In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, Florida Probate Rules, Florida Rules of Traffic Court, Florida Small Claims Rules, and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure

CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJuly 14, 2022
DocketSC21-990
StatusPublished

This text of In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, Florida Probate Rules, Florida Rules of Traffic Court, Florida Small Claims Rules, and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure (In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, Florida Probate Rules, Florida Rules of Traffic Court, Florida Small Claims Rules, and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, Florida Probate Rules, Florida Rules of Traffic Court, Florida Small Claims Rules, and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, (Fla. 2022).

Opinion

Supreme Court of Florida ____________

No. SC21-990 ____________

IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, FLORIDA RULES OF GENERAL PRACTICE AND JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, FLORIDA PROBATE RULES, FLORIDA RULES OF TRAFFIC COURT, FLORIDA SMALL CLAIMS RULES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE.

July 14, 2022

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the Court for consideration of proposed

amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the Florida

Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration, the Florida

Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Florida Probate Rules, the Florida

Rules of Traffic Court, the Florida Small Claims Rules, and the

Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. The proposed amendments,

which we adopt with modifications, provide permanent and broader

authorization for the remote conduct of certain court proceedings. 1

1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. I. BACKGROUND

Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the

Court established the Workgroup on the Continuity of Court

Operations and Proceedings During and After COVID-19

(Workgroup) “to develop findings and recommendations on the

continuation of all court operations and proceedings statewide in a

manner that protects health and safety and that addresses each

[phase] of the pandemic.” In re: Workgroup on the Continuity of

Court Operations and Proceedings During and After COVID-19, Fla.

Admin. Order No. AOSC20-28 (April 21, 2020). The Workgroup was

also directed to “[i]dentify whether certain proceedings, due to

efficiencies beneficial to stakeholders, could continue to be

conducted remotely when COVID-19 no longer presents a

significant risk to public health and safety,” and the Workgroup was

authorized to propose the necessary rule changes. Id.; see also In

re: Workgroup on the Continuity of Court Operations and Proceedings

During and After COVID-19, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-110

(November 23, 2020).

The Workgroup determined that permanent, broader

authorization for remote proceedings was warranted based on the -2- positive outcomes and efficiencies observed during the pandemic.

Therefore, the Workgroup filed the petition at issue in this case. 2

The Court published the proposed amendments for comment in the

August 1, 2021, edition of The Florida Bar News. Numerous

comments were filed, and the Workgroup filed a response

suggesting extensive revisions based on the comments.

Having considered the proposed amendments, the comments,

the Workgroup’s response, and oral argument, the Court hereby

adopts, with several changes, the Workgroup’s proposals as

modified by the Workgroup in response to the comments. We

discuss some of the significant amendments below as well as the

significant changes to the Workgroup’s proposals.

2. While working to refine its proposals, the Workgroup identified the need for greater subject matter expertise for the proposed amendments in the areas of delinquency, dependency, and family law. Therefore, the Chief Justice referred responsibility for the review, revision, and finalization of proposed amendments in these areas to the Steering Committee on Families and Children in the Court. The Steering Committee’s petition and proposed amendments are addressed in our decision in In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, & Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms, Case No. SC22-1 (Fla. July 14, 2022), which is also released today.

-3- II. AMENDMENTS

A general authorization for court proceedings through

communication technology now appears in Florida Rule of General

Practice and Judicial Administration 2.530 (Communication

Technology) and applies unless another rule of procedure or general

law governs. However, contrary to the Workgroup’s

recommendation, we exclude Baker Act hearings from this general

authorization to ensure that court procedure reflects this Court’s

constitutional holding in Doe v. State, 217 So. 3d 1020, 1026 (Fla.

2017), that “[t]he right to be present at an involuntary commitment

hearing is a fundamental due process right.”

The substantially rewritten rule 2.530 defines communication

technology and allows a court official to authorize its use upon a

party’s written motion or at the discretion of the court official. A

party may file an objection in writing within 10 days or within a

period directed by the court official. But the court official is

required to grant a motion to use communication technology for

non-evidentiary proceedings scheduled for 30 minutes or less

absent good cause to deny it. Under the amendments to rule 2.530,

a motion to present testimony through communication technology -4- is required to set forth good cause and specify whether each party

consents to the form requested. However, only audio-video

communication technology (as opposed to audio communication

technology) is authorized for the testimony of a person whose

mental capacity or competency is at issue. The rule also allows the

oath to be administered through audio-video communication

technology by a person not physically present with the witness.

Additionally, the rule allows prospective jurors to participate

through communication technology to determine whether they will

be disqualified, be excused, or have their service postponed. And

rule 2.530 allows prospective jurors to participate in voir dire and

empaneled jurors to participate in a trial through audio-video

communication technology when authorized by another rule of

procedure.

Among other amendments to the Florida Rules of General

Practice and Judicial Administration, rule 2.516 (Service of

Pleadings and Documents) is amended to require non-represented

parties to designate an e-mail address to which service must be

directed unless the party is in custody or the party is excused by

the clerk of court from e-mail service after declaring that the party -5- does not have an e-mail account or does not have regular access to

the internet. New forms are adopted for non-represented parties to

request to be excused from e-mail service, to designate an e-mail

address, and to change a mailing address or e-mail address. We

modify the Workgroup’s proposals to automatically excuse non-

represented parties in custody from the requirements of e-mail

service.

New Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.116 (Use of

Communication Technology) addresses the use of communication

technology in criminal proceedings with delineated exceptions

covered by other criminal rules. Except for its communication

technology definitions, rule 2.530 does not apply in criminal

proceedings. Upon the court’s own motion or upon a party’s written

request, rule 3.116 authorizes a judge to direct that communication

technology may be used by one or more parties for pretrial

conferences, but the defendant or defendant’s counsel must waive

the defendant’s physical attendance at pretrial conferences

pursuant to rules 3.180(a)(3) and 3.220(o)(1). And rule 3.116

authorizes the judge to allow the taking of testimony through

-6- communication technology if all parties consent and the defendant

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration
73 So. 3d 210 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2011)
John Doe v. State of Florida
217 So. 3d 1020 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, Florida Probate Rules, Florida Rules of Traffic Court, Florida Small Claims Rules, and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amendments-to-florida-rules-of-civil-procedure-florida-rules-of-fla-2022.