In Re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration

13 So. 3d 1044, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 452, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 1123, 2009 WL 2045399
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJuly 16, 2009
DocketSC08-1658
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 So. 3d 1044 (In Re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration) 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 the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, 13 So. 3d 1044, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 452, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 1123, 2009 WL 2045399 (Fla. 2009).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the Court for consideration of proposed amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration and the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. 1 The proposed amendments implement recommendations of the Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability concerning court reporting services and the use of electronic recordings of court proceedings. We adopt the majority of the proposed amendments but decline to adopt the amendments that would restrict disclosure of electronic recordings of court proceedings.

BACKGROUND

The Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability (Commission) *1045 was created in 2002 to make recommendations concerning the improvement and accountability of Florida’s trial courts. See In re Comm’n on Trial Court Performance and Accountability, AOSC02-27, at 2 (Aug. 30, 2002) (on file with Clerk, Fla. Sup.Ct.). In 2006, the Commission was charged with making “recommendations on the effective and efficient management of due process services.” In re Comm’n on Trial Court Performance and Accountability, AOSC06-54, at 1 (Sept. 19, 2006) (on file with Clerk, Fla. Sup.Ct.). As relevant here, the Commission was directed to focus on “clarifying the legal and operational issues arising from the use of digital recording technology” and “developing operational standards and best practices for providing court reporting services.” Id. at 1-2. The Commission was authorized “to propose amendments to rules of court procedure on issues involving trial court performance and accountability, for consideration by the Court.” Id. at 4.

In October 2007, the Commission submitted its report, titled “Recommendations for the Provision of Court Reporting Services in Florida’s Trial Courts,” and also filed a petition proposing amendments to Rules of Judicial Administration 2.420, Public Access to Judicial Branch Records, and 2.535, Court Reporting, and Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.141, Appeal Proceedings in Criminal Cases, 9.200, The Record, and 9.900(h), Designation to Reporter (form). 2 In its petition, the Commission explained that recent legal challenges relating to problems with the use of digital reporting technology have focused on the shift away from trained court reporters toward the use of untrained tran-scriptionists and the potential presence of confidential information on digital recordings. In several cases, the district courts have expressed concern with respect to both the potential disclosure of confidential discourse that was inadvertently captured on digital recordings and the poor quality of transcripts prepared from digital recordings by untrained transcriptionists. See Moorman v. Hatfield, 958 So.2d 396, 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (noting serious errors in a written transcript prepared from an audio recording of a court proceeding); Holt v. Chief Judge of Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, 920 So.2d 814, 818 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (noting concern with respect to the unintended recording of confidential conversations in a court proceeding); see also R.P. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 975 So.2d 435, 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“[T]he trial proceedings were tape-recorded and transcribed by a court reporter with results that can only be described as dismal.”). The Commission proposed a number of rule amendments intended to address these concerns.

After consideration of the Commission’s proposals, the Court referred them to the affected rules committees, the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee (RJA Committee) and the Appellate Court Rules Committee (Appellate Committee), for consideration. The Court asked the committees to file proper out-of-cycle reports and proposals, which they have done. The committees’ proposals are consistent with the Commission’s proposals. The proposals of the RJA Committee and Appellate Committee were published in the October 1, 2008, edition of The Florida Bar News, and several comments were filed concerning the proposed amendments to rules 2.420 and 2.535. The RJA Committee filed a response to two comments addressing technical matters. No comments were filed concerning the proposed amendments to the appellate rules.

*1046 AMENDMENTS

Upon consideration of the reports of the Commission and the rules committees, the comments, and the presentations of the interested parties at 'oral argument, which was heard in this matter on April 6, 2009, we amend the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration and the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure as explained below.

First, Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.535(a) is amended to add definitions of several key terms. An “approved court reporter” is defined as “a court employee or contractor who performs court reporting services, including transcription, at public expense and who meets the court’s certification, training, and other qualifications for court reporting.” An “approved transcriptionist” is defined as “a court employee, contractor, or other individual who performs transcription services at public expense and who meets the court’s certification, training, and other qualifications for transcribing proceedings.” A “civil court reporter” is defined as a “court reporter who performs court reporting services in civil proceedings not required to be reported at public expense, and who meets the court’s certification, training, and other qualifications for court reporting.” The “electronic record” is defined as “the audio, analog, digital, or video record of a court proceeding,” and the “official record” is “the transcript, which is the written record of court proceedings and depositions prepared in accordance with the requirements of subdivision (f)” of this rule. 3

In conjunction with the amendments to rule 2.535(a), renumbered subdivisions (g) and (h) of rule 2.535, as well as appellate rules 9.140, 9.200, and 9.900(h) 4 are amended to incorporate the terms “approved transcriptionist,” “approved court reporter,” and “civil court reporter,” where appropriate, throughout. Additionally, renumbered subdivision 2.535(h)(1) is amended to provide that all proceedings required by law or administrative order to be reported shall be reported at public expense, and new subdivision 2.535(h)(2) is added providing that proceedings reported for the court’s own use may be reported at public expense. Renumbered subdivision 2.535(h)(3), Circuit Plan, requires each chief judge to enter an administrative order developing and implementing a circuit-wide plan for court reporting of proceedings required to be reported at public expense. This subdivision is amended to require that the circuit plan “ensure that all court reporting services are provided by ‘approved court reporters or approved transcriptionists.’” 5 Finally, a committee *1047

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

Related

Jeffrey Morency v. State
223 So. 3d 439 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 So. 3d 1044, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 452, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 1123, 2009 WL 2045399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-rules-of-judicial-administration-fla-2009.