AGENDA E-Portal Subcommittee and User Group

Transcription

1 Subcommittee Meeting: Thursday, November 6, 2014 E-portal Subcommittee AGENDA E-Portal Subcommittee and User Group 1:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. Orange County Courthouse 425 N. Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida Medina Conference Room, 23 rd floor I. e-portal User Group Linking documents to previous filings Bethany Gibson Proposed Orders Bethany Gibson Initial category headings Fernando Cabrera II. e-portal Subcommittee Other filer roles designated on portal - Jennifer Fishback o Local Court and Community Agencies o Newspapers Registering as a self-represented litigant (not party to a case) Jennifer Fishback E-service enhancement Carolyn Weber E-filing Ex Parte Motions Judge Reynolds Designation for bankruptcy stays Judge Reynolds Determining e-service when judges file motions Mike Smith Consolidated Pro-se workgroup update Sharon Bock

2 E-Portal & User Group Meeting Summary August 27, 2014 e-portal Subcommittee Portal Enhancements Jennifer Fishback discussed the upcoming e-filing portal functional enhancements that have been approved by the E-Filing Authority for implementation along with the release dates. o New Filer User Groups - Additional filer roles have been added for the following users to file to each county beginning 9/21/14: Court Reporter Mediator Mental Health Professional Process Server Law Enforcement Credentialing/validation would be done by the point of contact of the entity that facilitates the enrollment and administers the account. (i.e., Sherriff s Office) Would not o be a publicly accessible role. Systematically Include State Attorney to E-Service List The State Attorney is, by default, party to criminal cases, so can be included by default on the E-service list. Systematically add the State Attorney designated E-service address to the E-service list on Criminal Division cases. Effective 10/24/14. o Add Manage My E-Service Screen A more efficient method to maintain the filer s e-service list. An E- service list maintenance screen was created to allow a filer to apply E-service designations and removal to multiple lists at once. Only manipulates what the filer has filed on and there is no functionality change. Effective 10/24/14. o Reformat Document Filing Tab The Documents Tab has been enhanced to allow document size limited to 25 MB for appellant filings to be consistent with Trial Court filings. Streamline access to the document group/type drop down lists by using a search function. Selecting the document drop down values for Category and Type will be simplified for the filer. Effective 10/24/14. o Clerk Filing to the Florida DOC DOC added to portal to allow a secure means to transmit court (sentencing) documents from Clerks of Court and streamline access to documents without delay. Tom Hall, John Tomasino and Susan Dawson will review change prior to effective date of 10/24/14 to ensure complies with Supreme Court AOSC The E-portal Subcommittee members agreed unanimously with the recommendations of the e-filing portal functional enhancements. Filer roles for General Magistrates and Hearing Officers Jennifer explained the request of adding filer roles for General Magistrates and Hearing Officers on the portal. The group discussed the different types of general magistrates and hearing officers and their respective filings. Jennifer advised with the addition of each category on a filer role, there is a workload in mapping the document descriptions. After further discussion it was determined the following would be completed: Filer roles will be added for General Magistrates and Hearing Officers Same access/availability as judges Credentialing will be done by trial court administration The E-portal Subcommittee members unanimously agreed with the recommendation for adding filer roles for General Magistrates and Hearing Officers. Subaccounts for judicial assistants Judge Reynolds discussed the need for subaccounts for judicial assistants/support staff to file on behalf of the judge. Further discussion led into a necessity for subaccounts for case managers as well. Judge Reynolds wanted to ensure for tracking purposes, it can be determined who actually filed a document. Jennifer explained the subaccount tracking is unique to each sign-in the judicial assistant/case manager is working under. The E-portal Subcommittee members unanimously agreed with allowing trial court administration to create subaccounts for judicial assistants and case managers to file on behalf of the judge.

3 Service vs. Maximum E-Filing size Fernando Cabrera stated the earlier discussion on raising the appellate document size to 25MB, will assist tremendously. Until the RJA makes a rule change there is no action from the e-portal subcommittee. Statewide E-Portal User Authentication Mike Smith submitted a proposal for the implementation of a statewide user authentication service based on the e-portal credential stored. This would allow both Court and Clerk systems throughout the state to offer access on a user s e-portal account. After further discussion on the setting up of access for this, it was determined this issue would be best controlled under the Access Governance Board Subcommittee. Melvin Cox said he is on the Access subcommittee and would assist in exploring f this issue. Due to time constraints, the following items were deferred to the next e-portal subcommittee meeting. Other filer roles added to the portal (Newspaper, Local court and community agencies) E-Filing Ex Parte Motions Bankruptcy Stays User Group Viewing the court docket in the portal - Fernando Cabrera described the issue of Clerk s offices using different party identifiers. Melvin explained that all clerks abide by the uniform case numbering. Fernando continued with the drop down menu category other being used excessively. Melvin said he knew the Clerks were aware of the uniformity issue and the E-Authority Board is scheduled to meet on this issue in the near future. Fernando commented on the change of having to check the box on e-service for parties on a case. Jennifer said in order for parties to prove they were served by the filer, it was necessary to have the filer check each party that was required to be served. The following items were not discussed due to Bethany Gibson s absence: Linking documents to previous filings Proposed orders Meeting adjourned

4 Initial Category Headings Fernando Cabrera Hi Jeannine, here is a possible agenda item (or at least a discussion topic) for the November User-Group meeting. The gist of the issue is that the initial category headings can be misleading (in this case the wrong category was picked generating a filing fee nearly five times larger than it should have been) From: Brew, Mary (AdmAst-Mia-LT) Sent: Friday, October 03, :58 PM To: Cabrera, Fernando (BStf-Mia-Dkt) Cc: Fernandez, Fernanda L. (AdmAst-Mia-LT) Subject: Category issue As part of our ongoing discussion of website pathways and guidance on the Florida E-Filing Portal can be improved, I d like to share with you a recent experience that one of our Litigation assistants encountered in filing a new Complaint from scratch on the site. She was given a document to file that was a Complaint involving breach of contract claims with regard to failure to pay a commission due on the successful sale/purchase of a real property. After logging into the website and selecting New case, she selected Circuit Civil from the Division list, and was then presented with the following 5 options from a dropdown menu: Circuit Civil Negligence Other Civil Professional Malpractice Real Property/Mortgage Foreclosure She did not have a civil cover sheet to refer to in making the selections that would generate the cover sheet online, so she reviewed the above 5 selections and chose the last, Real Property/Mortgage Foreclosure. She believed that the / here carried the meaning of OR as in Real Property cases OR Mortgage Foreclosure cases and did not realize that the website instead intended / to carry the meaning of AND. She believed she was correct in this selection because, after having clicked Real Property/Mortgage Foreclosure, she then reviewed the available 12 selections in a second dropdown menu and saw that

5 the menu contained 3 selections titled Other Real Property Actions that clearly were segregated in meaning from the foreclosure actions and thus / reasonably meant OR and included Real Property actions that were not foreclosures. Commercial Foreclosure $0-$50,000 Commercial Foreclosure $250,000 Or More Commercial Foreclosure $50,001-$249,000 Homestead Residential Foreclosure $0-$50,000 Homestead Residential Foreclosure $250,000 Or More Homestead Residential Foreclosure $50,001-$249,000 Non-Homestead Residential Foreclosure $0-$50,000 Non-Homestead Residential Foreclosure $250,000 Or More Non-Homestead Residential Foreclosure $50,001-$249,000 Other Real Property Actions $0-$50,000 Other Real Property Actions $250,000 Or More Other Real Property Actions $50,001-$249,000 She selected the next-to-last Other Real Property Actions $250,000 Or More on the basis of the value of the commission under dispute, which is $2.3 Million. The 3 Other dropdowns were not labeled as foreclosure actions as all of the previous 9 were labeled and there was no indication until review of the ed acceptance of the filing that the Court would classify the complaint as a Foreclosure Filing. She logged in later to the website to review available selections, and reviewed what choices would have been presented had she picked any of: Circuit Civil; Negligence; Other Civil or Professional Malpractice. Within Negligence there is the sub-dropdown category of Contracts and Indebtedness but it never occurred to her while filing the Complaint that Negligence would be a viable selection, since a breach of contract is a deliberate act and is NOT a negligence action. The main takeaways from this experience:

6 Contracts and Indebtedness should occupy its own category and not be subsumed within Negligence. The dropdown title of Other Real Property Actions following a listing of Foreclosure actions is obviously inaccurate and should be revised. The use of slashes in place of precise language unnecessarily leads to confusion. The firm has submitted both an amended Civil Cover Sheet and the paperwork for reversal of the extra filing fee that was charged due to misclassification of the action as a foreclosure, but as you can imagine the paperwork requires time for processing and the refund has yet to come through. Mary J. Brew e-assistant Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 333 S.E. 2nd Avenue Miami, FL Tel Fax Cell BrewM@gtlaw.com

7 Local Court and Community Agencies filing on portal Hello, Chris. Please see the request from some of the Clerks regarding access to the portal for DOC, Probation and Parole and our local pre-trial and probation offices. May we please include this new set of users during the subcommittee meeting at FCTC? Thank you. Jennifer From: Carol A. Ford Sent: Monday, August 25, :30 AM To: Cc: Jean A. Sperbeck; Sharon Longworth; Louis Morales Subject: Local Court and Community Agencies being able to file on Statewide E-Portal Good Morning Jennifer Fishback, The Alachua County Clerk s Office is receiving calls inquiring on how and when their agencies will be able to efile through the state portal. I was wondering what the schedule is for adding DOC, Probation and Parole and our local pre-trial and probation offices? I have included Jean Sperbeck with our office, Sharon Longsworth, Probation Supervisor with Alachua County Court Services and their IT Manager, Louis Morales for your update. Thank you, Carol Ford, Assistant Court Director Criminal Department Alachua County Clerk of the Court s Office Criminal Justice Courthouse 220 S. Main Street Gainesville, Fl (352) caf@alachuaclerk.org

8 Roles of filers added to the e-portal From: Tyler Winik Sent: Tuesday, May 27, :00 AM To: Chris Blakeslee Subject: FCTC Chris, A discussion has arisen this morning in our office; perhaps it would be prudent for the FCTC to revisit the final roles of filers they wish to add to the eportal list for September of this year. Many of our newspapers file their proofs of publication directly with our offices across the state. We don t specifically see newspapers listed for September, however, the FCTC may wish to bring them on board. Just a thought! Hope this finds you well, T. Tyler Winik Legal Affairs & Special Projects Scott Ellis, Clerk Brevard County Clerk of the Circuit Court P.O. Box 999 Titusville, Florida Telephone: (321) Direct Dial: (321) Facsimile: (321) Cell: (321) Questions on e-filing in Brevard? Please make sure to visit our e-filing page today!

9 Self-Represented Litigant - Verification Process From: Jennifer Fishback [mailto:jfishback@flclerks.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, :27 AM To: Chris Blakeslee Subject: FW: Self-Represented Litigant Category Hi, Chris. I hope you are well. Well, we have people registering as Pro Se filers when they are not party to a case. Can we discuss this along with the other filer roles? Regards, Jennifer From: Hutcherson, Gail [mailto:ghutcherson@co.pinellas.fl.us] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, :15 AM To: Jennifer Fishback; Carolyn Weber Subject: RE: Self-Represented Litigant Category They basically are just filing proofs of publication, I think. In some instances, these requests for publication may being sent directly to the newspaper by the Clerk. Most times though, the publications should be returned to the Attorney or self-represented litigant who requested the publication. I doubt that the judge would question how it got filed, plus how would the Clerk or the Judge even know who filed it, unless we went back to the portal to look up the filing ID. Gail A. Hutcherson Business Analyst - Clerk's Technology Office of Ken Burke, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller Pinellas County, Florida 315 Court Street, Clearwater, FL ghutcher@co.pinellas.fl.us /

10 From: Jennifer Fishback Sent: Wednesday, August 20, :06 AM To: Hutcherson, Gail; Carolyn Weber Subject: RE: Self-Represented Litigant Category Hi, Gail. They most definitely should not use this role. The possibility of this being done by crafty people wanting access to the E-service list was discussed at FCTC and by the E-Filing Authority. Without a Clerk s office validating the Pro Se account for validity that they are actually representing themselves on a case, we have no other way to stop them systematically. This is going to need to be addressed by the policy people at FCTC and E-Filing Authority Board. What would a judge do if he/she saw this on a case? Thank you. Jennifer From: Hutcherson, Gail [mailto:ghutcherson@co.pinellas.fl.us] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, :49 AM To: Jennifer Fishback; Carolyn Weber Subject: Self-Represented Litigant Category Jennifer or Carolyn, We have a newspaper who publishes for our county wanting to file at the portal using the Self-Represented Litigant role. We do not feel that they are part of this class and have told them another category in a future rollout would suit them better. Should they be using the Self-Represented Litigant role even though they definitely are not a litigant? Also, it appears that they are filing in several other counties using this role. Any help you can provide is greatly appreciated Gail A. Hutcherson Business Analyst - Clerk's Technology Office of Ken Burke, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller Pinellas County, Florida 315 Court Street, Clearwater, FL ghutcher@co.pinellas.fl.us /

11 E-Service Enhancement We have had requests for an enhancement to the E-service page. Attorneys want to be able to remove themselves from an E-service List if they have been added by another attorney erroneously. We need to revisit a business requirement that was made when we implemented E-service. One of the biggest complaints we get from attorneys is that they cannot remove themselves from the E-service List when added by another person. This was part of the design of the E-service project. We want to discuss with the group to see if this business rule needs to be modified. Thanks Jeannine, Carolyn E-Filing Portal Senior Analyst/Trainer

12 Ex Parte Motions From: Menendez, Manuel Sent: Thursday, June 19, :32 PM To: Munyon, Lisa T. Cc: Catlin, Catherine Subject: Re: ex parte motions Yes, that would be good. Thank you. On Jun 19, 2014, at 4:29 PM, "Munyon, Lisa T." wrote: I spoke with Sally Kest the admin in family. She indicated that the attorneys efile the emergency motions and hand deliver courtesy copies to the judge s chambers. It is taking our clerk hours to docket motions filed through the portal, so as long as the attorney did not e-serve the opposing side, they would not know about the filing. Perhaps I should refer the issue to the e-portal subcommittee. From: Menendez, Manuel [mailto:menendm@fljud13.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, :59 PM To: Munyon, Lisa T. Subject: ex parte motions Lisa, I just received the following information in an from the Administrative Judge of our Domestic Relations Division. Don t know what other circuits are doing with this issue. Do you think it s something the TCBC should take up at our next meeting? Chief, An issue surrounding e-filing has come up in two of the Domestic Relations Divisions. In both instances an attorney wanted to file an ex parte motion for child pick up because of imminent threat or danger. If filed through the portal, the opposing attorney could potentially see that the motion was filed before the court rules on it and the Order is served. In both instances, the judges had the attorney the motion to them. This is a problem because the judge is then ruling on a motion that has not been filed. I spoke to the Clerk s office and they are willing to take paper ex parte motions so they can be clocked in, but not scanned prior to the judge s review and Order. This is a problem because we will not be in compliance with the mandatory e-filing. Will you please take this issue up with the powers that be to see how it can best be addressed? Thank you, Catherine M. Catlin, Circuit Judge Domestic Relations Assoc. Administrative Judge 13th Judicial Circuit 800 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 429 Tampa, Florida Manuel Menendez, Jr. Chief Judge, 13th Judicial Circuit of Florida 800 E. Twiggs St., Suite 602, Tampa, FL 33602

13 Designation for Bankruptcy Stays From: Judge Lisa Taylor Munyon Date: August 26, 2014 at 4:05:22 PM EDT To: Thomas Genung Cc: Alan Neubauer Chris Blakeslee Subject: RE: Concern from one of our judges I already passed this along to the e-portal committee. I suspect that there is some way for the portal to prioritize bankruptcy suggestions if the local clerk wishes to have that done (it may take some programming). If you recall, we have sent a formal request to the FCCC to develop time standards for electronic documents. Several years ago, the legislature amended the statute so that the clerks do not have to consult with the court on time standards, they only have to consult with the legislature. From: Thomas Genung [mailto:genungt@circuit19.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, :02 PM To: Munyon, Lisa T.; Christina Blakeslee (blakeslc@flcourts.org) Cc: Alan Neubauer (neubauer@flcourts.org) Subject: Concern from one of our judges Judge Munyon and Christina, Please see the below comments from one of our judges: When litigants file bankruptcy, the Clerk does not immediately check the portal (sometimes 24 hours or more) and foreclosure sales have taken place in violation of the stay. I can undo the sale of course but third party bidders are out quite a bit of nonrefundable fees when this happens. It causes litigation between the 3d party bidder and the Clerk and I have reviewed the rules and cases and only find old cases that deny refunds of the fees when the debtor filed their suggestion after the sale. In these cases, the debtor is filing before the sale but the clerk doesn t check the portal until after and claims that there is no mistake in doing that and they are entitled to the fee! According to federal law, the sale is technically a nullity and void and probably need to address this in an administrative order as well. I believe there needs to be a 1) special filing or designation for Bankruptcy stays that allows the Clerk to be alerted immediately and 2) that there be a maximum time period that the clerk must move or reject the document once filed (not more than 2 days or whatever is reasonable). With gratitude, Thomas A. Genung, Esq. Trial Court Administrator 19 th Judicial Circuit Court 250 NW Country Club Dr., Ste. 217 Port St. Lucie, Florida Ph: Fax: genungt@circuit19.org

14 Determining E-Service when Judges file Motions Mike Smith From: Smith, Mike Sent: Monday, October 6, :10 AM To: Brown,Betty J; Gerald Cates; Misra,Jill A; Wooten,Patricia D; Bell,Valarie L Cc: Phillips, Joseph W; Horn,Mary E; Joseph Stelma, Jr.; Janocko, Eve; Heltzel, Kerry; Alan Neubauer; Chris Blakeslee Subject: RE: missing Orders for Dependency Attys Betty, Understood. But is the service to the expert witnesses or the requesting attorney? Is it the responsibility of the attorney who requested the testimony? My issue is that when we move to where the Judges are e-filing and if they do not have the for the witness they will not be able to e-serve the Order to those individuals unless the is available (provided) on the e-portal. Additionally I am looking into where the responsibility lies because we will have that issue with any non-attorney who will need eservice as we move forward with judicial e-filing. Those individuals will not have viewing access through AO for certain cases such as adoption, etc. I would assume it would matter as to which User Group the witness may or may not fall under, if any at all, other than Public. I just read RULE SERVICE OF PLEADINGS AND DOCUMENTS and I for one need clarification. I understand the nonsecured access and maybe I am reading more into this than needed, but I do not want to assume that the Judges are required to eservice those individuals or entities that are considered non-party. I think they may need some input on this. The current rule states that is indeed the responsibility of the filer. I am forwarding this to my friends at OSCA for some clarity. We have a FCTC meeting in a month and this may need to be discussed. Jill s comment may be a possible solution. As far as the attorneys filing Orders as Notices above my pay-grade there! By the way, our Circuit Civil Judges have started the e-filing process and we are training others starting next week. Thanks, Mike From: Brown,Betty J [mailto:betty.brown@duvalclerk.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, :28 AM To: Cates,Gerald J; Smith, Mike; Misra,Jill A; Wooten,Patricia D; Bell,Valarie L Cc: Phillips, Joseph W; Horn,Mary E; Stelma, Joe; Janocko, Eve; Heltzel, Kerry Subject: RE: missing Orders for Dependency Attys I spoke with Kerry last week and explained that if the Judge signs the order then it s up to the JA to send out the conformed copies. Betty J. Brown Assistant to the Clerk of Courts 501 West Adams Street, Suite 1188 Room 1180 Jacksonville, Florida (904)

15 From: Cates,Gerald J Sent: Thursday, October 02, :16 PM To: Smith, Mike; Misra,Jill A; Wooten,Patricia D; Bell,Valarie L; Brown,Betty J Cc: Phillips, Joseph W; Horn,Mary E; Stelma, Joe; Janocko, Eve; Heltzel, Kerry Subject: RE: missing Orders for Dependency Attys Kerry s question regarding the expert witness is being addressed by Betty Brown. It is my understanding that these are handled in Core on a case by case basis. Gerald Cates Assistant to the Clerk IT Director Duval County Clerk of Courts 501 W Adams St, Suite 5090 Jacksonville, FL From: Smith, Mike [mailto:mikejs@coj.net] Sent: Thursday, October 02, :32 PM To: Misra,Jill A; Wooten,Patricia D; Bell,Valarie L; Brown,Betty J Cc: Phillips, Joseph W; Cates,Gerald J; Horn,Mary E; Stelma, Joe; Janocko, Eve Subject: RE: missing Orders for Dependency Attys Yes of course. We have another potential issue: An attorney asks for an expert witness or eval from a Doctor. The order from the Judge gets e-filed by the Judge. The expert cannot see the order especially if it is a Juvi case. Who is responsible to service or eservice that non-attorney individual? I understand that if it is filed by an attorney JRA clearly obligate the filing attorney. Keep in mind that if a name is not listed in eservice through the e-portal it can be added ad-hoc. I have some thoughts on this but the Judges need to be involved in the discussion. Let me know what works for you. I will run it by the Judge(s). Mike From: Misra,Jill A [mailto:jill.misra@duvalclerk.com] Sent: Thursday, October 02, :28 PM To: Smith, Mike; Wooten,Patricia D; Bell,Valarie L; Brown,Betty J Cc: Phillips, Joseph W; Cates,Gerald J; Horn,Mary E Subject: FW: missing Orders for Dependency Attys Can we meet to discuss how to handle these Orders for Juvenile? We may be able to allow a specific Order to be filed by attorneys. From: Murphy, Tracey [mailto:traceym@coj.net] Sent: Thursday, October 02, :26 PM To: Misra,Jill A Cc: Guarino, Christopher Subject: RE: missing Orders for Dependency Attys Good afternoon, Jill. I was approached by a Guardian ad Litem attorney today, with whom I worked closely last summer. He expressed a concern with the latest E-Portal upgrade; Orders are no longer an upload option for the Attorneys, and since Judge Gooding conducts so many Ex Parte judicial hearings, the Attorneys are e-filing Orders as

16 Notices. The Clerks are then tasked with making the changes on the backend. Normal protocol would be for the Attorneys to e-file the Orders themselves. Can this be modified for these dependency Attorneys ASAP? The Attorney is Mr. Christopher Guarino, Guardian ad Litem of Jacksonville. If you require further information regarding the agency s needs, you can reach him at- CGuarino@coj.net and his direct line is Tracey Murphy Assistant Librarian Duval County Law Library 501 W. Adams St. Room 2291 Jacksonville, Fl tmurphy@coj.net