBTS Sexual Violence Injunction OBTS UIFSA OBTS Juvenile Dependency OBTS Child Support OBTS Stalking OBTS Sexual Violence Injunction OBTS Felony Race Repeat Vilence Race Domestic Violence Race Dating Violence Race Sexual Violence Injunction Race Sexual Violence Injunction Race Juvenile Dependency Race Paternity Race Child Support Race Annulment Race Dissolution Postmarital Agreements, Civil Domestic, Emancipation of a Minor Marriage Race Name Change Race UIFSA Race Postmarital Agreements, Civil Domestic, Emancipation of a Minor Race Adoption Race Stalking Race Felony Sex Sexual Violence Injunction Sex Sexual Violence Injunction Sex Domestic Violence Sex Dating Violence Sex Stalking Sex Annulment Sex Repeat Vilence Sex Dissolution Postmarital Agreements, Civil Domestic, Emancipation of a Minor Marriage Sex Paternity Sex Name Change Sex UIFSA Sex Postmarital Agreements, Civil Domestic, Emancipation of a Minor Sex Adoption Sex Child Support Sex Juvenile Dependency Sex Felony SSN Child Support SSN UIFSA SSN Dissolution Postmarital Agreements, Civil Domestic, Emancipation of a Minor Marriage SSN Annulment SSN Paternity SSN Postmarital Agreements, Civil Domestic, Emancipation of a Minor SSN Domestic Violence SSN Dating Violence SSN Repeat Vilence SSN Sexual Violence Injunction SSN Sexual Violence Injunction SSN Name Change SSN Adoption SSN Stalking SSN Juvenile Dependency SSN

55 Agenda Item XI a. Summary Results from Survey on E- Filing Pending Queue

56 Abandoned Filings Workgroup Summary of Survey Results on E-Filing Pending Queue On June 21, 2016, the Florida Court Clerks & Comptrollers Association sent out Advisory Bulletin related to the Survey Request Regarding e-filing Pending Queue. This advisory solicited each of the 67 Clerks to review an inventory of their respective reasons for placement of filings into the E-Filing Portal s Pending Queue. From this review, they were asked to provide a more general list of reasons used. Also, each county was asked to provide a copy of or reference to all county/circuit Administrative Orders that govern pending queue/judicial review processing (attached). The cutoff for providing responses was July 8 th, 2016 and 34 counties submitted responses. The counties reviewed an initial spreadsheet containing 62,774 rows of pending queue transactions/reasons provided by the E-Filing Portal Staff. This review resulted in a great reduction in the spreadsheet with more general reason codes containing 712 rows. From this list, I worked with internal staff to further generalize the reasons down to a list of 20 as outlined below. The below alphabetical list also provides a usage count for each and percentage breakdown. The workgroup will take this list and determine if any further consolidation can take place and also clean up each statement for clarity. This list in turn would be the proposed standardized list to be used for all clerks. We can then run monthly/quarterly statistics to identify patterns and trends that lead to the 2% return rate and identify remedial steps to take to drive this percentage downward (training, education, process changes, etc.) Summary Drop Down List Count of Summary Drop Down Percentage Combined Filing - Separate Documents Must be Filed for Each Case/Party % Document Illegible or Corrupt or Blank or Not Compliant with Standard % Document incomplete % Incorrect / Missing Case Number / Case Style % Incorrect Summons for Case Type/Summons has Missing or Incomplete Information % Indigency Denied / Fees Due % Missing Information on Complaint/Petition/Document or Necessary Document Not Filed % Missing Signature / Non-Compliant Signature % New Case Required for this filing % Order Missing Information / Non-Compliant % Original Documents or Service Documents Must be Filed in Paper Format % Other % Per Request of Filer % Previously Filed Document/Case % Unsigned Order / Correspondence to Court % Wrong County / Jurisdiction % Wrong Division % Wrong Fee/Missing Fee % Separate Filings - Combine Documents/Pages for Filing % Mismatch on Case Type/Document Type Selected and Petition/Complaint/Document Filed % Grand Total % Page 1 of 1

57 Agenda Item XII a. Polk County Extension Request

58 Stacy M. Butterfield, CPA Clerk of the Circuit Court and County Comptroller Polk County, Florida Drawer CC-1 Post Office Box 9000 Bartow, FL (863) Phone (863) Fax July 28, 2016 The Honorable Lisa T. Munyon, Chair Florida Courts Technology Commission c/o Office of the State Courts Administrator 500 South Duval Street Tallahassee, Florida Dear Judge Munyon: I am writing to respectfully request extension of our implementation for the Public Defender and State Attorney roles in Polk County s electronic records access application, known as Polk Records Online. While developing the Public Defender s role, we uncovered a difficult challenge involving capiases. Because of the technical complexity of this issue, my office is requesting an additional 90 days for development and testing to accommodate the Public Defender s office. Additionally, we request we be allowed to continue using our existing remote access application to accommodate the Public Defender s office in the interim. While the State Attorney s role in Polk Records Online is complete, changes to our included calendar functions are being evaluated by my developers to better accommodate their needs. And while the State Attorney will use Polk Records Online to access our records, they ll continue to require the calendar function in our existing remote access application to function. Therefore, we request to be allowed to continue using our existing remote access applications to accommodate the State Attorney s Office in the interim. With the exception of the Public Defender s role and the calendar issue with the State Attorney, my office is otherwise in full compliance with AOSC16-14 across all user roles (including bulk data subscribers). All other users have been removed from our legacy remote access applications and onto Polk Records Online. Your consideration of my request is appreciated. Respectfully, Stacy M. Butterfield Clerk of the Circuit Court & County Comptroller Polk County, FL The Mission of the Office of Clerk of the Circuit Court is to function as a team dedicated to our customers by preparing and maintaining accurate records, furnishing assistance in an understanding and compassionate manner, and providing services with competence, professionalism, and courtesy in compliance with laws, rules and regulations.

59 Agenda Item XII b. Online Electronic Records Access Applications

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69 Agenda Item XII b. Broward County Attorney of Record

70 Florida Courts On-line Records Access Application Circuit & County OR District Court: Broward County 17th Judicial Circuit of Florida Application Name: Clerk of Court Public Access Website Application Developer Name (Provide vendor name or designate in-house): Clerk's Technology Department Date: 08/02/2016 Contact Person: Karin Herrera, Project Manager, CTD Anticipated Start Date for the Development or Implementation of the System: Upon Approval of Application Anticipated System Implementation Date after approval (estimated date can be given in days, weeks, months, or a specific date after approval): 120 days AL Application 1. Describe the vendor or in-house application system that will be handling the on-line access from the public and other authenticated users. Broward County Clerk of Courts currently uses Odyssey for our in-house clerk case management system. We provide a public access website built on the Microsoft.NET (ASP. NET) technology stack. Based on the access rules of the Access Security Matrix, the website provides "Public Internet (Anonymous)" access only to case detailed information/documents for Felony, Traffic & Misdemeanor, Civil, Family, and Probate case records. For this phase, we are applying to add the "Attorney of Record" user access level to court documents/images based upon the Access Security Matrix. Our subscribers will be required to create an account and submit notarized applications designed to verify the user's identity. 2. Describe the level of information that will be accessed on-line (case types) at this time, and any plans for expansion in the future. During the first phase, Broward County Clerk of Courts implemented the "Public Internet (Anonymous)" User Level access, and successfully completed the pilot phase. Approval of the pilot was granted April 27, This phase is completed. At this time we have plans to implement the "Attorney of Record" user access level to electronic court records based upon the Access Security Matrix. Plans for future phases to provide additional user level security access will be requested in subsequent On-line access application forms. On-line Electronic Records Access Application Page 4

71 3. Describe replication methods for data that is accessed outside the judicial group. Our public access website includes a near real-time replicated Odyssey database (Microsoft SQL Server) located in a secure area behind our fire walls, which is accessible only by web services which are called by applications running on separate web servers located in a demilitarized zone (DMZ). Our image repository is replicated to a file share, which are later retrieved via web services and are served to the users through the web application for viewing. 4. Judicial Access Group: Thi.s group may have direct access to non-replicated files, so please describe how users are setup to limit direct access to those that have a work purpose? The Judicial Access Group has access to the native Odyssey Application via private network, and uses defined user rights and roles and security groups to control access to confidential cases and document images. 5. Describe how sensitive data is secured at the data exchange level by showing what security features you have in place including trusted paths, encryption, and authentication. Sensitive data is being encrypted while in transit by using Transport Layer Security (TLS) over HTTP (HTTPS). Authentication is in place (Microsoft ASP. NET Membership), so authorized users need to be authenticated prior to the'!' being able to access case detail and document images. 6. Does your case management or web interface have the ability to identify and designate confidential information at the case, party, docket and image levels independently? In Odyssey, information can be marked as confidential with certain security groups either at the case or party level. Images can also be marked as confidential. Broward uses a checkbox on the individual dockets to mark them as "Docke table ". If the "Docketable" checkbox is not checked, then the docket entry will not be displayed on our website. 7. Describe how confidential information that is identified through a Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court records is handled to ensure any data deemed confidential by the court is included in the redaction process. Motions to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records may be received by the Clerk in different ways: through the E-Filing Portal, over- the-counter and in the courtroom. If received through the E-filing Portal, the Clerk reviewing the documentflags the document as confidential in Odyssey during level 2 redaction and indexing process. If received over-the-counter or in court (and if the judge determines that the document should be made confidentia/), the clerk will scan the document. The Clerk reviewing the document flags the docum'ent as confidential in Odyssey during the level 2 redaction and indexing process. If the Motion refers only to parts of the document, the document must be manually redacted by a clerk. 8. Describe the search parameters that are available for the general public and for authenticated users. On our website, users have the ability to search by party first name and last name (with partial name search), business name, case number, citation number. Additional search criteria will also be available by bar number for the "Attorney of Record" user access level. On-line Electronic Records Access Application Page 5

72 9. Describe how data transfers are monitored to identify and mitigate abuse issues. All case searches, case detail and number of documents downloaded by source ip-address are logged and then audited on a daily basis. We use the audit log to mitigate abuse issues. We use SIEM tool (event tracker) to evaluate network traffic and lis logs. Additionally, we have implemented dynamic CAPTCHA (if users exceed rate limits, they are presented with the dynamic CAPTCHA). 10. Describe quality control procedures used to ensure the accuracy of information, completeness, quality of images, and proper redqction of images. All E-Filed and scanned documents are reviewed for accuracy and completeness of information during the level 2 redaction and indexing process. Scanned documents are monitored via manual review and dpi auto detection and reporting to ensure that the image quality meets standards. Following the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, Rule 2.420, any document containing confidential information is required to be filed with a :'Notice of Confidential Information within Court Filing" which defines the confidential information therein. All Notices of Confidential Information (and any related pleading documents) that are processed and accepted through the E-Filing Portal are manually reviewed to determine if the information within the related pleading documents are correctly identified as confidential. If the entire document is found to be confidential, the Clerk marks the document as Confidential in the CMS. If the confidential information is only pieces of and not the entire document the clerk manually redacts. If the information is not deemed confidential, as defined in the Rule, a rejection letter is sent to the filer allowing him/her ten (10) days to take action, during which time the document will remain locked, as confidential. At the time of indexing, all documents that are not attached to a Notice of Confidential Information within Court Filing are reviewed via automated redaction software (CSllntellidact) and a manual review to determine if confidential information is contained therein. 11. Describe the methods by which redaction of confidential information is performed, the redaction audit process to ensure quality assurance, and how updates on confidentiality requirements resulting from legislation or court rules are incorporated. Documents are redacted based upon rules compliant with rules and If the CSI redaction software does not return 100% confidence level about the redaction to be applied, the document is flagged for manual review by the clerk during the indexing process to accept the document as submitted or manually redact any suspect or missed confidential information by the redaction software. When redaction is complete the redacted document is stored in Odyssey as a new version of the original document. Clerk and vendor constantly monitor changes in court rules and legislation. New redaction rules are added as necessary. During the "Public Internet (Anonymous)" user level access first phase, we implemented an anomalybased audit and detection report set to flag documents that normally contain redactions, but for which no redaction was found. Unredacted documents on the report are reviewed for accuracy. This audit process will be incorporated in all future phases of On-line Access implementations. 12. Provide written overview and diagrams of the hardware and software components of the system. On-line Electronic Records Access Application Page 6

73 The production Odyssey infrastructure is hosted in a Broward County datacenter with the following secure areas: Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) or perimeter network that adds an additional layer of security to the Broward County network. The DMZ is the only zone of the network that is exposed to the internet. The Broward Clerk Public Access internet web servers reside in the DMZ. Local Network or intronet zone is a controlled zone accessed by users within the Broward County network. It is protected by multiple fire walls and access to servers is strictly controlled through firewall rules. Odyssey Interconnect Network or production zone which is separated from the DMZ by fire walls. This is a secure zone and access to servers located within it is strictly controlled through firewall rules. Access from the internet directly to this zone is not permitted. The Odyssey production environment and Broward Public Access web servers are located at Peak-10, a hardened Category V building. All servers in the Odyssey environment are virtual servers with the exception of the database and image servers. Data and image storage for Odyssey consists of SAN storage which is exceptionally reliable and redundant. See high level hardware diagram below. 2 Public Access Servers Proxv s~rver Integration DMZ ocal Network Broward County Odyssey Prod Hardware Plan 3Webl Application Servers OMS File Server Pr imary DB Server Replicated DB Server DB StandBy Server (LogShipping) Production Environment On-line Electronic Records Access Application Page 7

74 Access 1. Describe how users and the public will access the system (web services portal, published web site etc). Broward County Clerk of Courts provides a published web site for public access. 2. What authentication process do you use to verify the role and credentials of users who are not members of the general public? Broward County Clerk of Courts uses ASP.net Identity 2.0 for website authentication. User Roles are used to grant access based on the Access Security Matrix. We also use the approved registered user subscription forms to grant secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. 3. What process is used for non-general public users to register for access to records? For information that is accessible to individuals or entities beyond general public access, users must be authenticated to verify their role and associated access levels. Users must create an online secure account and then request access by subscribing to the access role, after subscribing the user must provide information via an affidavit to verify their identity. Users are then approved and the access role is granted for the users account. At a minimum, the users accessing records and information beyond general public access will have a user name and password, and have the ability to change their password using self-service within the website. Broward County Clerk of Courts is using approved registered user subscription forms to grant secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. 4. Who makes the determination as to appropriate level of access for non-general public users, and how is that determination made? "Attorney of Record" user level access will have a two-step verification process: Attorney will be verified in the Odyssey CMS Attorney will be verified with the Florida bar Our Public Access Information administration will review and approve/ reject the subscriber application based upon the requirements for the user access level. 5. By what means do you ensure that agencies have a gatekeeper responsible for controlling agency employee access to records? What responsibilities are imposed on agency gatekeepers to ensure authorized access to records? For "Attorney of Record" user level access we will not be implementing gatekeeper. Each Attorney will be required to file a notarized agreement. On-line Electronic Records Access Application Page 8

75 6. What process is used to ensure that disbarred or suspended attorneys do not have attorney level access to records? "Attorney of Record" user level access will be revoked for any attorney that has been disbarred or suspended based upon the' Florida Bar data feed. 7. Describe how the levels of access provided to the roles are aligned with the Access Security Matrix. For this phase, we are following the specifications outlined in the Access Security Matrix dated April 2016 version 5. "Attorney of Record" user access level will be allowed to view all records except those that are expunged, or sealed under Ch. 943 or sealed under rule 2.420; access may be denied to records or information automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(l), or made confidential by court order, depending upon the type of case and the language of the court order. 8. How is confidential information protected from access? (please describe automated system and manual processes) Confidential information is protected from access via security groups within the Odyssey Case Management System (case type, party type, docket type and image type). We currently perform two levels of redaction on all e-filed and locally scanned documents. Level 1 utilizes knowledge based software redaction by (SI and in Level 2 the images are presented to a first reviewer to accept or decline to redact selected data on the image. Manual processes are also used for documents that can't be redacted through the automated process. Only redacted and non-confidential information is viewed on the public access website. 9. Will you have a category of files viewable upon request or will you redact and make all files viewable regardless of request status? What is the process used for to request access to records by View on Request? VOR will not be supported as we currently perform two levels of redaction for documents prior to attaching them to cases in our system. Any documents marked as confidential will not be viewable. 10. If files are redacted and made available upon user request (View on Request), describe how the user is informed the file is available for viewing. 'f- N/A - VOR will not be supported as we currently perform two levels of redaction for documents prior to attaching them to cases in our system. 11. If notification of a file available for viewing includes a URL link to the file, please describe how you prevent links from being cut and pasted by using encryption or other security methods. We do not provide URL links to documents in notifications. We use session encryption on our query string variables, therefore, users will not be able to use URLs that are copied and pasted. On-line Electronic Records Access Application Page 9

76 12. How do you notify a user that a request for access has been granted or denied? Users will be notified via if their request was granted or denied. 13. Are fees charged for viewing the court files remotely (including account creation, access management or document viewing, printing or downloading)? If yes, please include details including the applicable fee schedule. No fees are charged for viewing electronic court records and documents remotely. 14. Are fees charged to view the court files from a public access terminal or kiosk at the courthouse? If yes, please include details including the applicable fee schedule. No fees are charged for viewing court records and documents on public access terminals or kiosks located within the Broward County Courthouse. 15. Do you have any fee waiver provisions not otherwise provided in the statute? N/A Vendor " If contracting with a private vendor: a. Provide confirmation that ALL unauthorized data mining activities will be prohibited. b. Provide confirmation that the release and/or distribution of court data will be limited to what is defined by law and further described in the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records and Access Security Matrix. N/A - All public access applications are implemented and managed internally by Broward Clerk of Court Technology Staff.. Security and Continuity of Operations 1. Besides authentication levels based on roles, describe other security processes in place to protect the confidentiality, accessibility, and integrity of the records. Include information about antivirus, firewalls, and other security methods, appliances, and software, and how the system and access accounts are backed up. We utilize perimeter fire walls to explicitly allow legitimate traffic and deny all other. Antivirus software is also installed on all back-end servers hosting the external web application as well as all Broward County Clerk of Courts workstations. This software is continuously updated through an automated process. On-line Electronic Records Access Application Page 10

77 Workstations and Servers are also required to participate in BeeDe's automated security vulnerability patching program. All systems are updated on a monthly basis for regularly released security patches. BeeDe employs periodic web vulnerability assessments that are run against the external web application and back-end servers. Direct access to any database is only allowed to limited and defined database support personnel. The databases are also backed up on a regular basis, and user passwords to the web application are encrypted. See Security Diagram below. Internet Users Front End Only - READ Permission Local Server Acct for Web Site Acces s "user@domain.lnside" Back End Only - READ Perm ission Domain.lnside Acct. for READ only Image Access Firewall Tightly controlled policies allowing only required protocols UTM features -Intrusion detection/prevention, Data leak prevention, Anti Virus Windows Domain One-way "Inside to DMZ" Trust Internet Firew all With IPS Internal Firewall With IPS Restricted access Server Zone -Inside Domain W o Image Repository SQL Server Application Server Web Services Authorization DMZ Firewall with IPS Web Server Internet user * Local server account No access on DMZ domain Front End lis only * Centrally managed Anti-Virus and Patching user@domain.inside * Used by lis for Back-end Process only * No permission on the web server No permission on DMZ domain SQLDB user@domain.inside * Minimal DB access * READ only when necessary * Centrally managed Anti-Virus and Patching OMS (Image Storage) user@domain.inside * READ only access on images for retrieval only user@domain.inside * Resides outside of "Domain Users" group in Active Directory * Granted "Read Only" permission s on only two servers in domain SQLDB Image Repository 2. Describe the frequency of replication to the electronic files that will be accessed outside the judicial group. Only case data is replicated in near real time using Microsoft SQL Server replication. 3. Provide documentation of methods and processes for granting, removing, or denying access for a user. For granting access, users must subscribe to the service and provide a notarized affidavit agreement via or standard mail. Our Public Access Administrator will review the documentation and approve or deny access for the user. On-line Electronic Records Access Application Page 11

78 Users will be removed if they violate our Terms of Service. 4. Provide documentation of the human processes for: (1) reviewing court records for confidential information; and (2) proper identification and processes for handling public access requests. We use a 3-step redaction process review - electronic redaction, user validation redaction, and audit review of redacted documents. (1) Documents are redacted based upon rules compliant with rules and If the CSI redaction software does not return 100% confidence level about the redaction to be applied, the document is flagged for manual review by the clerk during indexing at the processing station to accept the document as submitted or manually redact any suspect or missed confidential information by the redaction software. When redaction is complete the redacted document is stored in Odyssey as a version of the original document. (2) When there is a request in the division to view an electronic case file, the customer is provided access to the file via a computer in the division. All redaction of confidential information previously occurred to all documents that are in the Odyssey CMS, therefore, another review is not done. In regard to paper files, those files are sent to the Clerk's redaction division where they are reviewed and redacted. The customer is then provided access to the public file. If it is a confidential file, e. g., juvenile records, they must be one of the parties 'named in the Statutes or Rules that are allowed access and must produce identification so that we can verify that they are who they say they are before we give them access. (3) We developed an anomaly-based tool to review document types that have a high percentage of redactions for the purpose of finding documents for which a redaction did not occur. These un-redacted documents are then audited again for accuracy. This audit will be incorporated in the business processes for all future phases of On-line Access implementations. In addition, during the first phase, we implemented a reporting tool for "Public Internet (Anonymous)" users to report inadvertent release of confidential information. Any reported instance is reviewed for accurocy, applicability of confidentiality standards and corrected, if required. F On-line Electronic Records Access Application Page 12

79 ATTACHMENT A Certification Statement I hereby certify that once the attached on-line electronic records access application is implemented it will comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Section 508 accessibility standards, as incorporated into Florida law by section (1), Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Judicial Administration I further certify that if this on-line electronic records access system is amended, updated, or improved in the future, such revisions will continue to assure that the system complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 508 standards, as incorporated into Florida law, and is accessible to users with disabilities. The Certification Statement must be signed by either the Clerk of Court or his/her appointed designee for a Clerk submission, or the Circuit Court Administrator or his/her appointed designee for a Court submission. / Signature Name Howard C. Forman / Ernesto Nardo Title Clerk of Courts / Chief Technology Officer Organization Broward Clerk ofthe Court 1 t h Judicial Circuit Street 201 S.E. 6 th Street, Room 760 City, State, Zip Fort Lauderdale, FL Date August 1, 2016 On-line Electronic Records Access Application Page 13

80 Agenda Item XII b. Broward County Commercial Purchasers of Bulk Records

81 Florida Courts On-line Records Access Application Circuit & County OR District Court: Broward County 17th Judicial Circuit of Florida Application Name: Clerk of Court Public Access Website Application Developer Name (Provide vendor name or designate in-house): Clerk's Technology Department Date: 08/02/2016. Contact Person: Karin Herrera, Project Manager, CTD Anticipated Start Date for the Development or Implementation of the System: Upon Approval of Application Anticipated System Implementation Date after approval (estimated date can be given in days, weeks, months, or a specific date after approval): 120 days HNICAL Application 1. Describe the vendor or in-house application system that will be handling the on-line access from the public and other authenticated users. Broward County Clerk of Courts currently uses Odyssey for our in-house clerk case management system. We provide a public access website built on the Microsoft. NET (ASP. NET) technology stack. Based on the access rules of the Access Security Matrix, the website provides "Public Internet (Anonymous)" access only to case detailed information/documents for Felony, Traffic & Misdemeanor, Civil, Family, and Probate case records. For this phase, we are applying to add the "Commercial Purchasers of Bulk Records" user access level to court records based upon the Access Security Matrix. Our subscribers will be required to create an account and submit notarized applications designed to verify the user's identity. L 2. Describe the level of information that will be accessed on-line (case types) at this time, and any plans for expansion in the future. During the first phase, Broward County Clerk of Courts implemented the "Public Internet (Anonymous)" User Level access, and successfully completed the pilot phase. Approval of the pilot was granted April 27, This phase is completed. F At this time we have plans'to implement the "Commercial Purchasers of Bulk Records" user access level to electronic court records based upon the Access Security Matrix. Plans for future phases to provide additional user level security access will be requested in subsequent On-line access application forms. On-line Electronic Records Access Application Page 4

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91 Agenda Item XII b. Broward County Individuals Registered for Subscriber Service

92 Florida Courts On-line Records Access Application OVERVIEW Circuit & County OR District Court: Broward County 1ih Judicial Circuit of Florida Application Name: Clerk of Court Public Access Website Application Developer Name (Provide vendor name or designate in-house): Clerk's Technology Department Date : 08/02/2016 Contact Person : Karin Herrera, Project Manager, CTD Anticipated Start Date for the Development or Implementation of the System: Upon Approval of Application Anticipated System Implementation Date after approval (estimated date can be given in days, weeks, months, or a specific date after approval): 120 days TECHNICAL Application 1. Describe the vendor or in-house application system that will be handling the on-line access from the public and other authenticated users. Broward County Clerk of Courts currently uses Odyssey for our in-house clerk case management system. We provide a public access website built on the Microsoft.NET (ASP. NET) technology stack. Based on the access rules of the Access Security Matrix, the website provides "Public Internet (Anonymous)" access only to case detailed information/documents for Felony, Traffic & Misdemeanor, Civil, Family, and Probate case records. For this phase, we are applying to add the "Individuals Registered for Subscriber Service" user access level to court documents/images based upon the Access Security Matrix. Our subscribers will be required to create an account and submit notarized applications designed to verify the user's identity. 2. Describe the level of information that will be accessed on-line (case types) at this time, and any plans for expansion in the future. During the first phase, Broward County Clerk of Courts implemented the "Public Internet (Anonymous)" User Level access, and successfully completed the pilot phase. Approval of the pilot was granted April 2 7, This phase is completed. At this time we have plans to implement the "Individuals Registered for Subscriber Service" user access level to electronic court records based upon the Access Security Matrix. Plans for future phases to provide additional user level security access will be requested in subsequent On-line access application forms. On-line Electronic Records Access Application Page 4

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102 Agenda Item XII c. Updating the Access Security Matrix

103 User Role (Subscribers) Internal Access by Authorization 1. Judges, JA's, Court Personnel, Clerk Personnel 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) 8. 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) Access Security Matrix (April 2016 version 5) ***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.

104 User Role (Subscribers) Internal Access by Authorization 1. Judges, JA's, Court Personnel, Clerk Personnel 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) 8. 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) Access Security Matrix (April 2016 version 5) ***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 H 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.

105 Agenda Item XII c. Florida Department of Corrections

106

107 Agenda Item XII c. Domestic Violence Injunctions

108 I have been asked by Chief Judge Mahon to add DV Injunction to the FCTC agenda in August. The issue concerns DV Injunctions that are available online prior to service. When I took over as the Chair of our local Criminal Justice Information group I was asked by a law enforcement officer to look into what could be done to delay the online access until service has been made. Since then I have learned a lot of information about DV Injunctions! Judge Carithers is our Administrative Judge for Family Law. He and Judge Cole are working on drafting something in lieu of a rule change or change to the AO security matrix that would give the local clerks the ability to delay the online access until service can be made. They have both offered to add their input if requested. Of course we are hoping that a state-wide solution would be forthcoming. As an example of what is being requested I referred to Rule 3.140(I) which was created to block access to unserved capias. We are aware of the public and media concerns when access to a public record is made confidential even if it is temporary. In 2008 Senator Fasano introduced a Bill that addresses the issue. It died in Committee on Judiciary. As for the Fla Bar attorneys we are aware of the Florida Bar Rule of Professional Conduct (b)(1)(G) that speaks to direct contact with clients and specifically injunctions. However we have had a recent instance here by an attorney. Currently the public can search these cases by name and see that an injunction was filed. Although the actual document is VOR, the case information and docket lines are viewable. That alerts the respondent that law enforcement is coming and creates a problem to a petitioner who may have thought they had time to remove themselves from a harmful situation. The potential will increase as the public becomes more savvy as to what is available. This access puts the petitioner and law enforcement in harm s way. I am hoping that the Access Committee may be to address this through the security matrix until such time a Rule or AOSC can be created. As usual. Thanks, Mike Smith Court Technology Officer 4 th Judicial Circuit, Florida 501 West Adams Street Room 5196 Phone: Cell:

109 From: Tuten, Don F. To: Smith, Mike Subject: Domestic Violence Injunctions-Officer Safety Date: Monday, July 25, :01:39 AM Mike, is there a way to delay Domestic Violence Injunctions from being released to Public Access (via the internet) until the actual injunction is served? As you know, by allowing public access to this information prior to a deputy sheriff serving the injunction, it poses an increased threat of violence against that officer who will be encountering a defendant who potentially has obtained the knowledge that he/she is going to be served with said injunction. I understand the importance of allowing our CJIS agency partners with this information if the defendant goes to another part of the state before being served, but if ANYONE can gain access to this information prior to service, then the police/court officials/petitioners all run the risk of being at a disadvantage. Thank you, and let me know how we may be able to make the needed change. Chief Don Tuten Jacksonville Sheriff s Office Services Division (904) Timothy 2:15 NA 264

110 ABOUT THE BAR NEWS & EVENTS FOR THE PUBLIC MEMBER SERVICES LOG IN FIND A LAWYER THE FLORIDA BAR / About the Bar Search The Florida Bar Attachments 4a1 and 4a2, Confidentiality of petitions for injunctions against domestic violence The Florida Bar Citizens Forum, January 31, 2008 Title: Attorney's timing blasted Published: 11/06/2007 Source: St. Petersburg Times Type: Article Issues: Bar Published: 11/06/2007 Attorney's timing blasted 11/06/2007 St. Petersburg Times (Requires Login) Her ad could come at a dangerous time for those trying to leave abusers, some say. By JAMAL THALJI, Times Staff Writer Published November 6, 2007 The most dangerous time for an abused wife or girlfriend is when she's trying to leave her abuser, say domestic violence groups. Now victims' advocates say an attorney's effort to drum up business makes it even more dangerous for those women and the deputies protecting them. Port Richey attorney Jessica Miller, already under investigation by the Florida Bar, has been seeking business from those named in requests for domestic violence injunctions, often abusive husbands and boyfriends. Miller's advertisement is not illegal. But it's the timing of her ad that state Sen. Mike Fasano, the Pasco County Sheriff's Office, the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence and the Florida Bar fear most. That's because an abuser could read the lawyer's letter before a deputy can serve the protective order. That could inadvertently tip off abusers that their wives, their girlfriends, their children, are about to leave. "It definitely puts a victim in a very dangerous situation," said coalition spokeswoman Dia Kuykendall, "because there

111 could be instances where they're still living with the abuser but haven't left and have filed the paperwork." Lynn Needs, executive director of the Salvation Army's Domestic Violence Program, put it this way: "It's like pouring gas onto a fire." * * * Miller has a First Amendment right to commercial speech, to advertise her business. The public has a right to know about those legal services. And those served with injunctions have the right to fight them. That's who Miller's advertisement is aimed at. But then it also says: "you have been, or are about to be, served with an injunction." That could make a volatile situation even more so, Needs said. "There's constant safety planning going on for someone to leave an abusive relationship," she said. "Notification before that could destroy that person's plan and it could make them even more vulnerable." Filing the paperwork, asking a judge for a protective order, escalates the situation even more, Kuykendall said. That's why deputies serve protective orders, to explain what they are and the consequences of failing to obey them. It's safer for everyone involved, sheriff's spokesman Kevin Doll said, if the abuser is the last to know - and if a deputy is the first to tell them. If they're tipped off to the injunction, Doll said, they can avoid being served - and if they don't get the judge's order, they don't have to obey it. "The process is there for a certain reason," Doll said. "This attempt by this lawyer could be throwing a monkey wrench into the whole procedure. "It's already a delicate, emotionally tense time serving these injunctions." * * * Miller did not return a call for comment from the Times on Monday. But her office did say that the ad was shown to and approved by the Florida Bar. The Bar said the ad does appear to meet its rules. Miller is already in trouble with the Bar for allegations of misconduct from past clients. The Bar also wants to suspend her law license for failing to obey subpoenas. She has denied the allegations. * * *

112 So what can be done? "We're going to be informing our deputies and our victim's advocates about this possible pre-emptive strike by this lawyer," Doll said. The best solution, the Sheriff's Office, the Bar and Fasano all said, might be legislative. Fasano said he would sponsor a law to exempt domestic violence injunctions from public records law until they're served. Then no one could obtain the names and addresses to send the fliers out in the first place. Jamal Thalji can be reached at thalji@sptimes.com or [Last modified November 5, 2007, 22:02:42] Imported: Nov :44AM Indexed: Nov :47AM A bill to be entitled 2 An act relating to the confidentiality of a petition for 3 an injunction for protection against domestic violence; 4 amending s , F.S.; providing an exemption from 5 public-records requirements for a petition for an 6 injunction for protection against domestic violence until 7 the petition is personally served on the respondent; 8 providing for future legislative review and repeal of the 9 exemption under the Open Government Sunset Review Act;

113 10 providing a statement of public necessity; providing an 11 effective date Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: Section 1. Subsection (4) of section , Florida 16 Statutes, is amended to read: Domestic violence; injunction; powers and duties of 18 court and clerk; petition; notice and hearing; temporary 19 injunction; issuance of injunction; statewide verification 20 system; enforcement (4)(a) Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall set 22 a hearing to be held at the earliest possible time. The 23 respondent shall be personally served with a copy of the 24 petition, financial affidavit, Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction 25 and Enforcement Act affidavit, if any, notice of hearing, and 26 temporary injunction, if any, prior to the hearing. 27 (b) All information contained in a petition for an 28 injunction for protection against domestic violence is 29 confidential and exempt from s (1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of 30 the State Constitution until the respondent has been personally 31 served with a copy of the petition for an injunction for 32

114 protection against domestic violence. 33 (c) Paragraph (b) is subject to the Open Government Sunset 34 Review Act in accordance with s , and shall stand repealed 35 on October 2, 2013, unless reviewed and saved from repeal through 36 reenactment by the Legislature. 37 Section 2. The Legislature finds that it is a public 38 necessity that all information contained in a petition for an 39 injunction for protection against domestic violence be made 40 confidential and exempt from disclosure. Release of the 41 information in the petition before the respondent has been 42 personally served with a copy of the petition could significantly 43 threaten the physical safety and security of persons seeking 44 protection through judicial proceedings. Therefore, the harm that 45 would result from the release of the information outweighs any 46 public benefit that might result from disclosure of the 47 information. 48 Section 3. This act shall take effect July 1, CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. [Revised: ]

115 Florida Senate SB 870 By Senator Fasano A bill to be entitled An act relating to the confidentiality of a petition for an injunction for protection against domestic violence; amending s , F.S.; providing an exemption from public-records requirements for a petition for an injunction for protection against domestic violence until the petition is personally served on the respondent; providing for future legislative review and repeal of the exemption under the Open Government Sunset Review Act; providing a statement of public necessity; providing an effective date. Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: Section 1. Subsection (4) of section , Florida Statutes, is amended to read: Domestic violence; injunction; powers and duties of court and clerk; petition; notice and hearing; temporary injunction; issuance of injunction; statewide verification system; enforcement.-- (4)(a) Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall set a hearing to be held at the earliest possible time. The respondent shall be personally served with a copy of the petition, financial affidavit, Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act affidavit, if any, notice of hearing, and temporary injunction, if any, prior to the hearing. (b) All information contained in a petition for an injunction for protection against domestic violence is confidential and exempt from s (1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of 1 CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

116 Florida Senate SB the State Constitution until the respondent has been personally served with a copy of the petition for an injunction for protection against domestic violence. (c) Paragraph (b) is subject to the Open Government Sunset Review Act in accordance with s , and shall stand repealed on October 2, 2013, unless reviewed and saved from repeal through reenactment by the Legislature. Section 2. The Legislature finds that it is a public necessity that all information contained in a petition for an injunction for protection against domestic violence be made confidential and exempt from disclosure. Release of the information in the petition before the respondent has been personally served with a copy of the petition could significantly threaten the physical safety and security of persons seeking protection through judicial proceedings. Therefore, the harm that would result from the release of the information outweighs any public benefit that might result from disclosure of the information. Section 3. This act shall take effect July 1, CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

117 From: Devoe,Rose M To: Smith, Mike Subject: ing: Flsenate Archive Session Bills -Bill InfoS 0870-Session 2008 Date: Tuesday, July 12, :58:26 PM Attachments: image014.png image015.png image021.png image029.png image030.png image031.png image032.png Location: Home > Session > Bills July 12, 2016 Print This Page Select Year: [2008 \/] Select Chamber: [Senate \/] [Go] Jump To: Bill Text (1) Amendments (0) Staff Analysis (1) Vote History (1) Citations Previous Senate Bill Next Senate Bill Senate 0870: Relating to Pub. Rec./Injunction/Domestic Violence [SPCC] Your browser does not support script. Please report this problem to Legislative Computer Support at (850) Session: [2008 \/] Bill #: [ ] [ Go ] Session: [2008 \/] Chamber: Search Term: [Search] Year: [2010 \/] Search Term: [Search] [Senate \/] S870 PUBLIC RECORDS/GENERAL BILL by Fasano Pub. Rec./Injunction/Domestic Violence [SPCC]; Provides an exemption from public records requirements for a petition for an injunction for protection against domestic violence until the petition is personally served on the respondent. Provides for future legislative review and repeal under the Open Government Sunset Review Act, etc. EFFECTIVE DATE: 07/01/ /21/07 SENATE Filed 01/24/08 SENATE Referred to Children, Families, and Elder Affairs; Judiciary; Governmental Operations; Rules 03/04/08 SENATE Introduced, referred to Children, Families, and Elder Affairs; Judiciary; Governmental Operations; Rules -SJ /07/08 SENATE On Committee agenda-- Children, Families, and Elder Affairs, 03/12/08, 2:30 pm, 412-K 03/12/08 SENATE Favorable by Children, Families, and Elder Affairs; YEAS 8 NAYS 0 -SJ /13/08 SENATE Now in Judiciary -SJ /02/08 SENATE Died in Committee on Judiciary In addition to the above Bill History information, the Division of Legislative Information publishes a brief Bill Summary (PDF) for the Senate bill AS ORIGINALLY FILED. Check the Bill Analyses section below for detailed analyses, if available, prepared by the Senate's professional committee staff. Bills Version: Posted: Format: S /17/2008 Web Page PDF Committee Amendments NO COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS AVAILABLE Floor Amendments NO FLOOR AMENDMENTS AVAILABLE Bill Analyses Analysis: Committee: Posted: Format: Children,

118 s 0870 Families, and Elder Affairs Vote History - Committee Chamber: Committee: Format: Senate Children, Families, and Elder AffairsWeb Page Vote History - Floor NO VOTE HISTORY AVAILABLE Citations - Statute 03/13/2008 PDF Citations - Constitution NO CONSTITUTION CITATIONS FOUND FOR SENATE BILL Site Map Session: Bills Calendars Bound Journals Citator Search Appropriations Redistricting Bill Information Reports Committee Publications Historical Information Statutes: Introduction View Statutes Search Statutes Flsenate.gov Disclaimer: The information on this system is unverified. The journals or printed bills of the respective chambers should be consulted for official purposes. Copyright State of Florida. Privacy Statement Contact Us Get Acrobat Reader

119 From: To: Subject: Date: Misra,Jill A Smith, Mike; Cates, Gerald J CORE - Capias Viewing Restriction Wednesday, July 20, :22:24 PM Rule Rule 3.140(l): Law Enforcement needs to see these. Active Capias Blocking Added active capias blocking on the following security levels per Rule 3.140(l): (l) Custody of Indictment or Information. Unless the defendant named therein has been previously released on a citation, order to appear, personal recognizance, or bail, or has been summoned to appear, or unless otherwise ordered by the court having jurisdiction, all indictments or information s and the records thereof shall be in the custody of the clerk of the court to which they are presented and shall not be inspected by any person other than the judge, clerk, attorney general, and prosecuting attorney until the defendant is in custody or until 1 year has elapsed between the return of an indictment or the filing of an information, after which time they shall be opened for public inspection. Capias Blocked Security Levels: L3 Registered User L4 Government User L5 Law Enforcement L7 School Board L8 Unregistered User

120 Agenda Item XII c. Legal Services Lawyers

121 The Access Matrix issue facing legal services and pro bono attorneys in Florida In preparing this summary, I surveyed the Project Director's Association (made up of the executive directors of the legal services groups in Florida) as well as JALA's intake and pro bono unit (JALA's Director of Pro Bono, Kathy Para, is the current President of the Florida Pro Bono Coordinator's Association.) The issue: Prior to the matrix closing in general civil and family law cases, legal services lawyers andpro bono attorneys reviewing cases through pro bono placement offices within legal services had the opportunity to review case dockets and related pleadings while evaluating the case. For legal services law rers, it is now strongly understood our clients are often not good historians, lack understanding regarding the importance of various legal documents, are often not served with the actual pleadings, and often do not understand either the legal process or the fact their problem is legal in nature (see, generally, the studies gathered by the Access to Justice Commission at the ATJ Knowledge Base.) When initially evaluating cases for placement or acceptance, the legal services lawyers are impaired by their inability to determine potential defenses, the status of the proceedings, interested parties, etc. all of which are pertinent as to whether we can assist. This is particularþ problematic where the time frame is limited. The closing of the docket to legal services lawyers is also counterproductive to the current trend of attempting to assist individuals telephonically or online, particularly when the client is in a rural area far from a courthouse or legal aid office. While all legal aid offices have worked to expand telephone or online access, the legal services lawyer without access to the docket cannot review cny documents prior to or during the interview, and this allows only for general advice based on the client's recall of documents or the client trlnng to read documentation over the phone to the attorney. An extreme example is the attached case, which I handled earlier this year. It involved an active-duty National Guard member who was stationed overseas and who had been having a dispute with her condo association for some time. She reached us - from Germany - days before the condo was to be sold, and we had an extremely limited time frame to collect all of the necessary documents in order to file the attached Motion to Set Aside. Forpro bono law rers, when determining whether to accept a case, one of the biggest concerns is the potential time investment. Being able to access civil case dockets immediately, and without the necessity of driving to the Clerk's office, and the related ability to interview the client telephonically with all pertinent documents available, drastically improves the sufficiency of the intake and the attorney's ability to estimate the amount of time necessary to work a case. It further allows the attorney to limit the resources expended, making them more likely to accept a case to which they can review

122 immediately. Further, and understanding the financial and other limitations of our indigent clients, irnmediate access would work to remove barriers and potential delays to obtaining necessary legal assistance, as the current system often requires sending applicants/potential clients to the courthouse to collect documents/pleadings. I look forward to working with the FCTC to determine the appropriate mechanism whereby legal services larnr 'ers, working in one of the many legal aid organizations affìliated with the Florida Bar Foundation, and thepro bono lawyers accepting referrals from these non-profit law firms, may gain heightened access to the pleadings and other documents available in the online docket. Submitted, A. Area Legal Aid, Inc. Member, Florida Courts Technology Commission August 9,2016

123 IN THE COUNTY COURT OF'THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND F'OR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CC DMSION: CC-B DUNNS CROSSING HOMEO\ryNERS ASSOCIATION, II\C., Plaintiff, VS. TANJA L. MAY, et, â1., Defendant. SPECIAL APPEARANCE AND MOTION TO SET ASIDE FINAL JUDGMENT FOR LACK OF IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION, RELATED MOTION TO QUASH SUBSTITUTE SERVICE AND STRIKE ALL PAPERS FILED BY ATTORNEY AD LITEM, AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS COMES NOW the Defendant TANJA L. MAY (MAY), by and through her undersigned counsel, and makes this special appearance and respectfully requests this Honorable Court set aside that certain Final Judgment entered in this action on February 29, 2016 for lack of in personam jurisdiction, quash the defective substitute service relied on by Plaintiff, strike all papers filed by the attorney ad litem, and stay all proceedings, given that Defendant MAY is on active military duty overseas, and that Plaintiff and the attorney ad litem were on actual notice of that fact but nevertheless proceeded to judgment. In support of this motion, Defbndant states as follows: 1

124 Summary 1. This action is currently pending befole the Cour1. A Final Judgment was entered February 29,2016. and a foreclosure sale is scheduled for April 14,2016, 2. Defendant MAY is currently active duty Air Force Reserve stationed in Germany. She was originally ordered to report to Germany on March 30,2015 and has been stationed in Germany continuously from that date to present. She was stationed in Germany when the instant foreclosure lawsuit was filed on July 28, MAY's current order has her on active duty through September 30,2016 (see attached Exhibit A - ourrent "Request and Authorization for Active Duty Training/Active Duty Tour"). 3. T'he facts, as evidenced by documents in the courl file, confìrnl that PlaintifTwas on actual notice of MAY's military service when it proceeded to Judgment, and that the attorney ad litem appointed by the Court was also on actual notice of MAY's rnilitaly service when the attorney ad litem issued a repoft supporting the use of substitute service, referencing the possibility that "l'ìe" (MAY is fomale) may be deceased, and filed an ans\ /er on MAY's behalf. 4. As noted above, when Plaintiff filed this Flomeowners' Association foreclosure larvsuit on July 28,2015, and when the summons was issued on July 30,2015, MAY was on activç duty in Gerrnany. 5. A sinsie attempt at personal service appears to have been attcnpted at the subject address. The Summons was returned indicating non-servicç. 6. On November 3,2016, Plaintilf s cor nsel filed an "Affìdavit of Diligent Searoh" in this action (Exhibit B). In paragraph 4. Plaintilf s counsel swears that a neighbor informed the process server that Defendant MAY "may be stationed overseas." In paragraph 5, Plaintiff s counsel swears that Defendant MAY "may be deployed." 2

125 7. On November 23,2016, Plaintiff filed a "Notice of Filing of Affidavit of Military Status Report" in the instant action (Ëxhibit C). The Status Report reflects that Defcndant MAY was active duty status as of October l, 'Ihe active duty end date stated "Still Serving." L At this point, Plaintiff, through counsel, þad actual knowledse f)efendant MAY was on active duty and therefore filed a "Motion for Appointment of Attorney Ad Litem, Guardian Ad Litern, and Administrator Ad Litem." On Decembar 1,2015, this Courl granted Plaintiffs Motion and appointed Roger J. Friedline, Esq. (FRIEDLINE) Attorney Ad Litem, Guardian Ad Litem, and Administrator Ad Litem on behalf of f)efendant MAY. 9. On December 3, 2015, FRIEDLINE fìled a two paragraph Answer on behalf of Defendant MAY stating that Defendant was without knowledge as to any and all allegations and that no in personamjudgment should be entered without personal service on the Defendant (see attached Exhibit D). 10. Shortly thereafter, ITRIEDLINE flled a "l{eport of' Attorney, Guardl rr, and Administrator Ad Litem" (Ëxhibit E). ln paragraph I of the Report, FRIEDLINE indioates that hc has reviewed the procedures used by the Plaintiff in this action and "has discovered no proeedural inaclequacies. The Service of Procçss through Publieation and thc Affidavit of Constructive Service on Defendant(s) appears to be in cornpliance with the l'lorida Statutes and Florida Rules of Civil Procedure." ll. ln paragraph 4, FRIEDLINE states that he has "been unable to locate the Ward upon diligent search. It is believed he is deceasecl," (Emphasis added.) 12. Defendant MAY has never spoken to FRIEDLiNE and has not received any communioation ftom FRIEDLINE while on activç duty in Germany. 3

126 13. On January 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed its "Motion for Sunrmary Judgment." At hearing on February 29,2016, Plaintiff s Motion was grantecl and a foreclosure sale has been set for April 14,2016. service wcre woefullv inadequ tc 14. Substitute service statutes are an exception to the rule requiring personal service, and it is well settled that such statutes must be strictly construed in order to protect a defbndant's due process rights. Eee Alvarado v. Císneros, 919 So.2cl 585, (I.'la, 3rd DCA 2006); Torres v. Arnco Constr., Inc,, 867 So.2d 583, 586 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Fed Nat'l Mortgage Ass'nv. Fandino,75l So.2d 752,753 (Fla. 3rd DC,A,2000), and cases cited therein. 'Ihe facts must demonstrate that thc complainant reasonably, ernployed the knowledge at his command, rnade diligent inquiry, and exerted an honest and conscientious effort appropriate to the circumstances to acquire the information necessary fo enable him to effect personal service on the defendant. See Floyd v, Federal Nat'l Mortgøge Ass'n, et. ctl,704 So.2d I 1 l0 (Fla. sth DCA I 9eE), 15, Here, it åppsars a single attenrpt was macle, (As dìscussed below, that attempt and subsequent actions confirmed why MAY was nof at honre, since she Tvas on active cluty in Germany.) Plaintifl"s attempt at personal service fell woef'ully short ancl this Court tlierefbre lacks personaljurisdiction ovcr n{ay, As a resull, the Judgment entered in this cause must be $et s$ide, iurisdiction of the Court. must be stricken 16. As an attorney ad litem. FRIEDLINE was required to act in MAY's best interest. Rather than doing so, by filing an answer, FRIEDLINE waived the defects in service, ignored the 'i

127 evidence in the court file confirming MAY's military service, and subjected her to the jurisdiotion of the Couft 17. All papers fìled by FRIEDLINE should be stricken and he should be relieved of duty as attorney ad litem. 18. Defendant MAY is currently on active duty status with the Air Force Reserves and this action must be stayed by operation of the Servicememcbers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) found at 50 U.S.C. $ 3901, et seq, (2016). 19, MAY's deployment is cxpected to continue uninterrupted ilntil September 30, SCRA $ 3932 provides as fbllows, in pertinent part: $3932. Stay of proceedings when servicemember has notiçe (a) Applicability of section This section applies to any civil action or proceeding, ineluding any child custody proceedlng, in whleh the plaintiff or defendant at the time of filing an applieation under this section" (1) is in military serviçe or is withirl 90 days afler termination eif or release from military service; and (2) has reeeivçd notios ofthe action or proceeding. (b) Stay ofproceedings (l) Authority for stay At any stage before finaljudgment in a civil action or proceeding in which a serviçemember describçd in subsection (a) is a party, the court may on its own motion and shall, upon applieation hy thç sçrvicemember, stay thc action firr a period of not less than 90 days, if the conditions in paragraph (2; are met. (2) Condilirtns for sta5r An eppileation f'or,e åtay unelor paragraph (l) l hall inolude the ibllowing: (A) A letxer or ofher çomnunicatiûn setting fcrth fbcts stating the ruånner ín which cutrçnt military duty requirements rnaterially affçct thç sçrvicemembçr's ability to apbear ond stating a dnte when thp servicornenber will be availablc to appeår. $

128 (B) A lçtter or other communication from the servicçmember's cornmandíng officer stating that the servicemember's cutrent military duty prevents appearanec and that rnilitary leave is not authorized for the serviceurember et the time of the lstter. 20. 'l'he stay provided by $ 3932(a) applles to MAY as she nieets the follorving statutory prerequ isitos: r lvlay ls ln Aetive Duty rnllltary strrtus ancj is etptioneel ln Europo. o MAY roceived notice of foreclosure sale set for April 14, 2016, 21. As to the conditions in $ 3932(bX2)(A) and 3932(bX2XB), MAY's current deployment order cleally states she will be required to be in Gennariy until September 30,2016. Furthermore, traveling overseas would çome at great expense to Defendant lvfay. 22. Even where the service member's notioe does not technically comply u,ith the requirements of the FCRA, the appellate courts have directed trial oourts to issue stays. in IIiggíns v. Timber Springs I{omeowners, 12ó So.3d 394 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013), the Court held the trial court should not have proceeded with summary judgment where servicemern'oçr's letter requestiug a stây did not mcet all the requirements of SCllA, such as the requirement to inelude eviderrce from commanding officer; however, duc to thc oquitable nature of fbreclosure proceedings and the requirement to construe SeRA liberally in f vor of servicemembcrs, the ttial court should have given Defendaut an opportunity to supplernent his request for a stay. kl, at In Hlggins, the eourt reiterated the SellA was enaoted "ts protect those [servicemembers] who have been obliged to drop their own affairs to taks up the burdçns of the nation from exposure to personal liability without first having an opportunity to appear and defcnd themselves in person or through counsel.o' /d, ot 395"96 (quoting ßoone v, Lightner,3l9 f

129 U.S. 561, 575 (1943), One of the purposes of the SCRA is to "plovide for the tempolary suspension ofjudicial and adninistrative proceedings and transactions that may adversely affect the civil rights of servicemembers during their military serviçe." 50 U.S.C. $ 3902(2) (2016). 24. Should the Court require further documentation from Defendant MAY with respect to $ 3932(bX2XB), the Defenclant asks for an evidentiary hearing to be held. WI-IEREITORE, Defendant TANJA L. MAY respeotfully requests this Court quash service and set aside Final.ludgment entcred in this matter on February 29,2016: strike all papers filed by the attorney ad litem; stay the currçnt l'oleclosure proceedings; eancel the foreclosure sale schedulcd forapril 14,2016; for an arvard of attorney's fecs and costs; and for' all other relief to which Defendant proves herself entiticd. DATED in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida this 31st day of March2016. JACKSONVILLE ARDA LEGAL AID, INC. /s/.iames A. Jr..Iames A. Kowalski, Jr. Fla. Bar No.: W, Adams Sfreet Jacksonvillc, F L 322(]2 Telephone: (904) Faesimlle: (904) Jin.Kowalski@j axlegalald,o rg AlÍorney for DefeudønÍ EDRTIFICATE OF STIRVICE The undersigned certifies that a true copy of this document has been served via electronic mail to Crabtree Law Group, PA, Attorney for Plaintiff, at zcç@clab1rcçfirutcaliq and -l

130 rrtfg)crabtreefirm.com, to lloger Friedline, Esq., Guardian Ad Litem for Defendant Tanja May, at this 3l't day of March,20l6. ial Jamca A. Ko' vnlekl,,lr. James A, Korvalsklo Jr.o Esquirc I

131 EXHIBIT A

132 REQUEST AND AUTHORIZATION FOR ACTIVË DUTY TRAINING/ACTIVE DUTY TOUR BY ORT'ER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCË, AUTHORTTY: ACT STATEMENT 10 USC 8013; Exeaulive OrdergggT. PRIN9IPAL PURPosEs" used fo requost dnd authodze Air Force gsorvisf lou s of act va duly as welt as acting as I tompomry duty travot o dor ssp ls used lo maka positive ldentilicalìon of military personnel, Becomsg rê.;ord côpy oí otrrors êftør aulhênlicè on; onablos rèsetvlsl to procuro êxpensos and be p ticebls. rcv ded to clvllian e ø active duty mllllary requiroments, oltt this lnformatlon cannot act on your têvelt pêr dlem end pëy enutlements. 1. NAME (Last, Flrst, Ml) MAY, TANJA L 4. PRESENT STREETADORESS 5I99 ARMSGAI'E COURT 8. UNIT OF ASSIGNMENT GerR cov CM 9. LOCATION 5. CITY JACKSONVILLE }ry 2. GRADE MSG'I 3. SSN 6. $TATE FL 7, ZtP CODE PAS CODE 11. Mbr ls orderod to MfLITARY PERSONNEL ÂI,PROPRIATION for 330 'dsysplusaulh tvlt rne. (0TvlDays) TRACKTNG#:É 12. WILL REPORÍ IO (Untt and locatíon)!!ffirrcou fl ËrrRrNcuNÀrN, 13. REPORTING OATA (YYYYMMDD) (Hou) RELEASE DAfË (YYYYMMDD) 20r CORPOR,ATE LIMITS 16, COMMUTING AREA 17. BAS ÇODE S lb. RËMARKS AUTH: AFMAN 36{00 1 (F!e lrøvol vouchor snd compleled slâtøment of lour of duty w lhln 5 workdays after \our complation. Trcvët deys wjtt not sxcaad DQDFMR authorized lravel timo, Per dìem ìs basad on uvailabilily ol gov'l quaders and rness; conlact lhe base hllloling offico since gov't qua te s nust l o used when avollable. SEE NEXT PAGE FOR REM.ARKS. 1S. TNO.C,AT-IND 20, r 27 I 52s725 3,6031R CIC: 4' r nônif lñf fpr f 'l.t{ il HYT F.îr; TOUR.IND 21. N,IEAN EODË 22. MAN.ÞAY ID 23. TRAVEL $ PER DIEM $0.00 J} 25. OTHER 26. TOTAL Iì688 I68E,l0+ nome, BINGI]AM,.ELEC'I-I{ONICAIIY APPITOVED" OF AIR FORCE and ÏDN: FOR THE COMMANDER of hoadøuaders.) t-d DucKrEyAÌBatD 32, RESERVE ORDER NO. 33. DATE 20r 5 I r0s 34, DISTRIBUTION 35. AUTHORIZING/ORDER ISSUING OFFICIAL (Title and APPROVED- OFFICIA. LOCATION HoUR (mil) DAY lvloníh LOeÀTtoN HOUR DAY MONTH MODE OF TRAVÉL â. DEPÂRT c. DEPART b, ARRIVE d. ARRIVE 37. I certify that I havo compliad with thé rbovs ord6r. Tbe 6talømgnts an thls fonn are true and complete. lf a Federul Clvil Service Employoo, I cortlfy lhat I have applied for appropriale leavo, ftam duty al hou s on CERTIFI on wês My Spouae (Circle One) waê1was not in Aclive Duty status duríng this tour, i (ûlrcle eno) did/dld not oççupy gòvrt quarlqrs. 41. ÇERTIFYING OFFICIAL'S FRINTED NAME 4?, DSN 38, MFIliBER'S S IGNATURÈ_ 39, EATF 4 is. ee RTt ËyiN-c ofr le-iã1"ffi 44. OATE STATEME pay relsted rév ew and a coþy of thlg for 45. TIMEKEFPER SIGNAIURÊ EDITIONS ARE

133 EXHIBIT B

134 Filing # E-Filed lr/ :29;59 PM DUNNS CROSSING IIOMEO\ryNERS ASSOCIATION, INC,, a Florida ron-profït corporation, Plai rtiff, IN THE COUNTY COURT, FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT' IN AND FOR, DUVAL COLINTY" FLOzuDA, CASENo.: 2015-CC DIVÍSION: B v8. TANJÀ L. MAY, UNI(NO}VN SPOUSE Ofr' TANJA L. MAY, UNKNO\ryN TENANT NO. I, IJNKNOWN TENANT NO.2, ANY UNKNOWN FTEIRS, ÐEVISEES, GRANTE ES, ASSIGNEES, LIENORS, CREDITORS, TRUSTEDS OR OTHÐR CLAIMANTS CLAIMING BY, THROUGH, UNDBR OR AGA.INST TANJA L. MAY AND/OR UNKNO\ryN SPOUSN OF TANJA L. MAY, WHO ARD NOT KNO\ryN TO BÐ DEAD OR A.LIVE, Defe rclants. STATE OT'FLOIUDA COUNTY OIi DI]VAL ^A,ú'FID AVIT Or DI,IGENT SIlA.Bpr{ BßFOI1E ME, the undersigned authoríty, this date appeared Rachel R. Taube, baing personally known to me and having taksn an oath, deposes and sayst Heretofore anel on or about.luly 28,2015, a suit to forcclose a lien on real properly was instituted agaínst the Defcndanr(s), TANJA L. MAY. FILED: DUVAL county, RONNIE FUSSELL, CLERK, rv05l20l5 t1:38:21 AM

135 fn ortjer tr: dlsaovar tho last known re sldonce of said Þefendont(s), afifllaflt, lhe law tìrm rotalned irr tfiis action and its agent, process server and invesligator, díligent search ancl inquiry cornprise the following: l. Inquiry tluough the United Postal System of all notices sent to said Defendan(s) and returned to sender as there was no fotwarding address. 2. Plaintiffresearched at this office's rcquest its records to discover last known resiclence of Ðefendant(s). 3. 1'horougb review of ptoperty records to discover possiblc valid addless for Defendant(s) was made. 4, Delivercd to certlfied praçess ssrver', surnmons issued for Def'endant(s), TANJA L. MAY ut last knoln uddress, the subject propefty? ARMSGATE COURT, JACKSONVILLE, FL 32218, however, the letums indicated that the propcrty is vacarrt, The rcturn of non-seruice of the sumlnonses for said DefendanÍs indicate that a neighbor indicetecl to prûcesñ servsr, thaf the rcsidence may be yacant because TANJA L. MAY, may be stationcd over$cas, 5. Upon affront's fuéher seorch of the public records, l"ania L. MAY continues to list the subject property as her liomesterd, several l wsuits reflecting her as a party in the previous five years re flectîng that she was residing at the property, holvever informatíon gleaned from process selver indicates thaf TANJA L. MAY may be deployed. 6. Process sel'ver's reseatch did not turn up any additional sddress for TANJA L, MAY. 7 ' Relief is demanded against unknorvrr parties, aftiant believes that there are persons who may lre intercsted in the subject matter of the proceedings whose names, after above reflectecl diligent search and inquiry, ale unknowtt to atïïant, who are otherwise nanred as, UNI(NOWN SPOUSE OF TANJA L, MAY, UNKNOWN TENANT NO.!, UNKNOWI{ TENANT NO. 2, ANY UNIflO\ /N HEIRS, DEVISEES, GRANTEËS, ASSIGNEES, LIANORS, CREDITORS, TRUSTEÉS OR OTHER g &

136 CLAIMANTS ÖLAIMING BY, THRouoH, LINÞER or AcÁ.tNsT TANJA L. M \y AND/OR UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF TANJA L. MAY, V/HO ARE NOT I(NOWN TO BE DEAD OR ALIVE. 8. Review of non-service of summo lses indisats that the Defendant(s) were not loçated despite searches co ducted by process server and afiìsnt. All returns of non-service of the Ðcfendant(s) are in ths court file, 9. A dtligent seattlr aud inquiry wâs made to dlscovol'the residç rce and whereabouts of the Deferrdant(s), if Iiving, the heírso devisees, grânteesr assignees, creditors, lìenors ancl trustees, and all other persons clainring by, thrrrugh, under or against the nsmed Defbndant(s) ancl that a diligent seorch has been nrade to cliscover whethel ths Defenclant(s) may be & tninor, incompetent or otherwise not sui juris. I0. Â{ter tlle al ove dcscribed scarch and inquiry, the curlerrt residencç of the Del'endants is UNKNOWN, The last knowu address of DelÞndan(s), TANJA L, MÀY is believed to be, rhe subject propemy, 5 I g9 ARMSGATE COURT, JACKSQI*JVILLE, FL 3Z?) g. I 1. lsach Dçfondant listed hcrcln above Ís believed to be over the ago of I B years. FURTT{ËIT ATËIANT SAYIITI.I NAUO{.iT. Itachsl I{. $WORN to and subscribed before rne this Nove nber 3, 2015, by Rnehel R, Taube, who is personally knorvn ts rne tnd wlro did talçe an oath. Stats of My Conrrnission Ëx rires: FF 201S

137 EXHIBIT C

138 Filing # E-Filed lil23/ :02:11 PM DIJNNS CRCISSING TTOMEOWNERS AS$OCIÁ,TION, INC., a Florida non'prufit corporetion, Plaintiff', v8, TANJA L.M-LY, et al., Defendants. IN THE COUNTY COURï TOURTH JUDICIIIL CIRCUIT, ln Al.lD FOR, DIIVAI COUNTY, FLORIDA. CASENCI.: 2015-qC" DIVISION: B N,oIrgp qr rrlrng or 4.rrrp.4vrT,or:M-rl+rTÁBy statgç REpoßT I IIEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the Atrdavit of Mílitary Status Report has been fumished to the following by U.S.lv{ail and thisnovembet2s,zlllz TÂNJA L. MAY 5199 A.RT4$6ATE EOUR.T JACKS0IWILI,E, Ft ÐATBD; I'Iovembor 23, 2015 CRABTREE LAW GROUP, P.A. lsl Racheì R. Taube ee runs V[/. Ën$wN, Ja" Flo id BarNo,5t975 cwb@erabne eflnn,aom ä cr nyc" Cn*arnnn Florida BarNo zcc@urabtreefirm.com R curur.t upb Florida BarNo rrt@crabtreefirm.sonr 8777 San Jose Boulevard Bullding A, Suite?00 Jacksonvillç, Florida Telephone (904) t Attørneysfor PlalnlÍff F[LEI9: DU\P.ÂL eouïfry, RONNIE FtlsgELL, CLERK, tuz4/z}ts 09:46:10 AM

139 Depadment of Defense Manpower Data Center Bs!!r 3 Þl i N0e.05' ÐlS I I istljl AI scfì 9.0 SþnN Report Pursuant to Sen iccmerûbèr* Civíl Relíef Act Last Name: fufi First Name:IANJA Mlddle Name:! Active Duty Status As Of: Novj5:egË Ol Ártivd Oolú Oô Àêùð Dr-dv 5tÉtù oalô Acltuo Þtir thrt lhto À. fuo lhñ Ë$d Díc Átåtú 8aùCffiÆìl f4lt.dctlvo Oulv Wirhh 367 OÆ ôl Aô{eè ltuv Slårü Dårô Âruvû Þ ly Shrl OÂur Âdleå Outu Eôd ô 16 3brß HA NA Nr NÀ Thc l mbor orhb/hûr ljnt! W Ndit d ôaå t{juú CelLÙñ lo em tuud odlv slblh hb ^dú Ordd l ôülb 16 ah Drr Old.r tlótilledo.r EM fhh abhb SêÈ'Èkfffi tá,t^ Nô HA Upon saarching lhe datâ bsnks of lhê Ðopanmont ol Defsnse Manpowor Oâra Center, bsûed on tho informañoô that you provid0d, thr abovo ís thè status of lho ind vidua on lhþ active duty 8lat..ls date aa ro all brancte.e ôl the Unilonned Serulcos {Army, Navy, Marino Corftc, Alr Forço, NOAA, Public Hoalth, anr! Coåsì Guard), This slslus lnclud s lnfofm0tlofl on a Ssruicemqmbör or hls/her unll rccaiving notifìcation of ftiturô ordorg to røport for Aotlvo Duiy, Ylw,fYA. W*#iw Mary l'4. Snavely-Dirân, D rgôtor Þoparlmenl ol {rslsnco, M*npowar tala Conlor 4Bû0 Ma k Csnlor trlvo, $uils 04E26 Arllñglon, VA 22t50

140 EXHIBIT I)

141 Filing # E-Filed 12/03/ ;50:29 PM IN THE COUNTY COURT, FOURTH LIûDICIAIT CIRCUIT, IN AlilD FOR DWATJ COUNTY, FIJORIDÄ' CASE NO, DÏVÏSION 201"5 -CC- 0081e5 Ë DUNNS CROSSINÕ HOUEOWNERS à,ggocràíion, TNC., Pla{nElff,, :V9. ÐÅS tå Í, M&Sl r ü$ Åf{ DSFENDå TfJ (e}. Allgf, En comeé Now, TAt{.rA I. tdayr, tf rfving, lncrudfng any unknown Mfnor and/or spouse of TAN,TA L. MAV; if bhe said DEFENDÀ IT(g) has married or if he/ahe ls deceaeed, his,/her respectfve UNKNOWN HEIR$, DEVISEES, GRå'l{tEEg À99XGNEES, CREDfTORS, IJIENOR$, À}ID TRU8TEES. A![D AIJI OTIIER PERSON9 CLAIMING BY, IHROUGH, UNDER OR ÀGAIN$T lhe NA!' ED DEFaNDAbTT(E), by and bhrough hfe/her urrderefgned atlorney, and files this, hís/her.ånswer to the ceimpraine flled hereín by plaint,iff, and staf,es as foll"ows I L. The Defendant,s are wft,houe knowledge as Eo å$y and all allegaetons eoneelned In È,he eompl_âlnè, å, Absent personar Fervl'oe on the defendaneø, no in perêonam Judgrment should be ent,ered, ROÞÉER ü. DBÍEDIJINE F.À. /s/ Rodqer, Er{edLlne R9DGER,J, FRIEDLINE 1756 I.]NIVERSITY BIJ/D. S, FILED: DUvAl" eounty, RÖNNIE FUS$ELL, CLERK, Tzttslz}ts 0t:29:13 IrM

142 ,fackeonville, FIJ 322L6 (eo4) 727-?8Ëo F'Lorida Bar # Êuardian Ad l ltem, Admfni.etrâgor Ad Lieem, and At,torney &d f llem for DEFENDAIIT,(s) Tå. fiiå, IJ. trlàyt ff I,IVTNG, TNCI,I'DING.$ry U IKNOTN MINOR OB ÉPOUSE OF THE SATD DEFEI{DÀ}Iî (E), IF HEISHE HAS MàRRXED ÀI.TD TF SAID ÞEFEIÌD INT(E) trs DECEASED, Hfg/HER REEPECTM TINKNOI{N HETRS,DEVISEES, GRÀ TTÞES, ÀggxGNEES,CREDITORS, L IENORS, â D TRUgTEEg,ÀtilD, ÀL IJ OTHER PERSON9 CLATMTNG BY, tshrougit, UNDER, OR AGå,TNBT THE NAI{EÞ DEI.END INT(g). r HEREBY CERTxFY Lhat a true and correct'eopy of the foregolng has been furníshed by BY To RRT@crabbreefÍ]iln.com on December 3,?0L5. J, FrledLine ÀELorney DÉsr6NA?roN of FRTMART Þ[4ATL AÐÞREss FoR RODGER,J. FRIEDT INE at, borneys@f andmlae, qom

143 EXHIBIT E

144 Filing # 351s4439 E-Filed l2l2ll201s 10:09:57 AM TN THE COUNTY COURT, FOURTH JUDTCIAL CTRCUIT. IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, ELORIDA CASE NO.: DÏVÏSION: 2015-CC cc-g DUNNS CROSSING SOMEO!{NER.S ASSOCIATION, INC Plainti ff, -VS- TAN.IÀ L. MAY ; Defendant (s). REPORT OF ATTORNËY, GUARDIAN. AND ADMINISTRATOR AD LITEM RODGER J. FRIEDLfNET ESQUIRE, Guardían Ad Lj-tem, Administrator Ad Litem, and Attorney Ad Litem for the Defendant (s), ÏANJA L. MAY î and all unknown parties claíming an interest by, through, under, or against the Defendant (s) who is/are not known to be dead or alive, married, divorced, single, or remarried, and any respectíve unknown spouse (s), minors, heirs, devisees, grantees, assignees, Iienors, creditors, trustees or other claimants by through, under, or against said Defendant (s) j-f any; and alf unknown parties havíng or claimíng to have any ríght, title or interest in the property whieh is Lhe subject mabt,er of this cause, files this, his Report of Attorney, Guardian, and Administrator Ad Litem/ ånd states the fol-l-owing: 1. That the Attorney Ad Litem, Guardian Ad Litem, and Administrator Ad Litem has reviewed the procedures used by the Pl-aintif f in the above-sty.ied action against the Defendant (s), TAìI,JA L. MÃ,Y, and has díscovered no procedural inadequacies, The service of Process through PublÍcation and the Affj-davj-t of FILED: DUVAL county, RONNIE FUSSELL, CLERK, r2l2rlz015 12:23:50 PM

145 Construct,ive Servlce on Þefendant (s) appears to be ln compl-lanee with the Florida Statutes and Florlda Rules of Clvll Procedure. 2. By investigation and also by the record, it appears Lhat a proper and diligent search was performed by the Plaintiff in order to make all reasonabfe att,empts to l-ocate the Defendant(s). 3. The undersj-gned has prepared and sent Freedom of Information Requests through the Postmaster and/or undertaken corespondence in an attempt to locate the said Defendant(s), and the undersigned has attempted to l-ocate the Defendant (s) through various directorj-es, dírectory assistance, telephone calls, and research of publíc records. 4. In addition, the undersigned has specífi cally transmitted correspondence to the Vtard(s) at all known addresses, includinq, 5199 ARMSGI\TE COURT,IACKSONVILLE, FL 32218, DOD ÀRK CENTER DRIVE SUTTE ARLTNGÎON VA 22350, USNAVYBUREAUOFNAVYPDRSONNEL 5720 INTEGRITY DR. MILLINGTON TN reviewed County Court Records, Circuit Court Records, Child Support Deposítory Reeords, Probate and Guardianship Records, Mental Health Records, Criminal Records and Traffic Citation Records, The Attorney Ad Lítem, Guardian Ad Litem, and Administrator Ad Litem has been unable to l-ocate the V{ard upon diligent search. It is belíeved he is deceased. The undersígned has not been abl-e to loçate any unknor^rn spouses, heirs, claimants or creditors in this case. VÍHEREFORET âs the Defendant (s), TAlt,fA L. MAY, has not been located and has no apparent defenses to the plaint.iffts elaim, the PraÍntíf f appeärs to be entitled to entry of a F-j,nar Judgment of Foreclosure, but not any in personam Judgment unj-ess personal service

146 Íe made. RODGER,J.!'RIEDLINÉ, F"A. Bv-_l S/ ROÞGER J. FRTE DL]NE RODGER çt. Ë'RTEDLÌNE, ESçUÍRÊ l-756 University Blvd. S. 'Iaeksonville. Flor{da 322L6 (904) 727*7850 Flor{da Bar 1f Guardtan Ad Lltem, Administrator Ad Litem, and å.ttorney åd l.item for Defendant (s), TAN,JA L. MAY t If' LMNG/ ÍNCLUDING ANY IlNirNOI^tN MTNORS OR SPOUSES O8 THE DETENDANT(S) TF THEY HA\TE REMARRIED.AND IF SAID DEEENDANT(S) ARE DEAD/ THEIR RESPECTIVE UNKNOYIN IiEIRS, DEVISEES, GR.A,NTEES, ASSIGNEES, CREDITORS, LIENORS, AND TRUSTEES,.AND AtfJ OTHER PERSONS C],AÏMING BY, IHROUGH, UNDER OR AGATNSÍ THE NA 4ED DEFENÐAI{T (S) ; CERTÏFICATE OF SERVICE ï HEREBY CERTTFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoíng has been furnished to CRABÍRIE IAf/'f GROUP/ 8'177 San,Jose Blvd" Bldg, A. Sul-te 200,.Taeksonville, îl BY EI"L4IL T0 RRTßcrabt.reefirn"com on ÞECEMBE4 Ì1, å01ã. lrt,eorney DE$ÏGNATTON OÍ' PRTMåRT ES4,ATT AÞDRESS FOR R,ÕD ER,f. F8,ÍEÞLÍNE fandml aw. corn

147 Agenda Item XII c. Sarasota County State Attorney

148 From: Andrew van Sickle Sent: Monday, July 11, :22 AM To: Gavin Green Subject: Security Matrix Good Morning Mr. Green, Thank you for speaking with me regarding this issue. The information is on your website at: I have enclosed the order as a PDF as well. Again, the State Attorney would like to speak to someone about this issue to get clarification. If you are able to assist me in this matter, I would greatly appreciate any assistance you can give. Thank You, Andrew ANDREW VAN SICKLE, ASA OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY 2071 RINGLING BLVD., 4TH FLOOR SARASOTA, FL PH: FAX:

149 From: Gavin Green Sent: Monday, July 11, :14 PM To: Andrew van Sickle Subject: RE: Security Matrix Andrew, For clarification, Sarasota county is having difficulty accessing specific information since their migration to ClerkNet from Smartbench? Thanks, Gavin Green, CISSP Information Security Analyst Office of the State Courts Administrator 500 S. Duval St Tallahassee, FL Office: (850) Cell: (850) From: Andrew van Sickle Sent: Monday, July 11, :40 PM To: Gavin Green Subject: RE: Security Matrix Mr. Green, Yes, we have experienced difficulty in Clerknet. The old system was Benchmark and worked perfectly. Thank You, Andrew ANDREW VAN SICKLE, ASA OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY 2071 RINGLING BLVD., 4TH FLOOR

150 SARASOTA, FL PH: FAX: From: Gavin Green Sent: Monday, July 11, :14 PM To: Alan Neubauer Cc: Roosevelt Sawyer Subject: FW: Security Matrix Alan, I was contacted by the gentleman below regarding a recent change to access of information due to the FCTC recommendation for Access to Eletronic Court Records. He is indicating that the clerk in Sarasota county chose Clerknet and as a result they are unable to access specific information (warrants outstanding for example). I am not aware of who facilitates this or can assist so I m forwarding it to you for proper routing. Thanks, Gavin Green, CISSP Information Security Analyst Office of the State Courts Administrator 500 S. Duval St Tallahassee, FL Office: (850) Cell: (850) greeng@flcourts.org From: Alan Neubauer [mailto:neubauer@flcourts.org] Sent: Monday, July 11, :35 PM To: Dennis Menendez <DMenendez@jud12.flcourts.org> Subject: FW: Security Matrix Do you know about this issue? Thank You Alan

151 Alan Neubauer Deputy Director, IT Office of the State Courts Administrator 500 S. Duval St Tallahassee FL (850) Office (850) Cell From: Dennis Menendez Sent: Tuesday, July 12, :29 PM To: Alan Neubauer Subject: FW: Security Matrix Alan, please see our TCA s response below. From: Walt Smith Sent: Tuesday, July 12, :26 PM To: Dennis Menendez <DMenendez@jud12.flcourts.org> Subject: RE: Security Matrix I think the SA s issue is with AOSC which proscribes access to various pieces of information depending on the user and the Sarasota Clerk s interpretation of same. The clerk didn t think they could prevent access in BenchMark so the told them they had to use ClerkNet. I m not sure that ASA represents the office. Maybe he does. It s their issue, not ours. But it might be an FCTC issue if it boils up high enough.

152 From: Gavin Green Date: 7/12/16 5:07 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Alan Neubauer Roosevelt Sawyer Subject: RE: Security Matrix From my discussion with Andrew at the SA that was essentially what he was asking for. Someone to provide a statement to their clerk that Benchmark could provide the security acceptable for the AOSC Thanks, Gavin Green, CISSP Information Security Analyst Office of the State Courts Administrator 500 S. Duval St Tallahassee, FL Office: (850) Cell: (850) greeng@flcourts.org From: Alan Neubauer [mailto:neubauer@flcourts.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, :49 PM To: Andrew van Sickle Cc: Gavin Green; Roosevelt Sawyer Subject: FW: Security Matrix Sarasota Andrew, Gavin asked me to follow up with you on this. He had provided me your initial request, which I sent on to Dennis Menendez (Court Technology Officer of that judicial circuit). If I understand your original request, you wanted the OSCA to tell the Clerk that they could use an application for your access. The Clerk is responsible for their own access systems, they are required to have a system that is compliant with the Access Matrix. There is no requirement for the Clerk to have any specific application only that the application limits access as required by the Matrix. I would be more than happy to help in any way that I can, but in many cases that is something that is resolved at the local level.

153 I am traveling and will be out of the office until Friday of this week. Alan Alan Neubauer Deputy Director, IT 500 S. Duval St Tallahassee, FL (850) Cell (850) Office From: Andrew van Sickle Date: 7/20/16 1:59 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Alan Neubauer Subject: RE: Security Matrix Sarasota Good Afternoon Mr. Neubauer, The State is not requesting OSCA to mandate anything to the clerk. The security matrix is being interpreted in a certain way which is detrimental to the State. We are seeking an authority to clarify the matrix as it pertains to certain items such as open warrants, pleadings, etc. that are filed. The State Attorney would like to discuss this issue. Are you the person who is responsible for speaking on behalf of OSCA? Respectfully, Andrew ANDREW VAN SICKLE, ASA OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY 2071 RINGLING BLVD., 4TH FLOOR SARASOTA, FL PH: FAX:

154 From: Alan Neubauer Sent: Wednesday, July 20, :09 PM To: Andrew van Sickle Lakisha Hall Subject: RE: Security Matrix Sarasota I can help. Issues concerning the Access Matrix are reviewed by the Access Governance Board of the FCTC. If changes need to be made or clarification is required that is the body that starts that process. I have included Lakisha Hall on this . We will follow up with you on Friday to discuss that when I get back to the office. Thank you Alan Alan Neubauer Deputy Director, IT Office of the State Courts Administrator 500 S. Duval St Tallahassee FL (850) Office (850) Neubauer@flcourts.org

155 Agenda Item XII c. Thomson Reuters

156

157 Agenda Item XIV. Document Storage Workgroup Update

158 Document Storage Workgroup Progress Report For approximately the past 18 months, the Document Storage Workgroup has worked on the development of new Standards for Electronic Court Documents. As a workgroup we have felt in the beginning that our primary charge was to focus on the move from TIFF stored documents to that of PDF. Early on however, we realized that the simple task of saving court files in a PDF format for long term storage was only a small part of the process associated with a change in document format. After a significant evaluation of PDF/A sub-formats, the Document Storage Workgroup would like to recommend that PFD/A-2 be the final document storage format, for the foreseeable future. The PDF/A- 2 standard was published in 2011 and offers enhancements in font management, allows image compression utilizing JPEG2000 compression, and allows for better support of PAdES (PDF Advanced Electronic Signatures). Because tools to generate PDF/A-2 documents are not generally available, filing in the PDF/A-1 format would be accepted until PDF/A-2 is more generally adopted. A Standards for Electronic Courts Document has been developed over the past year by this workgroup. Input from members of other workgroups, including the Standards Committee and the RJA have also contributed to this documents current draft version. We believe several portions of this potential standards document are now complete and other components only require minor changes. This document includes components that can easily be moved to other workgroup if thought most appropriate by the Commission. Important work areas that this workgroup believes should be considered in addition to the approval of a document storage format includes but is not limited to, possible changes to the Portal for document conversion and time-stamping, Clerk system changes associated with document storage, redaction, and time stamping, and finally, functionality changes associated with the judicial viewer and other viewing entities. The current draft Standards for Electronic Court Documents can be viewed in the following pages.

159 1 Definitions DRAFT Standards for Electronic Court Documents 1.1 Born-Digital. Born-digital refers to materials that originate in digital form (Wikipedia). For purposes of the Florida Court System, it means that a document to be filed with the courts is created using an electronic document authoring tool (e.g., Microsoft Word or Corel WordPerfect) and where document intelligence is retained throughout the document lifecycle. 1.2 Document Intelligence. Document intelligence refers to information and metadata created during the lifecycle of said document. Some of this information and metadata is created by the original document authoring tool (e.g., Microsoft Word or Corel WordPerfect). Other information and metadata might be added by the author using other applications (e.g., Adobe Acrobat or Nuance PDF Converter). Document intelligence includes the viewable text, appearance, and hidden information such as document identifiers, tags such as those used to make the document ADA compliant, and other metadata. 1.3 Flatten. For purposes of this document, there are three general uses of this term. 1) Flattening refers to taking a multi-layered document (e.g., a PDF that contains an image layer, text layer and other metadata or layers), and to remove some of those layers, e.g., the text layer so that only the image is left; 2) Flattening refers to converting a document to a simpler form, e.g., converting a PDF to a TIFF image; or 3) Printing and then scanning a document. In all instances, flattening involves removing original document intelligence. 1.4 Metadata. Metadata is data that describes or gives information about other data. Document metadata may be structural or descriptive. Document metadata is information included within the file that might identify the document or provide other details related to the document, e.g., title, subject, author, typeface or font, enhancements, size, searchable indices, ADA related tags, security or other identifying characteristics of a document. Other than a pure text file, an intelligent document cannot exist without some level of metadata to identify the structure and describe certain document content. 1.5 Optical Character Recognition (OCR). Optical Character Recognition is the process whereby images of typed, handwritten or printed text is electronically converted into machine-encoded text. When OCR tools are used in association with scanned documents, original document intelligence will be incrementally lost and the quality of the visual image will degrade. 1.6 Record Copy. The record copy of a court document is defined as the official copy of that court document at any point in the Clerk s workflow or document lifecycle. 1 August 10, 2016

160 DRAFT Standards for Electronic Court Documents 2 Introduction 2.1 Florida's court records are in the midst of a transition from paper to electronic files. The following paragraphs define standards and guidelines for electronic: 1) Document Creation, 2) Document Filing, 3) Document Storage, and 4) Document Access. 3 Document Creation 3.1 Definition. Document creation is the process by which judges, attorneys, pro se filers, and other judicial partners prepare documents electronically to be filed with the Florida Court System. 3.2 Goal of the Electronic Creation Process. The goal is for electronic documents filed in the Florida Court System to be born-digital and to retain document intelligence throughout the document lifecycle This initiative recognizes that court documents may contain important information and data and that this document intelligence enhances the value of the document, therefore improving justice system processes The person who submits a document into the Florida Court System (hereinafter referred to as the filer ) is responsible for creating and filing documents that are searchable and ADA compliant, and deliver other desired document intelligence If a document is filed with the Clerk in a paper format, it will be scanned. 3.3 Document Format. Documents are created using an electronic document authoring tool. Before filing a document with the Florida Court system, it is preferred that the document be saved in the PDF/A format. This process is described in more detail later in this document Document files should not be flattened as this process may delete desirable document intelligence Document Structure. Document font type and size, page size, file size and other formatting standards are found in (This reference needs to be added) Born-digital documents should be created using letter size When creating electronic documents, the file size should not exceed the limit set by the Electronic-Filing Portal (the Portal). Documents that exceed size limitations are split into smaller files, potentially causing document intelligence to be lost. 3.4 Embedded Images. Some documents may include images or other graphics. These graphics are referred to collectively as embedded images. The following guidelines are to optimize the size of embedded images and manage total document size If the graphic is scanned and the scanned image is included in the document as an embedded image, the image should be scanned using a resolution of at least 300 dpi but should not exceed 600 dpi. 2 August 10, 2016

161 DRAFT Standards for Electronic Court Documents If a photograph or original graphic is used, it should be compressed using a compression tool to a size optimized for use in a document Alternatively, use a graphic that has been saved in the JPEG 2000 format. 3.5 PDF/A Standard. The Portable Document Format (PDF) was developed to retain document image consistency across software operating systems. The PDF/A (Archival) format was developed to allow the reproduction of the original document image/appearance, including original fonts, over time. The Florida Courts have adopted the PDF/A format for these reasons and to support the retention of document intelligence for documents filed with the Florida Courts System Preferred Submission Format. The preferred format for document submission is PDF/A-2a (or current equivalent), although other formats are allowed. It is recommended that filers convert files to the PDF/A-2a format prior to filing. Otherwise, file formats will be converted as detailed in the Document Filing section below Basis for Adoption of PDF/A-2 Format. There are three versions of the PDF/A format (-1, -2 and -3). The Florida Courts encourage the use of PDF/A-2 in part due to increased security of that format. Because tools to generate PDF/A-2 are not generally available, filing in the PDF/A-1 format will be accepted until PDF/A-2 is more generally adopted. At this time, references to PDF/A-2 in this document include the use of PDF/A PDF/A-2 Subtypes. There are two relevant subtypes to the PDF/A-2 format: 1) PDF/A-2a (accessible); and 2) PDF/A-2b (basic) PDF/A-2a (accessible). This format, which allows document intelligence to be accessible can usually only be met by converting born-digital documents. PDF/A-2a documents retain document intelligence, are searchable, and are generally screen reader friendly. This is why PDF/A- 2a if the preferred filing format for the Florida Courts System PDF/A-2b (basic). When the filer is unable to create a born-digital document, the document may be scanned (see section 2.8, Scanning) and the filer should use the PDF/A-2b format. PDF/A-2b provides minimal compliance to ensure that the rendered visual appearance of a conforming document can be preserved and reproduced over the longterm. PDF/A-2b documents should be made searchable through OCR technology prior to filing, although text recognition may not be 100% accurate due to the imperfect nature of the OCR process Supported PDF/A Document Intelligence Elements. The following PDF/A document intelligence elements are permitted in documents submitted to the Florida Courts: bookmarks, digital signatures, internal links, embedded internal hyperlinks, and embedded persistent external hyperlinks, i.e., links that are judged to be trustworthy and stable over long periods of time. 3 August 10, 2016

162 DRAFT Standards for Electronic Court Documents Electronic Signatures. The use of electronic signatures is permitted consistent with (currently RJA standards). This includes the use of /s signatures, images of signatures, or signatures that are added to a document using a signature pad Digital Signatures. The use of digital signatures created by a PDF editor or digital notarization is permitted. However, there is no requirement to track the digital signature authentication as part of document intelligence once a document is filed Prohibited PDF/A Document Intelligence Elements. The following elements should not be used in PDF/A documents submitted to the Florida Courts: comments, annotations, attachments, hidden deleted item (these should be purged), destinations, embedded non-persistent external hyperlinks, embedded audio and video, embedded thumbnails, form fields and actions, JavaScript, and embedded non-display data. 3.6 Compliance with Other Filing Standards. In preparing documents for filing, all applicable filing standards must be followed, including the Rules of Judicial Administration, (references??). For example, RJA discusses the minimization of confidential information and use of a coversheet as directed. 3.7 Metadata. The filer is responsible for document metadata and should remove unwanted metadata before filing. 3.8 Scanning. Scanning of documents is discouraged. If the document must be scanned, the filer should make sure that all information on the original document is clearly represented on the scanned copy When a document is printed, possibly modified, and then scanned, some of the document intelligence may be lost, although OCR technology should be used to recreate at least part of that intelligence If it is necessary to scan a document: Scan in monochrome (black and white). If necessary, a grayscale or color scan can be made, but care should be taken to compress the images so file size is not excessive Use a minimum scan resolution of 300 dpi and do not exceed 600 dpi so that the document size is manageable Scan documents in the orientation of the original format, portrait or landscape Submit documents in letter size (8 ½ in x 11 in). If the original is legal size, set the scanner to reduce it to letter size. 4 August 10, 2016

163 DRAFT Standards for Electronic Court Documents 4 Document Filing Ensure that document information is present and legible on the scanned image (e.g., a notary seal). Use the scanner s software to create the best image possible so that all document information is readable. Specialized software (e.g., Kofax Virtual Rescan VRS or Fujitsu ScanAll Pro) can be used to remove document noise (such as complex backgrounds, speckles or spots) and sharpen content Scan to the PDF format and re-generate document intelligence using OCR tools. 4.1 Definition. Document filing deals with the submission of an electronic court document by a filer to the Florida Electronic-Filing Portal, and the receipt and acceptance of the document by the Clerk of Courts. 4.2 Electronic-Filing Portal (Portal) Portal. A statewide Portal has been in operation since All documents filed electronically with the Florida Court System are filed through this single Portal Filing Documents. The Portal accepts documents in Microsoft Word (97 or newer), Corel WordPerfect and PDF formats Preferably, filings are submitted in the PDF/A-2a format (see Section 3.5.1, Preferred Submission Format) Scanned documents should be converted to the PDF/A-2b format for filing (see Sections 3.8, Scanning and , PDF/A-2b) Conversion of Documents by the Portal A document filed in a Word or WordPerfect format document is converted to the PDF/A-2a format A document filed as a PDF/A-1a or -2a format is preserved in that format A document filed as a searchable PDF is converted to the PDF/A-2a or PDF/A-2b format A document file in other PDF formats is converted to the PDF/A-2b format If a non-searchable document is filed, the Portal will not use OCR tools to make it searchable Time Stamps. The Portal places a time stamp on each filed document. This process retains document intelligence/searchability but may not retain the integrity of a digital signature or digital notary stamp Submission to the Clerk. The document along with its XML envelope is submitted to the selected Clerk s Office. 5 August 10, 2016

164 DRAFT Standards for Electronic Court Documents eservice. The Portal sends the document in its converted PDF/A state to recipients on the designated eservice distribution. 4.3 Receipt of Documents by the Clerk of Courts Receipt of Document and Associated Data. Documents received from the Portal by the Clerk s Office are placed in a review queue for processing Document Acceptance. Upon acceptance of the document and its related filing data, the Clerk may time stamp the document. 5 Document Storage 5.1 Definition. Document storage relates to the processing, handling, and maintenance of an electronic court document by the Clerk of Courts as the statutory custodian of court records. 5.2 Case Maintenance System (CMS). Upon receipt and acceptance of a document, it is stored in the Clerk s CMS. The CMS must track court documents in a way that is auditable in order to validate the integrity of a document throughout its lifecycle. 5.3 Record Copy of Document. The Clerk s DMS database must store the record copy of court documents with its associated document intelligence The Clerk s DMS should be able to validate the identity of the record copy of any document at any time against any tampering or unapproved changes Because the PDF initiative is a day forward initiative, if images are maintained in multiple formats (e.g., TIFF and PDF), the DMS database must be capable of managing all relevant file types. 5.4 Clerk Document Workflow. The document is stored in the format in which it is received from the Portal (i.e., PDF/A-1a, PDF/A-2a or PDF/A-2b) Workflow processes that change the document should retain document intelligence as applicable Document workflow should be auditable. 5.5 Redaction of Protected Information. The Clerk is responsible to make sure that protected information is redacted from any document that is made available to the public as directed in AOSC (THIS SECTION NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED WITH REDACTION VENDORS AND CLERKS) Redaction Process. Redaction is the process by which sensitive and confidential information is removed from a document so that it cannot be seen or accessed by the general public. The information to be redacted is identified in Florida Statutes, the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration and possibly other redaction standards. Redaction software generally uses one of two methodologies to create a redacted version of a document: A copy of the record copy is made and protected information is removed from all document layers, a process referred to as burn-in. 6 August 10, 2016

165 DRAFT Standards for Electronic Court Documents A mapping of redacted information is created and the redaction is visually applied to the record copy of the document stored in the document database. In this case, if a copy of the redacted image is required, the Clerk s software creates that copy as needed and the redaction is burned-into the copy When a redacted copy of a document is created, information that is redacted should be permanently removed from the redacted copy that is made available to the public following access requirements outlined in AOSC Un-redacted document intelligence should be left intact To maintain document security, the redaction process should delete any underlying search index before redacting the document to remove embedded non-display data. After redacting, the document can be reindexed Tags to identify redactions should be added to a redacted copy of a document to support the ADA compliance The record copy of the document should retain its document intelligence for those that are authorized to access the un-redacted version The filer must follow all applicable standards (see also Section 3, Documentation Creation) Rule 2.425, RJA, Minimization of the Filing of Sensitive Information, requires the filer to minimize the sensitive data included in a filing. PDF redaction is more complex than TIFF redaction and the information could be vulnerable when performed by the average filer The Clerk s redaction processes must remove all underlying information related to a redaction to prevent that information from being accessible in any form, a processed called burn-in. 5.6 Recording. Some court documents are recorded in the Official Records of the Clerk/Comptroller. If the recorded document is returned to the CMS, it should retain document intelligence. The alternative is to place a link to the Official Records in the case progress docket and leave the unrecorded document in the Clerk s CMS. 6 Document Access 6.1 Clerk Public Access. Public internet access to court documents is provided by the Clerk of Courts for each County. Document access is defined in AOSC Judicial Viewer Systems. Each Clerk of Courts provides court documents and associated case information to Judicial Viewer Systems in compliance with the current CAPS standard. 7 August 10, 2016

166 DRAFT Standards for Electronic Court Documents Appendix A Document Format Historical Background 1 Document Format Historical Background 1.1 TIFF (Historical background of TIFF) 1.2 Portable Document Format (PDF) (Historical background leading to the adoption of the PDF and PDF/A document format) Intent to retain document intelligence throughout the document s lifecycle. 1.3 Within the PDF standard, PDF/A (archival) is designed to preserve the document format and appearance (including the original font) over the long-term. This is the meaning of the use of archival to describe this format PDF/A ISO provides specifications for the creation, viewing, and printing of digital documents used for long-term preservation. PDF/A preserves and protects final documents of record as self-contained files. References to external content are not allowed because the referenced items might not exist in years to come. The proposed Florida courts PDF standard is PDF/A-2a or PDF/A-2b which are based on the PDF v1.4 specification. This format is: Self-contained everything needed to render or print a PDF/A file is contained within the file Self-documenting PDF/A promotes the use of metadata, enhancing the document by providing information about the document itself. For example, it provides recommendations for documenting file attributes such as the file identifier, file provenance (i.e., the history and genealogy of the document or file), and font metadata. When metadata is used, PDF/A requires the use of the Adobe Extensible Metadata Platform (XMP) for embedding the data in the files Device-independent PDF/A requires device-independent components, such as specific RGB or CMYK color profiles, so that the visual appearance can be reliably and consistently rendered and printed without regard to the hardware or software platform used. 1.4 Encryption Prohibited A compliant PDF/A file must be open and available to anyone or any software that processes the file. User IDs and passwords cannot be embedded. 8 August 10, 2016

167 DRAFT Standards for Electronic Court Documents 1.5 Feature Descriptions Bookmarks. Bookmarks are links referring to specific pages of a PDF document. Bookmarks usually indicate the document structure, but may also include sensitive words and phrases Digital Signature. A digital signature is a field that is generated by a PDF editor that is securely signed by the originator. It can be removed like any other form field by the person who signed it or otherwise by someone that has access to the private key. If not handled properly by an appropriate workflow, any change to the document invalidates the digital signature Links/Hyperlinks. Links/hyperlinks lead to specific targets within (internal) or outside (external) a document. If you remove the link, the link text or object remains but the PDF no longer performs the action to take the user to the linked content. A link that is associated with selected text is referred to as an embedded hyperlink. The target location, whether internal to the document or associated with a URL on the Internet, is programmatically tied to selected text and embedded in the document as metadata Embedded Hyperlink Guidelines. Section , Standards for Electronic Access to the Courts, states that hyperlinks embedded within a submission should refer only to information within the same document, or to external documents or information sources that are reasonably believed to be trustworthy and stable over long periods of time. Hyperlinks should not be used to refer to external documents or information sources likely to change Comments. Comments usually refer to text markups and show the opinions of the author or reviewers. Comments include notes, markups, drawing objects as well as file and sound attachments Attachments: Document-level attachments are files (both PDF and other formats) added to a PDF document as reference or related data Deleted Items: Deleted Items refer to pages, text, images, and cropped items that are deleted using the PDF editor deletion utility. These items are not always actually removed from the PDF; they are just hidden. They could be restored by curious parties, restoring content that is not part of the official document Destinations: Destinations refers to an icon in a PDF file associated with a link to an external file. When the icon is clicked, the file is opened Embedded External Links: This does not prohibit the inclusion of unlinked URLs within a document, e.g., a law firm s web address in the letterhead Embedded Audio and Video: Embedded audio and video are not permitted in PDF/A. 9 August 10, 2016

168 DRAFT Standards for Electronic Court Documents Annotations: Annotations can be easily hidden and moved to change the meaning of the document Embedded thumbnails: Thumbnails are miniature PDF pages often embedded in a PDF document Form fields and actions: Form fields in a PDF document are dynamic controls that contain interactive features. If this item is removed, all form fields are flattened and cannot be edited, filled in, or signed any more JavaScript: JavaScripts are active components that perform commands or actions under specified conditions Embedded non-display data: This includes internal objects not considered to be metadata which are viewable with PDF tools PDF Metadata Metadata in Document: Metadata includes information about the PDF document such as author, subject, keywords, date, copyright information, etc. Metadata can be searched using PDF search utilities Introduced Metadata: Additional metadata may be added to a document as it flows through the judicial process. For example, Time Stamps, Case Number stamps, seals, etc. added after filing are metadata added by the Clerk. 2 Document Format-PDF/A 2.1 Documents submitted to the E-Portal must be in PDF/A format. The PDF/A format is designed for long-term archiving that preserves the document appearance. 2.2 The adopted PDF/A subtype is PDF/A-2. Currently, tools to generate the PDF/A-2 are not generally available. Therefore, using the PDF/A-1 subtype is acceptable until PDF/A-2 is more generally adopted. References in this document use the PDF/A-2 subtype, but for purposes of filing documents, encompass the use of the PDF/A-1 subtype. 2.3 The filer may use either the 2a or the 2b level of conformance as described below. Although this standard generically refers to the functionality of PDF/A, the functionality may differ depending on whether 2a or 2b file type is used. 2.4 ADA Compliance (there needs to be an ADA awareness and implementation training) PDF/A. PDF/A allows for but does not guarantee ADA compliance. Full ADA compliance is only accomplished when the author creates the document to be ADA compliant in its original document authoring tool and adds all necessary tags to graphic objects, the necessary structure to embedded tables, and otherwise makes the document screen reader friendly. ADA compliance is the responsibility of the creator of the document. 10 August 10, 2016

169 DRAFT Standards for Electronic Court Documents PDF/A-1a (accessible). Documents submitted to the E-Portal should be in PDF/A-1a format. This requires the author to create the document as PDF/A-1a from the original document authoring tool Within the PDF/A group of standards, PDF/A-1a inherently provides searchability and basic structure, and is generally screen reader friendly. When documents are saved to PDF/A-1a from a document authoring tool, they are ADA compliant to the degree that the author created the necessary tags, etc PDF/A-1a provides document structure called tags, which provide an underlying structure for the content within the document and facilitate searching, repurposing of content, and accessibility for people with disabilities such as blindness. This higher-level specification applies to digitally born documents captured directly from applications like Microsoft Word, which create document structure during the authoring process PDF/A-1b (basic). When the filer is unable to create a digital document via a document authoring tool, the document may be scanned and the filer should use the PDF/A-1b format Documents that are created using the PDF/A-1b format and made searchable through OCR technology may not produce 100% text recognition due to the imperfect nature of the OCR process PDF/A-1b provides a minimal compliance to ensure that the rendered visual appearance of a conforming document can be preserved and reproduced over the long-term While PDF/A-1b ensures that the document text and additional content can be displayed properly, it does not guarantee the document screen reader content to be 100% correct or ADA compliant. This is because the OCR text recognition process is not 100% perfect and does not always supply the tags and document structure that screen readers rely on Hybrid Documents. Hybrid documents are documents that are composed of both PDF/A-1a and PDF/A-1b components. In essence, these are documents that were created as PDF/A-1a from a document authoring tool and have been edited by inserting a second document that has been rendered as PDF/A-1b. Hybrid documents are discouraged. Florida Courts are working to facilitate the means by which all documents can be rendered as PDF/A-1a directly from a document authoring tool. 11 August 10, 2016

170 DRAFT Standards for Electronic Court Documents PDF/UA. The PDF/UA standard defines technical requirements for universallyaccessible PDF documents by identifying a set of relevant PDF functions (including text content, images, form fields, comments, bookmarks and metadata) based on ISO (PDF 1.7) and specifies how they should be used in PDF/UA-compliant documents Tools are available to assist with ensuring ADA compliance consistent with ISO Identifies file format requirements and practices consistent with ADA compliance Conformance tools not only check for conformance, but identify what changes can be made to be conformant. 1 Drümmer, Olaf and Chang, Bettina, PDF/UA in a Nutshell, PDF Association, 2013, p August 10, 2016

171 Agenda Item XVI a. E-Service by Judges

172

173