In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration

102 So. 3d 505, 2012 Fla. LEXIS 2064, 2012 WL 4936305
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided October 18, 2012·No. No. SC10-2101·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

[506] REVISED OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Consistent with the orders entered in this case on August 14, 2012, August 30, 2012, and October 9, 2012, the opinion dated June 21, 2012, is withdrawn and this revised opinion is substituted in its place.

This matter is before the Court for consideration of proposed amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration and conforming amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Florida Probate Rules, the Florida Rules of Traffic Court, the Florida Small Claims Rules, the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure and Forms. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

The chair of The Florida Bar Rules of Judicial Administration Committee (the RJA Committee), together with the committee chairs for each body of court rules identified above, filed an out-of-cycle report proposing new Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516 (Service of Pleadings and Documents), which would implement mandatory e-mail service for all cases in Florida. The committees also propose amendments to conform existing court rules to new rule 2.516. We adopt the amendments as proposed.

BACKGROUND

In June 2009, each of The Florida Bar’s rules committees was asked to designate one of its members to serve on the Joint E-mail Service Committee (the Joint Committee), tasked to explore the possibility of a comprehensive proposal to implement email service in Florida. In preparing its proposals, the Joint Committee determined that a single rule addressing e-mail service should be placed in the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. Accordingly, the RJA Committee developed new Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516 (Service of Pleadings and Documents). All of the rules committees have endorsed and approved this rule in concept.1 The rules committees also have proposed various amendments to conform the other bodies of court rules to rule 2.516. The Florida Bar Board of Governors approved the entire package of proposals by a vote of 36 to 3.

After the joint report was submitted to the Court, the proposals were published for comment. The Court received several comments from members of the Bar, as well as from the Florida Public Defender Association, the Judicial Technology Committee of the Palm Beach County Bar Association, the Family Law Rules Committee, and the Family Law Section of The Florida Bar. The RJA Committee, on behalf of all the rules committees, filed a response to these comments.

While this case was pending before the Court, the rules committees filed a joint out-of-cycle report proposing various rule amendments to implement mandatory electronic filing procedures in Florida courts. See In re Amends, to Fla. Rules of Civ. Pro., Fla. Rules of Jud. Admin., Fla. Rules of Crim. Pro., Fla. Probate Rules, Fla. Small Claims Rules, Fla. Rules of Juv. Pro., Fla. Rules of App. Pro., & Fla. Family Law Rules of Pro-Electronic Filing, No. SC11-399 (Fla. Petition filed Feb. 28, 2011) (In re Electronic Filing). After the oral arguments in this case and in In re Electronic Filing, we determined that certain aspects of these cases warranted further examination. Accordingly, we directed the RJA Committee and the Florida Courts Technology Commission (FCTC) to convene a workgroup2 [507] and submit a supplemental report addressing several specific areas of concern. See In re Electronic Filing, No. SC111-399 (Fla. order entered Dec. 6, 2011). As is relevant here, we directed the workgroup to address how the implementation plan (for the new electronic filing procedures) proposed in In re Electronic Filing would impact the electronic service requirements proposed here. The RJA Committee and the FCTC filed a supplemental report addressing this concern. There were no comments on the supplemental report.

After considering the original joint report, the comments filed, the issues discussed at oral argument, and the information provided in the supplemental report, we adopt new Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516 as well as the conforming amendments to the rules of procedure, as set forth below.

AMENDMENTS

The central rule adopted in this case is new Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516 (Service of Pleadings and Documents). This rule was modeled after current Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.080 (Service of Pleadings and Papers) and includes many of the same provisions and requirements for service. However, new rule 2.516 provides that all documents required or permitted to be served on another party must be served by e-mail. Under subdivision (b)(1) (Service by Electronic Mail (“e-mail”)), upon appearing in a proceeding a lawyer must designate a primary e-mail address, and may designate up to two secondary e-mail addresses, for receiving service. Thereafter, service on the lawyer must be made by e-mail. The rule does permit several limited exceptions to this requirement. A lawyer may file a motion to be excused from e-mail service, demonstrating that he or she has no e-mail account and lacks access to the Internet at the lawyer’s office.3 Similarly, individuals who are not represented by an attorney may designate an e-mail address for service if they wish; however, pro se litigants are not required to use e-mail service. Additionally, applications for witness subpoenas and documents served by formal notice or required to be served in the manner provided for service of formal notice are not required to comply with rule 2.516.

Subdivision (b)(1) also includes provisions addressing the time and format for e-mail service. Service by e-mail is deemed complete when the e-mail is sent.4 Additionally, e-mail service is made by attaching a copy of the document to be served in PDF format to an e-mail, or by including in the e-mail a link to the document on a website maintained by the clerk. The e-mail must contain the subject line “SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT” in all capital letters, followed by the case number of the relevant proceeding. The body of the e-mail must identify the court in which the proceeding is pending, the case number, the name of the initial party on each side, the title of each document [508] served with that e-mail, and the sender’s name and telephone number. The e-mail and attachments together may not exceed 5 megabytes in size; e-mails that exceed the size requirement must be divided into separate e-mails (no one of which may exceed 5 megabytes) and labeled sequentially in the subject line.

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

In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, 102 So. 3d 505, 2012 Fla. LEXIS 2064, 2012 WL 4936305 (Fla. 2012).

102 So. 3d 505 (In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

LAW OFFICES OF FRED C. COHEN, P.A. v. H.E.C. CLEANING, LLC.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2020
Sandra Kent Wheaton v. Mardella Wheaton
261 So. 3d 1236 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2019)
Boatright v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017
Chiquita Kiara Floyd v. Stacy L. Smith, Jason Owen Smith
160 So. 3d 567 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
In Re AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 2.420
153 So. 3d 896 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2014)
Matte v. Caplan
140 So. 3d 686 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration
126 So. 3d 222 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2013)
Tobin v. Tobin
117 So. 3d 893 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
Capone v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
116 So. 3d 363 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2013)
In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516
112 So. 3d 1173 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2013)
In re Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure
104 So. 3d 314 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2012)
City of Tampa v. Titan Southeast Construction Corp.
535 F. Supp. 163 (M.D. Florida, 1982)