Appellate Briefs of the Future Blake Hawthorne Don Cruse IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 44444444444444444444 Misc. Docket No. 10-9065 44444444444444444444 444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 AMENDED ORDER REQUIRING ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS IN THE SUPREME COURT 444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Attorneys must e-mail electronic copies of the following documents to the Clerk of the Court on the same day the original paper documents are filed: (1) petitions; (2) responses to petitions; (3) replies to responses to petitions; (4) briefs on the merits, including respondents briefs on the merits and petitioners reply briefs on the merits; (5) amicus briefs; (6) post-submission briefs; (7) motions for rehearing; and (8) emergency motions or motions for stay. The electronic-copy requirement applies to both petition-for-review proceedings under Rule of Appellate Procedure 53 and original proceedings under Rule of Appellate Procedure 52. But documents submitted under seal or that are the subject of a pending motion to seal should not be submitted electronically. 2. Documents may not be filed by e-mail. Submitting the electronic copy of the original document to the Clerk of the Court does not constitute filing of the document. The electronic copy is for the convenience of the Court, attorneys, parties, and the public. A party must still file an original and 11 copies of any document addressed to the Court, except that only an original and one copy must be filed of any motion or response to the motion. Attorneys need only e-mail electronic copies of the motions referenced in paragraph 1. 3. Electronic copies must be in text-searchable portable document format (PDF) compatible with the latest version of Adobe Reader. Petitions, responses, briefs, and other original documents should not be scanned, but must instead be directly converted into PDF files using Adobe Acrobat, the word processing program s PDF conversion utility, or another software program. Appendix materials may be scanned if necessary, but scanning creates larger file sizes with images of lesser quality and is to be avoided when possible. Any scanned materials must be made searchable using optical-character-recognition software, such as Adobe Acrobat. The use of bookmarks to assist in locating appendix materials is encouraged.
A few highlights Native format PDF where possible Word-searchable (if you have to scan) Redacted (where required) Email sent to Court when paper filed Copy that electronic copy to other side Fewer paper copies (as of May 31, 2010) Some things are going really well
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT WAL-MART STORES TEXAS LLC'S 1. Combining files into one PDF 1 COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 1 4 CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG THE COURT : I just heard you say that. CAUSE NO. 07-380-D. :. l i i....,.....,.. NUMBER 'm trying 13-08-00501-CV to 2 MR HERRMAN Okay Wha t I ALVINO CHACON, IN THE DISTRICT COURT 3 say, Your Honor, is I 'malvino admi ttchacon ing, even, though i t ' s P a nt f f Appe l l ant, v 4 not in our a f f idavi t, tha t she knew I 'mvs just 105TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ANDREWS she probab DISTRIBUTING ly knew the COMPANY va lue 5 agree ing w i th h i m, tha t WAL-MART STORES, ofinc SANCHEZ, ANDREWS DISTRIBUTING LTD AND ROBERT Appe l l ees 6 the case She did work on i t for two years COMPANY, But LTD AND ROBERT SANCHEZ 7 tha t 's i rre levant It doesn ' t ma tter Wha t happened De fendants KLEBERG COUNTY, TEXAS NUMBER 13-08-00558-CV 8 was she wa l ks i n three days be fore the statute runs, ALVINO CHACON, Appe l l ant, 9 g ives i t to my secre tary, says, " I 'm sorry, I 've MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. 10 screwed up. This statute ' s get t ing ready to run, WAL-MART STORES, INC., ON THIS 28' h day of AUGUST 2008, came to Appel be heard l ee De. fendant Wa l -Mar t Stores Texas, 11 y ' a l l need to f i le a lawsu i t on th is th ing LLC' s Motion for Summary Judgment_ The Court, a fter review ing the p lead ings on file and 12 immed ia te ly. " On appeal considering f rom the the 105th arguments D i st ofr counsel i ct Cour, istof the opinion that Defendant Wal -Mart Stores Texas, of K leberg County, Texas. 13 My secre tary, not know i ng the LLC' sva Mot l ue ion, j ust for Summary Judgment shal l be GRANTED_ 14 prepares a lawsu i t, runs it by a lawyer, makes the IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGEDAND DECREED, that Defendant, WAL-MART OPINION 15 l awyer go over i t and says, "We need to ge STORES t th i s th TEXAS, LLC's i ng Mot ion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. 16 f i l ed. " Kyzmyck f i l ed an Before a f f i dav Chiief t Just sayice i ngva ldez she and d i dn Just ' t ices Yanez and Benav ides Opinion by Chief Just ice Va ldez 17 know the va l ue of the case. Debbi e, my secretary SIGNED, th is day of AUG 2 8 2008 EXHIBIT 18 f i led an a f f idavi t saying she d idn ' t know the va lue of a D 19 the case. Kyzmyck says, " I didn ' t real i ze how badl y 20 th is guy was injured unt i l I got d iscovery from 21 Wa l -Mart three months la ter and I had to start pu l l ing 22 toge ther a l l the med i ca l records. Then I rea l i zed 23 th is case was worth more than the jur isd ic t iona l 24 l i mi ts. " 25 But, Your Honor, aga in tha t is st i l l not E: l #600-109/Al v i no Chr rcan vs. t i 'Af1 P1eadings1 MSJOrder Page ] KORI LUCKENBACH HOSEK, CSR a 9 EXHIBIT 1. Combining files into one PDF 1 4 1 THE COURT CAUSE: NO. I07-380-D just heard you say that. 2 MR. HERRMAN : Okay. Wha t I 'm trying to ALVINO CHACON, IN THE DISTRICT COURT 3 say, Your Honor P, l a i ntis i f f I 'm admi tt ing, even though i t ' s 4vs. not in our a f f idavi t, tha t she knew. 105THI JUDICIAL 'm justdistrict 5WAL-MART agree ing STORES, w i INC th., h i m, tha t she probab ly knew the va lue of ANDREWS DISTRIBUTING 6COMPANY, the case LTD.,. ANDShe COURT OF APPEALS ROBERT did work on i t for two years. But SANCHEZ 7 tha t 's i rre levant De fendants. It doesn ' t ma tter KLEBERG THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS. Wha COUNTY, t happened TEXAS 8 was she wa l ks i n three days be fore the statute runs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT WAL-MART STORES TEXAS LLC'S CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 9 g ives i t to mymotion secre FOR tary SUMMARY, says JUDGMENT, " I 'm sorry, I 've 10 screwed up. This statute ' s get t ing ready to run, ON THIS 28' h day of AUGUST 2008, came to be heard De fendant Wa l -Mar t Stores Texas, NUMBER 13-08-00501-CV 11 y ' a l l need to f i le a lawsu i t on th is th ing LLC' s Motion for Summary Judgment_ The Court, a fter review ing the p lead ings on file and ALVINO CHACON, Appe l l ant, 12 immed ia te ly. " considering the arguments of counsel, is of the v. opinion that Defendant Wal -Mart Stores Texas, 13LLC' s Mot ion My secre tary, not know i ng the va l ue, j ust for Summary Judgment shal l be GRANTED_ ANDREWS DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 14 LTD prepares. AND ROBERT a lawsu SANCHEZ, i t, runs it by a lawyer, makes Appe l l ees the IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGEDAND DECREED, that Defendant, WAL-MART. 15STORES l awyer go over i t and says, "We need to ge t th i s th i ng TEXAS, LLC's Mot ion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. 16 f i l ed. " Kyzmyck NUMBER f i l ed13-08-00558-cv an a f f i dav i t say i ng she d i dn ' t 17 ALVINO knowchacon the va, l ue of the case. Debbi AUG 2 8e, 2008 SIGNED th is day of my secretary Appe l l ant, v. 18 f i led an a f f idavi t saying she d idn ' t know the va lue of 19 WAL-MART the case STORES,. Kyzmyck INC., says, " I didn ' t real i ze Appel how lbadl ee. y 20 th is guy was injured unt i l I got d iscovery from On appeal f rom the 105th 21 Wa l -Mart three months la ter and D i st r i ct I Cour had t to start pu l l ing of K leberg County, Texas. 22 toge ther a l l the med i ca l records. Then I rea l i zed 23 th is case was worth more than the jur isd ic t iona l OPINION 24 l i mi ts. " Before Chi ef Just ice Va ldez and Just ices Yanez and Benav ides 25 Opinion But, Your by Chief Honor Just, ice aga Va ldez in tha t is st i l l not E: l #600-109/Al v i no Chr rcan vs. t i 'Af1 P1eadings1 MSJOrder Page ] KORI LUCKENBACH HOSEK, a 9 EXHIBIT CSR a D EXHIBIT Permits easy circulation, easy internal links
2. Using internal navigation The Court order encourages using bookmarks to help with internal navigation. Think about them like tabs, for your table of contents. Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Extra tip: Set the bookmarks pane to open automatically In your PDF document s Properties, you can set the Initial View to open up the Bookmarks Panel
Some things need improvement Native PDF vs. Scanned If in doubt, zoom in and take a look. Taken from two PDF briefs filed in the same case.
A scanned document can on your original screen. But it can t be used for word searches without extra work. Why rules ask for native PDF Files directly converted to PDF are smaller (those scanned and sent to OCR are not) Helps court circulate your brief internally Scanned documents are very hard to use on portable devices Better search accuracy
Appellate counsel, after many years liberated from document review, sometimes fail to redact sensitive information. Some things must be redacted Names of minor children (use A.B. ) Social security numbers Financial account numbers Date of birth Home address Would you want this stuff on?
Top tips for creating better electronic briefs Buy Adobe Acrobat Combine appendix materials into your main document When possible, convert directly to PDF Use bookmarks Set the bookmarks to show in the initial view Create hyperlinks to internet resources and use internal hyperlinks to appendix items In the right case, fold images into your brief An opportunity for advocacy
Paper or Plastic? The PDF file itself is now your first impression. 10-0182.pfr.pdf
The PDF file itself is now your first impression. First, don t break the rules. Polish and typography matter on screen. Be helpful. You want the judge to stick with your PDF instead of digging for paper. This really is your first impression -- you want the brief to look professional. Do I need to file a motion? If it violates any of the briefing rules for the Court, you need to file a motion. The rule to watch out for is paragraph 4:
Comparing federal and the new Texas rules Fundamentals are the same Comparing federal and the new Texas rules But the federal rules are more restrictive about links
Judgment calls Even these technical choices become advocacy decisions How should an e-brief signal that something is linked? Should links be blue and underlined, like on a webpage (or the default in Word)? Should they be enclosed in a dark box (default for links in Adobe)? Does this change the debate about in-line citations versus placing them in footnotes?
Should every possible citation be linked? One school says every link helps. And completeness is what CD-ROMs offer. But links are an invitation for the reader to stop reading. Should advocates be choosy about which sources to highlight? http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2010/05/experiments_in.php
The future of... The Fun They Had (1951 science fiction story about 2155)
The Fun They Had (1951 science fiction story about 2155) The ipad (2010 reality) How will clients feel about e-briefs?
Learn More Online Supreme Court of Texas site: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ SCOTXblog hosts a copy of this paper & a workflow for making simple e-briefs: http://www.scotxblog.com/ Adobe has a blog about this: http://blogs.adobe.com/acrolaw/ And there are many more links in our paper. Blake A. Hawthorne Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas blake.hawthorne@courts.state.tx.us (512) 463-1312 Don Cruse Law Office of Don Cruse don@doncruse.com (512) 853-9100