prev set | table of contents | next set |
![]() |
Download |
The Trial Court Technology Committee was charged, in June 2001, with the responsibility for designing a long-range strategic plan to coordinate present and future technology development in the trial courts. Additionally, the Trial Court Technology Committee was directed to provide technical guidance and consultation to the Supreme Court and the Office of the State Courts Administrator regarding information systems development and operational standards, policies, and procedures relating to automation in Florida’s trial courts.
The purpose of these directives was to bring standardization and automation to trial court technology. This would ensure maximization of economies as to the limited resources available for technology, and would ensure that the needs of the judicial branch, its partners in the judicial system, and the needs of the public are met in regards to access to accurate trial court data and information.
The Trial Court Technology Committee has completed its assessment of judicial system needs and has inventoried the technology in the judicial branch. At a joint meeting held on October 25, 2002, the Florida Courts Technology Commission and the Trial Court Technology Committee approved a Functional Requirements Document, Technical Standards, and a statewide Strategic Plan. The Florida Courts Technology Commission also recommended that the Chief Justice enter into an administrative order to implement the above mentioned documents.
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that:
1. Each circuit court and clerk of the court that undertakes to develop new data systems upgrades to existing hardware and software for the storage and maintenance of trial court data and records must adhere to the Functional Requirements Document, Technical Standards, and the Strategic Plan as approved by the Florida Courts Technology Commission.
2. Before a system that maintains trial court data and records may be implemented by a circuit court or clerk of court, whether it is vendor created or internally created, the specifications must be submitted for approval to the Florida Courts Technology Commission to ensure that the system meets the criteria set forth in the Functional Requirements Document, Technical Standards, and Strategic Plan.
3. In order to maintain standardization within the circuits, each judicial circuit must develop a strategic plan for local implementation that is consistent with the statewide Strategic Plan. The circuit strategic plans must identify future technology initiatives in the circuit and must be submitted by October 1, 2003, to the Florida Courts Technology Commission for approval.
4. By October of each subsequent year, each judicial circuit shall develop an annual operational plan that must be presented to the Florida Courts Technology Commission for approval. This operational plan will outline the tasks to be accomplished during the upcoming fiscal year and the estimated cost to achieve the tasks. To the extent that there are revenues associated with any such initiatives, the revenues should also be identified.
Assistance and guidance in the development and submission of circuit strategic and operational plans shall be provided by the Florida Courts Technology Commission.
If a circuit is not able to meet the deadlines established herein, then the circuit must provide explanation to the Chief Justice of this Court as to why it has not been able to comply with this administrative order.
DONE ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, this eighth day of April, 2003.
Chief Justice Harry Lee Armstead
Thomas D. Hall, Clerk of Court
Government agencies across the nation increasingly face concerns over an unexpected byproduct of the Information Age - the broad release of sensitive or confidential information through electronic media. Responding to these concerns with respect to information contained in court records, this Court directed the Judicial Management Council of Florida to study the issue as it affects Florida courts.
The Council produced and submitted to the Court the "Report and Recommendations of the Judicial Management Council of Florida on Privacy and Electronic Access to Court Records.” In its report the Council recognized that emerging technologies hold great promise for advances in the efficiency, effectiveness and openness of the courts , However, it concluded that current regulation is minimal and inadequate to protect the privacy interests of the public. It concluded that the Supreme Court should take steps to keep confidential and sensitive information secure from inappropriate disclosure through the implementation of carefully considered uniform regulation.
The Council recommended that a select committee be charged with the development of comprehensive policies to be adopted by the Court to guide electronic access to court records in the future. The Council also recommended that , until such policies can be developed and implemented , court records should not he generally available electronically. The Council recognized that policy development and implementation in this area must allow sufficient time to address the complexities of confidentiality requirements imposed by statutes and court rules and the current absence of statewide uniformity in policies governing electronic distribution of court records.
During the 2002 session the Legislature created the Study Committee on Public Records and charged it with studying similar issues of privacy in the electronic release of court records as well as other public records. In our opinion, In Re: Report and Recommendations of the Judicial Management Council of Florida on Privacy and Electronic Access to Court Records, 832 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 2002), this Court indicated agreement with the recommendations of the Judicial Management Council , but deferred action on ihe Council ’s recommendations pending completion of work by the legislative Study Committee on Public Records.
The Study Committee on Public Records completed its report in February this year , in which it joins the Judicial Management Council in recommending that this Court adopt rules that set forth procedures regulating the electronic distribution of information contained in court records. The Study Committee also agreed that, until such time as electronic dissemination can be properly regulated, court records should not be disseminated electronically, whether via Internet access , bulk electronic release, or by other means.
The recommendations of the Study Committee on Public Records are therefore largely consistent with the recommendations of the Judicial Management Council: Each call for development of comprehensive statewide policies and a limited moratorium until these policies are in place. To effectuate these recommendations, the Chief Justice in April this year directed the Judicial Management Council Ad Hoc Workgroup on Electronic Access to Court records to provide sped He guidance on the formation and charge to the recommended policy committee , and on the reach and scope of an interim moratorium. The Ad Hoc Workgroup drafted a proposed order , which it circulated to interested parties with a request for public comment. Comments were received from fifteen parties. which the Ad Hoc Workgroup consulted in finalizing its recommended order.
Based on the foregoing recommendations, the Court has determined that the Chief Justice should establish the Committee on Privacy and Court Records. The Committee is directed to undertake the following tasks:
1. Recommend to the Florida Supreme Court comprehensive policies to regulate the electronic release of court records. The Committee should consider recommending a plan concerning the electronic release of court records that includes, at a minimum: rules of court that identify requirements that must be met as a condition of authorization to release court records electronically; a process under court rules through which a clerk of court may request and gain approval to electronically release court records; categories of court records that may or may not be authorized for electronic release; and procedures for ensuring that electronic release systems comply with applicable laws, court rules and court orders.
2. Develop and initiate strategies to reduce the amount of personal and sensitive information that may unnecessarily become a part oi a court record , fn this regard , the Committee should: examine court rules and practices, including but not limited to Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.285, that may result in the unnecessary inclusion of personal and sensitive information in court records ; develop and recommend strategies to educate lawyers and judges regarding the privacy implications of inclusion of personal and sensitive information in court records and official records; and develop policies regarding public education and notification about public access to court records.
3. Develop and submit to the Court recommendations regarding categories of information that are routinely included in court records that the Court should advance to the Florida Legislature for consideration as exemptions from the right of access pursuant to section 24 of Article I of the Florida Constitution.
4. The work of the Committee should be completed as expeditiously as possible in keeping with the importance of the its mission , but in no event shall the report of the Committee be submitted later than July 1 2005.
The following individuals are appointed to serve on the Committee until the work of the Committee is completed and they are discharged by the Court:
Mr. Jon Mills, Chair
Professor of Law and Director, Center for Governmental Responsibility
University of Florida, Levin College of Law
Box 117625
Gainesville, Florida 32611
Ms. Kristin Adamson
Novey, Mendelson, and Adamson
851 East Park Avenue
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Mr. Andrew Z. Adkins
Director, Legal technology Institute
University of Florida Levin College of Law
P.O. Box 117644
Gainesville, Florida 32611-7644
The Honorable Edward FT Fine
Chief Judge, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit
Palm Beach County Courthouse
Room 5.2500
205 North Dixie Highway
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Mr. A, Michael Froomkin
Professor of Law
University of Miami School of Law
1311 Miller Drive
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
The Honorable Lydia Gardner
Clerk of tire Court. Orange County
425 North Orange Avenue
P.O. Box 4994
Orlando. Florida 32801
The Honorable Jacqueline R. Griffin
Judge, Fifth District Court of Appeal
300 South Beach Street
Daytona Beach, Florida 32014
The Honorable Thomas D. Hall
Clerk of Court. Florida Supreme Court
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Mr. Jon Kaney, Jr.
Cobb & Cole
150 Magnolia Avenue
Daytona Beach. Florida 32114
The Honorable Judith L, Kreeger
Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit
175 NW 1st Avenue
Miami, Florida 33189
The Honorable Barbara T. Scott
Clerk of the Court. Charlotte County
350 East Marion Avenue
P.O. Box 511687
Punta Gorda, Florida 33951-1687
The Honorable Kim A. Skievaski
Chief Judge, First Judicial Circuit
VI.C. Blanchard Building
190 Governmental Center, Fifth Floor
Pensacola. Florida 32501
The Honorabie Elijah Smiley
Judge, Bay County
Bay County Courthouse
P.O. Box 2269
Panama City, Florida 32402
Mr. Wall Smith
Court Administrator. Twelfth Judicial Circuit
P.O, Box 48297
Sarasota. Florida 34230
The Honorable Larry Turner
Judge, Eighth Judicial Circuit
Alachua County Courthouse, Room 41§
201 East University Avenue
Gainesville, Florida 32601
Justice R. Fred Lewis will serve as the Supreme Court’s liaison to the committee. Staff support will be provided by the Office of the State Courts Administrator.
It is further ordered that, effective immediately and until further order of this Court, no court record as defined by Rule of Judicial Administration 2.051(b)(1)(a) shall be released in any electronic form by any Florida clerk of court except as provided herein.1/
The following court record? are excepted from this restriction and may be provided in electronic form, except as controlled by statutory or rule restrictions:
a. a court record which has become an "official record" as defined by Florida law;
b. a court record in a case may be transmitted to a party or an attorney of record in that case;
c. a court record may be transmitted to governmental agency or agent authorized by law, court rule, or court order to have access to that record;
d. a court record which has been solitarily and individually requested, provided it has been manually inspected by the clerk of court or deputy clerk of court and no information which is confidential or exempt is released;
e. a court record in a case which the chief judge of the jurisdiction has designated to be of significant public interest, provided it has been manually inspected by the clerk of court or deputy clerk of court and no information which is confidential or exempt is released;
f. progress dockets limi Led to: case numbers and case type identification; party names, addresses and dates of birth; names and addresses of counsel; lists or indices of any judgments, orders. pleadings, motions, notices or other documents in the court file; court events, clerk actions and case dispositions, provided no confidential or exempt information is released;
g. schedules and court calendars;
h. courL records regarding traffic cases;
i. appellate court briefs, orders and opinions; and
j. court records which have been inspected by the clerk of court or deputy clerk of court may be viewed via a public view terminal within an office of a clerk of court, provided no confidential or exempt informakion may be viewed.
Any existing Internet or dial-up access systems, including existing subscription access agreements, must be terminated as soon as practicable, but in any event shall not continue beyond January 1, 2004.
Nothing in this Administrative Order shall affect statutory restrictions on the placement of certain court records on a publicly available Internet website or the status of any information that is made confidential or exempt from the right of access by a provision of Florida law or rule of court.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on November 25, 2003.
Chief Justice Harry Lee Anstead
Thomas D. Hall, Clerk
1/
For purposes of this Administrative Order, "electronic form" is defined by Section 3.40. below, of the Guidelines for Public Access to Court Records developed by the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators. A document transmitted via traditional fax, received on paper and not captured as a digital file, is not contemplated to be within the meaning of "electronic form."
Section 3.40 - Definition Of In Electronic Form. information tn a court record "in electronic form” includes information that exists as:
(a) electronic representations of text or graphic documents;
(b) an electronic image, including a video image, of a document. exhibit or other thing;
(c) data in the fields or tiles of an electronic database; or
(d) an audio or video recording, analog or digital, of an event or notes in an electronic file from which a transcript of an event can be prepared.
Administrative Order AOSC03-49 issued on November 25, 2003, is hereby withdrawn and this order is substituted in it place, nunc pro tunc to November 25, 2003.1/
In recent years, government agencies across the nation have increasingly faced concerns over an unexpected byproduct of the Information Age — the broad release of sensitive or confidential information through electronic media. Responding to these concerns, this Court directed the Judicial Management Council of Florida to study the issue as it affects Florida courts and information contained in court records.
Subsequently, the Council produced and submitted a report to the Court “Report and Recommendations of the Judicial Management Council of Florida on recognized that emerging technologies hold great promise for advances in the efficiency, effectiveness, and the openness of the courts. However, it concluded that current regulation of access to court information is minimal, and may be inadequate in some instances to protect the privacy interests of the public and those directly or indirectly involved in court proceedings, while assuring continuing public access. The report concluded that the Supreme Court should take steps to keep confidential and sensitive information secure from inappropriate disclosure, while continuing to assure public access to court information, through the implementation of a carefully considered and uniform scheme of regulation.
The Council recommended that a select committee be charged with the development of comprehensive policies and a scheme to be adopted by the Court to guide and provide electronic access to court records in the future. The Council also recommended that until such policies can be developed and implemented all court records should not be generally available electronically. The Council recognized that policy development and implementation in this area must allow sufficient time for all concerned to carefully address the complexities of any confidentiality requirements currently imposed by statutes and court rules, as well as the current absence of statewide regulation and uniformity in policies and rules governing the electronic access to court records.
In our opinion, In Re: Report and Recommendations of the Judicial Management Council of Florida on Privacy and Electronic Access to Court Records, 832 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 2002), this Court indicated substantial agreement with the recommendations of the Judicial Management Council, but deferred action on the Council’s recommendations pending completion of work by the Study Committee on Public Records created by the Legislature. During the 2002 session the Legislature created the Study Committee on Public Records and charged it with studying similar issues of privacy in the electronic release of court records as well as other public records. The Study Committee completed its work and issued its report in February of 2003.
The recommendations of the Study Committee on Public Records are largely consistent with the recommendations of the Judicial Management Council, in that each call for development of comprehensive statewide policies on access, and a limited moratorium until these policies are in place. The Study Committee joined the Judicial Management Council in recommending this Court adopt explicit policy and rules that set forth appropriate procedures regulating electronic access to information contained in court records. The Study Committee also urged that, until such time as the electronic access to such information could be properly regulated, some temporary restrictions on electronic access to court records be imposed, whether the access is via internet, bulk electronic release, or other means.
To effectuate these recommendations, the Chief Justice directed the Judicial Management Council Ad Hoc Workgroup on electronic access to court records to provide specific guidance to him on the formation and charge to the recommended policy committee, and on the reach and scope of any interim moratorium. Subsequently, the Ad Hoc Workgroup drafted a proposal, which it circulated to interested parties with a request for public comment. Comments were received from some fifteen different parties, and the Ad Hoc Workgroup considered those comments before finalizing its recommendations to the Chief Justice. Based on the pending recommendations of the Ad Hoc Workgroup, the Court and the Chief Justice have determined that the Chief Justice should establish a Committee on Privacy and Court Records.
The Committee on Privacy and Court Records is now created by this Order, and the Committee is directed to undertake the following tasks:
1. Study, determine and recommend to the Florida Supreme Court comprehensive policies and rules governing electronic access to court records and information contained therein. The Committee should recommend a plan that includes, at a minimum:
• rules of court that identify requirements that must be met as a condition of authorization to release court records electronically;
• a process under court rules through which a clerk of court may request and gain approval to electronically release court records;
• categories of court records that may or may not be authorized for electronic release; and
• procedures for ensuring that any electronic access system comply with other applicable laws, court rules and court orders.
2. Study, determine and recommend to the Court appropriate strategies to reduce the amount of personal and sensitive information that may unnecessarily become a part of a court record. In this regard, the Committee should examine existing court rules and practices, including but not limited to rules such as Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.285, that may currently result in the unnecessary inclusion of personal and sensitive information in court records; develop and recommend strategies to educate lawyers, judges, and the public, regarding the privacy implications of inclusion of personal and sensitive information in court records and official records; and develop policies regarding public education on public access to court records.
3. Study and develop recommendations to the Court regarding categories of information that may be routinely included in court records that should be submitted to the Florida Legislature for consideration as possible legal exemptions from the right of access as provided in section 24 of Article I of the Florida Constitution.
Limited Moratorium
In order to address the concerns for some limited moratorium on access while these important issues are being addressed, it is further ordered that, effective immediately and until further order of this Court, no court record as defined by Rule of Judicial Administration 2.051(b)(1)(a) shall be released in any electronic form2/ by any Florida clerk of court except as further provided herein.
The following court records are excepted from this restriction and may be provided in electronic form as provided herein, except as otherwise controlled by express statutory or rule restrictions:
a. a court record which has become an “official record” as defined by Florida law;
b. a court record in a case may be transmitted to a party or an attorney of record in that case;
c. a court record may be transmitted to a governmental agency or agent authorized by law, court rule, or court order to have access to that record;
d. a court record which has been solitarily and individually requested may be provided to the requestor via electronic mail, provided it has been manually inspected by the clerk of court or deputy clerk of court and no information which is confidential or exempt is released;3/
e. a court record in a case which the chief judge of the jurisdiction has designated to be of significant public interest, provided it has been manually inspected by the clerk of court or deputy clerk of court and no information which is confidential or exempt is released;
f. progress dockets limited to:
• case numbers and case type identification;
• party names, addresses and dates of birth;
• names and addresses of counsel;
• lists or indices of any judgments, orders, pleadings, motions, notices or other documents in the court file;
• court events, clerk actions and case dispositions, provided no confidential or exempt information is released;
g. schedules and court calendars;
h. court records regarding traffic cases;
i. appellate court briefs, orders and opinions; and
j. court records which have been inspected by the clerk of court or deputy clerk of court may be viewed via a public view terminal within an office of a clerk of court, provided no confidential or exempt information may be viewed.
Any existing internet or dial-up access systems, including existing subscription access agreements, must be in compliance with the terms of this Administrative Order as soon as practicable, or in any event by March 1, 2004. Nothing in this Administrative Order shall affect statutory restrictions on the placement of certain court records on a publicly available internet website or the status of any information that is otherwise made confidential or exempt from the right of access by a separate provision of Florida law or rule of court.
The following individuals are appointed to serve on the Committee until the work of the Committee is completed and they are discharged by the Court:
Mr. Jon Mills, Chair
Professor of Law and Director, Center for Governmental Responsibility
University of Florida Levin College of Law
Box 117625
Gainesville, Florida 32611
Ms. Kristin Adamson
Novey, Mendelson, and Adamson
851 East Park Avenue
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Mr. Andrew Z. Adkins
Director, Legal Technology Institute
University of Florida Levin College of Law
P.O. Box 117644
Gainesville, Florida 32611-7644
The Honorable Edward H. Fine
Chief Judge, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit
Palm Beach County Courthouse
Room 52500
205 North Dixie Highway
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Mr. A. Michael Froomkin
Professor of Law
University of Miami School of Law
1311 Miller Drive
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
The Honorable Lydia Gardner
Clerk of the Court, Orange County
425 North Orange Avenue
P.O. Box 4994
Orlando, Florida 32801
The Honorable Jacqueline R. Griffin
Judge, Fifth District Court of Appeal
300 South Beach Street
Daytona Beach, Florida 32014
Mr. Thomas D. Hall
Clerk of Court, Florida Supreme Court
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Mr. Jon Kaney, Jr.
Cobb & Cole
150 Magnolia Avenue
Daytona Beach, Florida 32114
The Honorable Judith L. Kreeger
Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit
175 NW 1st Avenue
Miami, Florida 33189
The Honorable Barbara T. Scott
Clerk of the Court, Charlotte County
350 East Marion Avenue
P.O. Box 511687
Punta Gorda, Florida 33951-1687
The Honorable Kim A. Skievaski
Chief Judge, First Judicial Circuit
M.C. Blanchard Building
190 Governmental Center, Fifth Floor
Pensacola, Florida 32501
The Honorable Elijah Smiley
Judge, Bay County
Bay County Courthouse
P.O. Box 2269
Panama City, Florida 32402
Mr. Walt Smith
Court Administrator, Twelfth Judicial Circuit
P.O. Box 48297
Sarasota, Florida 34230
The Honorable Larry Turner
Judge, Eighth Judicial Circuit
Alachua County Courthouse, Room 415
201 East University Avenue
Gainesville, Florida 32601
Justice R. Fred Lewis will serve as the Supreme Court’s liaison to the committee. Staff support will be provided by the Office of the State Courts Administrator.
The work of the Committee should be completed as expeditiously as possible in keeping with the importance of its mission, but in no event shall the report of the Committee be submitted later than July 1, 2005.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on February 12, 2004.
Chief Justice Harry Lee Anstead
Thomas D. Hall, Clerk
1/ Apart from stylistic changes, the most significant areas affected by this amendment concern the effective date for compliance and exception (d) of the limited moratorium.
2/ For purposes of this Administrative Order, “electronic form” is defined by Section 3.40 of the Guidelines for Public Access to Court Records developed by the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators. A document transmitted via traditional fax, received on paper and not captured as a digital file, is not contemplated to be within the meaning of “electronic form.” Section 3.40 provides:
Section 3.40 - Definition Of In Electronic Form.
Information in a court record “in electronic form” includes information that exists as:
(a) electronic representations of text or graphic documents;
(b) an electronic image, including a video image, of a document, exhibit or other thing;
(c) data in the fields or files of an electronic database; or
(d) an audio or video recording, analog or digital, of an event or notes in an electronic file from which a transcript of an event can be prepared.
3/ This provision permits a clerk of court to respond via electronic mail to an individual and specific request for a record and is designed to facilitate access to a document by persons interested in specific litigation. Because this provision requires that each document be manually inspected by a qualified person employed by the clerk of court to assure that no information which is confidential or exempt is released, the use of automated programs in lieu of manual inspection is not permitted. The exception does not permit electronic transmittal of documents requested in large quantity, or permit the requested record to be supplied to anyone other than the requestor.
In accordance with Rule 2.090, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, any court or clerk of the court may accept the electronic transmission of documents for filing after the clerk, together with input from the chief judge of the circuit, has obtained approval from the Supreme Court of the procedures and program for so doing.
In October 1997, the Chief Justice entered an administrative order that sets forth the standards and guidelines that must be followed to establish an acceptable electronic filing system. As referenced in that administrative order, the standards and guidelines were approved with the understanding that they may need to be periodically updated to reflect new developments in automation .
An updated version of the electronic filing standards and guidelines, which were developed and recommended by the Florida Courts Technology Commission’s Electronic Filing Committee, as set forth in the attached appendix, are hereby approved, with Functional Standard 11, entitled Document Access, to be implemented after receipt and consideration of a report and recommendations from the Supreme Court of Florida Committee on Privacy and Court Records. These new standards and guidelines replace the previous version approved in 1997 and shall be used by any party submitting an electronic filing plan for consideration by the Supreme Court.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, this 19th day of May, 2004.
Chief Justice Harry Lee Anstead
Thomas D. Hall, Clerk
Standards and Guidelines for Electronic Filing
April 2004
Technical Standards
A Florida court choosing to accept court documents electronically must comply with the following standards.
Technical Standard 1. Document Format
Any information that will become part of, or is related to, a court case file, and which is being transmitted to the clerk of court electronically, must be described in a format that can be rendered with high fidelity to originals and, when possible, is searchable and tagged.
Specification
Acceptable formats include Portable Document Format (.PDF) and extensible Markup Language (.XML).
Commentary
In an effort to reduce redundant data entry, emphasis is placed on providing the ability to extract text from the electronic submission. For this .PDF or .XML file formats created by text based processors are preferred over facsimile or image based formats such as CCITT Group 4 TIFF (TIFF). See also Technical Guideline 2, Facsimile Images.
.PDF documents require a common reader to view and manipulate complex text and images. However, .XML documents are created using a complex grammar, which may require a mutually accepted format. Acceptable .XML documents are to be structured in compliance with the recommended standards adopted by the Joint Technology Committee of the Consortium for National Case Management Automation Functional Standards Project of the Conference of State Court Administrators and the National Association for Court Management.
Prior to transmission, electronic exhibits and images not available in text form should be embedded within the .PDF or .XML document.
Before electronic transmittal to the court, it is the responsibility of the party or other filing entity to verify the completeness and accuracy of the document after conversion to .PDF or .XML.
Technical Standard 2. Legal (Transmission) Envelope
Any electronic document or information submitted to a court with a filing or subsequent case action must be transmitted using a data structure that provides universal access at any court for electronic filing purposes.
Specification
Acceptable transmissions are to be structured in compliance with the recommended standards as adopted by the Joint Technology Committee of the Consortium for National Case Management Automation Functional Standards Project of the Conference of State Court Administrators and the National Association for Court Management.
Commentary
The Legal (Transmission) Envelope provides the format and content of information that must accompany a document that is being submitted to a court with a filing or subsequent legal action, so that a court can associate the transmission with case information in its case management and document management systems.
The Legal Envelope is limited by specification to multiple filings per envelope transmitted to one court for one case.
A conceptual model is located in the National Center for State Courts Standards for Electronic Filing Processes.
http://www.flcourts.orq/Q5ca/division5/fctc/NCSC E-Filinq Recommended Process standards 02 26 03.PDF
Technical Standard 3. Technical Requirements
All court based electronic filing processes will use Internet based open standards architecture including: Internet browsers, extensible Markup Language (.XML), and Web Services.
Specification
Acceptable software technology is to be based on Internet Request for Comments (RFC) and World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) adopted standards.
Technical Standard 4. Data Accompanying Submitted Documents
Filing entities are required to transmit data identifying a submitted document, the filing party and sufficient other information for entry in the court's docket or register of actions. In the case of a document initiating a new case, sufficient other information must be included to provide data to support the creation of a new case in the court’s case management information system.
Specification
Each appellate or trial court will be responsible for specifying particular data requirements.
Commentary
To provide maximum benefit to the court’s document submission process, electronic submission should carry sufficient structured data to permit the automatic indexing and docketing of the filing.
Technical Standard 5. Court Control of Court Documents
All electronic inquiries for court documents and information must be validated against the current, complete, and accurate court record.
Specification
Electronic documents and related data must reside in the State of Florida on hardware owned or controlled by the court.
Technical Standard 6. Use of Unique Identifier
Each lawyer or other person provided with a unique identifier for purposes of filing documents electronically must use that identifier when submitting any documents. Documents filed with the unique identifier will be presumed to have been filed by that lawyer or other person.
Specification
All electronic filing information systems must support the use of a uniform personal identifier.
Commentary
The Florida Courts Technology Commission and the Office of the State Courts Administrator must establish a uniform personal identifier system for use throughout all of the state courts information systems.
Functional Standards
Electronic filing systems must meet the following requirements to receive approval by the Supreme Court of Florida.
These standards are phrased as functional requirements to which courts choosing to implement electronic filings must adhere, although there may be a variety of technical solutions by which each functional standard is met. These standards focus primarily on ensuring the integrity of the court record.
Functional Standard 1. Document Fidelity
All documents filed electronically must be printable as paper documents without loss of content or appearance.
Commentary
Both the content and appearance of electronically submitted documents must be faithfully preserved and printable as originally formatted. Printed documents will continue to be used regularly in the conduct of court business, so it must be possible to provide an accurate printed reproduction of any electronic document. It may also be necessary to convert electronic documents to paper (or film equivalent) for archiving purposes. Color documents present a challenge due to increased resources needed to support color.
Functional Standard 2. Archiving Electronic Documents
Electronic documents must be stored in, or convertible to a format that maintains content appearance, and can be archived in accordance with specifications established by the Department of State, Division of Library and Information Services.
Commentary
The Division of Library and Information Services currently accepts paper documents, images as microfilm or microfiche, and electronic records in a standard interchange format or in ASCII on any machine readable media form which includes, but is not limited to, magnetic media such as tapes, disks, and optical disks.
Functional Standard 3. Accommodation of Paper Submissions
Electronic documents must be retained in the electronic format in which they are submitted. However, documents submitted to the court in paper form must subsequently be scanned and imaged to facilitate the creation of a single electronic case file.
Commentary
It is important to faithfully preserve and reproduce both the content and appearance of electronically submitted documents. Post-submission conversion of electronic documents to different formats (e.g., from one word processing internal format to another, or to an “interchange format”) should be avoided because it can change the content and appearance of the electronic document. Even changing printers for a word processing document alters the document’s appearance. A proposed document format standard for electronic submissions is the Portable Documents Format (.PDF). See Technical Standard 1. Documents filed in .PDF format will retain their content and appearance without requiring conversion.
While direct submission is the preferred way to capture documents in electronic form, courts will still need to accommodate paper submissions as a component of a comprehensive electronic case file system. To facilitate the creation of a single electronic case file, it will be necessary to convert paper submissions to electronic form. While document imaging is relatively expensive and does not provide the advantage of direct electronic submission (see Guideline 3), limited use of imaging for the storage of documents originally filed as paper may be beneficial when combined with electronic filings to maintain a single electronic case file. Paper documents can be imaged in a way that avoids loss of content or appearance. Conversion of a paper document or image to text such as through optical character recognition (OCR) introduces errors and is acceptable as a means to create searchable text but not for retaining a document in its original form or as an archival record.
Functional Standard 4. Exhibits
Every implementation of electronic filing must accommodate submission of nonelectronic documents or exhibits.
Commentary
Since the application of electronic filing requires the electronic storage of official court records belonging to a case, courts must maintain an organized, searchable, and self-contained inventory of documentary and non-documentary articles and exhibits. Computer systems must collect and record meaningful information of articles and exhibits that cannot be electronically submitted using electronic filing systems.
The electronic filing system must be able to accommodate non-documentary submissions or exhibits and articles that are not paper or in a paper supported format. The system must also support multiple exhibits and must include a descriptive reference to specific items submitted. The description of each reference should be clear and distinct, including the general nature of the filing submission, the type of submission, and a general description. Examples of articles include such documentary evidence as court approved forms, executed wills, and non-documentary items such as cassette, video tapes, weapons, drugs, etc.
Functional Standard 5. Authenticity
A mechanism must be provided to ensure the authenticity of the electronically filed document. This requires the ability to verify the identity of the filing entity and the ability to verify that a document has not been altered since it was transmitted by the filing entity.
Commentary
One of the simplest ways to ensure the identity of the filing entity and document integrity is to use a secure communications channel connected to a restricted-access system and establish a login and password technique to identify the filing entity.
An enhanced and more flexible approach to meeting this standard is to implement an Internet security protocol such as a Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) that will provide data encryption, server authentication, message integrity, and optional client authentication.
An even more comprehensive solution is to use a digital signature technology, which can be used to both authenticate the identity of the filing entity and insure integrity of the document’s content.
Functional Standard 6. Virus Protection
Any computer used to accept electronic filings, particularly from sources external to the court, must be protected from unauthorized network intrusions, viruses, and worms and isolated from other court networks or applications.
Media capable of carrying viruses into court computers (e.g., computer networks and electronic media) must be scanned for computer viruses before processing.
Commentary
Computer systems used for electronic filings must be protected from unauthorized network intrusion including viruses and worms. Use of security products that specialize in network intrusion detection and prevention is recommended.
Functional Standard 7. System Isolation
Any computer used to accept electronic filings, particularly from sources external to the court, must be physically isolated from other court networks or applications.
Commentary
Due to the legally privileged and confidential nature of some filed documents, network security is critical. Although access to all public court records is essential, the public should not have direct access to internal court networks or computers upon which court operations are performed. Common methods used to isolate Internet web sites that support electronic filing include separate networks or “subnets” and/or commercial firewalls. Similar security precautions should be taken for other electronic filing methodologies.
Functional Standard 8. System Availability
Computer systems used for electronic filings must protect electronically filed documents against system and security failures during periods of system availability. Additionally, contingencies for system backup and disaster recovery mechanisms must be established.
Commentary
Several methods are available to protect against loss of electronic filings during periods of availability:
(1) electronic filings can be frequently written to isolated media such as magnetic tape or optical disk;
(2) electronic filings can be copied frequently to another computer system ; or
(3) a continuous register of information can be printed identifying the submission and submitter of each filing.
Note: For courts wishing to maximize the availability of electronic filing services, the period of system availability may be nearly 24 hours per day.
Functional Standard 9. Electronic Notification of Receipt
All electronic document submissions must generate an acknowledgment message that is transmitted to the filing entity to indicate that the clerk received the document.
Commentary
At a minimum the acknowledgment should include the date and time the document was received (which should be a court ’s official date/time stamp ), and a court assigned case number, if available, or document reference number. In addition to providing a document receipt to the filing entity (which merely acknowledges receipt of the submitted document), the court may also wish to provide a document validation (e.g., checksum or some similar validity check) by which the filing entity may be assured that the submitted document was received without change by the court. Provision for document validation is optional, but is recommended if the authentication technique implemented supports a validation feature.
Functional Standard 10. Document Integrity
Electronic filing systems must provide mechanisms for quality assurance and quality control of the submitted documents and case management data by both the court and the filing entity.
Commentary
The court may want to review the submission and validate the accuracy of the case management data before indexing and docketing an electronic filing.
Functional Standard 11. Document Access
Public access to electronically filed documents must be provided in accordance with the judicial branch policy on access to court records.
Commentary
Although most court records are public, some are expressly sealed by the court or otherwise exempt from disclosure pursuant to law or court rule. A statewide judicial branch policy on electronic access to court records is currently under development by the Supreme Court of Florida Committee on Privacy and Court Records. Courts that implement electronic filing processes must provide access to electronic court records in accordance with the policy approved by the Supreme Court. Currently, all court records that are not sealed or exempt from disclosure by law or court rule are available through the office of the clerk of court.
Technical Guidelines
The following technical guidelines, while not currently required, are recommended and may become functional standards in the future. The guidelines focus on promoting electronic filing uniformity throughout the Florida courts system. Additional technical guidelines may be developed as electronic filing processes and procedures mature.
Technical Guideline 1. Embedded Hyperlinks
Hyperlinks embedded within an electronic filing should refer only to information within the same document, or to external documents or information sources that are known to be trustworthy and stable over long periods of time. Hyperlinks should not be used to refer to external documents or information sources that are likely to change.
Commentary
The basic concern is to preserve the integrity of the record. To ensure the integrity of a document, the integrity of any external information source referenced by hyperlinks must also be assured. Information sources external to the filed document may change significantly or even be eliminated between the time the document is created and the time it is reviewed by the court. This could become problematic if the document is archived as a permanent record, then retrieved for historical review in the future. Additionally, embedded hyperlinks to external sources can raise security concerns. External hyperlinks to unreliable sources can contain malicious software that can execute arbitrary system commands or computer programs without knowledge or consent, using various web browsers or .PDF readers.
Fortunately, the information most often referenced in legal documents consists of court opinions and case law that grow by accumulation, but are not replaced. It is thus reasonable to permit citations to such databases to be embedded as hyperlinks within electronic submissions. Use of such citation hyperlinks requires that the court’s electronic case management system include a component that can read and interpret the citation link and initiate the action necessary to retrieve and display the cited material. There are few other external information sources that offer this type of content stability; accordingly, hyperlinks to other external sources other than court opinions and case law should generally be avoided.
Technical Guideline 2. Facsimile Images
The use of facsimile documents as the format for electronic transmission to the court is strongly discouraged. Every effort should be made to obtain original documents in a standard electronic format that retains document content and appearance in a compact, text-searchable form.
Commentary
The standard formats for electronic filings are .PDF and .XML. See Technical Standard 1. Image files typically are twenty times larger, byte wise, than equivalent text document files, which substantially increases transmission time, hardware storage costs, and document database back up and recovery difficulties. Because of the larger file sizes, image access from remote sites over standard telephone lines could be very slow. In addition, transformation of images to text using OCR software can easily introduce errors.
If the court facilitates the creation of a single electronic case file by scanning documents submitted as paper, it is recommended that the scanned documents be captured in a .PDF format and stored in a compressed form supported by the .PDF capture software. A scanning resolution of at least 200 dots per inch (dpi) is recommended.
If for some reason the court must scan and store the document as images, it is recommended that a non-proprietary, industry accepted standard such as .TIFF be the format of choice. .TIFF can also be electronically converted to the .PDF format.
Technical Guideline 3. Digital Signatures
Digital signature standards based on public-private key encryption technology may be used both to authenticate the identity of the filing entity and ensure the integrity of a document’s content.
Commentary
Several competing methods for digital signature are currently being evaluated but as yet there is no universally accepted standard or clear market-leading product or approach. Furthermore, while digital signature technologies offer excellent mechanisms for authenticating the identity of the filing entity and validating document integrity, the use of digital signature technology may make the archiving process significantly more complex. To ensure the long term ability to read and validate a document it is necessary not only to archive the document itself, but also to archive the mechanism for applying and reading the digital signature or otherwise ensure long term availability of the digital signature mechanism. These issues will no doubt be resolved by the marketplace over time, but the answers are not yet evident.
Technical Guideline 4. Interactive Support
Electronic filing systems should support either an interactive filing process or a batch (non interactive) process.
Commentary
It is unreasonable to expect a court to provide multiple electronic filing processes until the demand requires the additional effort.
Technical Guideline 5. Self-Represented Litigants
Pro se litigants should be provided a means to fde documents electronically.
Commentary
To reduce the burden on the court in creating and maintaining a single electronic case file, it may be desirable to provide the means to receive electronic documents from all the participating parties in a case. This may include providing computer support for litigants at the courthouse or remote sites.
Technical Guideline 6. Accessibility
An electronic case file being used in a live courtroom environment should meet or exceed the capabilities and ease of use currently provided by a paper case file.
Commentary
Electronic documents should be available to court officers and personnel in a manner that provides timely and easy access. In addition, the electronic display should present infomiation to the courtroom participants in such an intuitive way that anyone can immediately retrieve docket and case specific information in a manner that is no more difficult than paging through a paper file.
To meet the basic requirements of timeliness in a court environment, access to electronic court records should be almost instantaneous with a retrieval time of one to three seconds for cases on the daily calendar, five to eight seconds for cases that have had activity during the past 60 days, and 30 seconds for closed or inactive cases. The system should provide some method to notify the requesting entity if a longer time delay will occur, such as when a case has been archived.
Simultaneous access for viewing of the same case file and/or document by multiple courtroom participants should be provided.
Large monitors (17-21 inch) with split screen capability should be installed in the courtrooms to improve readability and to enable the display of a complete 8½ by 11 inch page, thereby eliminating the necessity for a reader to scroll through the page. One effective use of split screen capability is to display docketing and indexing information on one side of the screen and a case document on the other.
The methods of selecting specific documents within a case file for viewing could be implemented by treating the docket as a menu and using touch screen technology to select the document to be retrieved, or by setting up hyperlinks between the docket and the documents in an electronic case file and again using touch screen techniques to select the specific document, or by combining some other Graphical User Interface (GUI) and touch screen technique. Regardless of the document retrieval techniques employed, a viewer should have the ability to quickly page through either an electronic document or case file. Forms and documents normally prepared by the judge or other courtroom personnel during a particular proceeding should be electronically prepared, reviewed, signed, printed, and distributed, as another function supported by the automated electronic case file system
Pursuant to this Court’s Administrative Orders dated February 5, 1999, and March 13, 2002, parties in the Florida Supreme Court are required, in addition to the paper copy that is filed, to send an electronic copy of the following to the Court:
• all briefs on the merits
• all briefs on jurisdiction
• all pleadings filed in death warrant cases
• all pleadings filed in Judicial Qualifications Commission cases
• all referee reports in Florida Bar disciplinary cases
• all hearing transcripts in death penalty cases
• all petitions requesting rule amendments (including the proposed rules) - this includes Rules Reg. the Florida Bar, Bar Admission Rules,
• Code of Judicial Conduct, Jury Instructions, and all Rules of Procedure.
• all petitions requesting procedural rule form amendments (including the proposed forms)
• all comments in rules cases
• all petitions and responses thereto in which the Court determines it will hold oral argument, and
• any other pleadings which the Court may designate. Any case may be so designated because there is significant media or public interest in obtaining briefs, pleadings, petitions, or other documents generated by the case, and parties and counsel in the case shall be notified of this by letter from the Clerk.
Currently the electronic copy is provided by sending the Court a diskette which contains the electronic version of the document. The Court has determined it would be more efficient for the Court and the public to require the electronic version of these pleadings be sent to the Court via e-mail.
Effective October 1, 2004, in addition to filing paper copies, all briefs on the merits, all briefs on jurisdiction, all pleadings filed in Judicial Qualifications Commission cases, all referee reports in Florida Bar disciplinary cases, all transcripts in death penalty cases, all petitions requesting rule amendments (including the proposed rules), all petitions requesting procedural rule form amendments (including the proposed forms), all comments in rules cases, all petitions and responses thereto in which the Court determines it will hold oral argument, and any other pleadings which the Court may designate, shall be submitted electronically either via e-mail, as explained below, or by diskette but not both. If by diskette, it must be in accordance with
In Re: Mandatory Submission of Electronic Copies of Documents on Computer Diskette dated November 13, 2002.
Effective April 1, 2005, all submissions must be via e-mail. Diskettes will no longer be accepted after April 1, 2005 .
Electronic submissions via e-mail shall be attached to an e-mail sent to the following e-mail address:
e-file@flcourts.org. This e-mail address is for this purpose only. The Clerk's Office will
not respond to e-mails sent to this address. Pleadings sent to this address will not be considered a filing. The subject line of the e-mail shall contain the Supreme Court case number, if one has been assigned, or the style of the case, if a case number has not been assigned, in substantially the following format: “Filing in SC00-0” or “Filing in Doe v. Roe.” The document must be e-mailed the same day the original paper copy of the document is filed or served.
Effective October 1, 2004, electronic submissions may be submitted in either Microsoft Word format or WordPerfect. Effective January 1, 2005, all electronic submissions in rules cases must be in Microsoft Word. For all other cases, effective April 1, 2005, submissions must be in Microsoft Word. Litigants and counsel should be aware that electronic versions submitted in WordPerfect will be converted by the Court to Microsoft Word and there is no guarantee that the document will be converted without error.
All electronic submissions in death warrant cases shall be sent to a separate e-mail address which will be provided to counsel by the Clerk's office when a death warrant is signed.
The official recorded filing date for these pleadings shall remain the date the paper copies are received by the Clerk's Office.
Any documents required by the order to be submitted in electronic form may be rejected for filing by the Clerk of Court if the electronic version does not conform to the requirements of this order, the rules of court or match the paper copy version.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to send copies of this order to The Florida Bar News for publication in at least two issues of The Florida Bar News.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on September 13, 2004.
Chief Justice Barbara J. Pariente
This administrative order is issued to partially implement the Report and Recommendations of the Committee on Privacy and Court Records (the report, or the report and recommendations).1 As explained more fully below, providing electronic access to non-confidential court records when appropriate conditions are met is a goal of the judicial branch. These conditions must not be so onerous that our approval of electronic access exists only in theory, but unfettered electronic access to all court records without policies in place to protect privacy interests and guard against unintended consequences detrimental to the judicial process cannot be allowed. Therefore, a modified limited moratorium on the electronic release of court records, to be further reviewed by July 1, 2007, must continue until permanent procedures are approved. However, in furtherance of the goal of access, the concept of a pilot program, such as that proposed by The Honorable R. B. “Chips” Shore, Clerk of Court of Manatee County, is approved, and will be reviewed by the Court as a potential model for statewide electronic access to court records.
The Committee on Privacy and Court Records (the Committee) was established2 pursuant to recommendations of the Judicial Management Council3 and the legislatively-created Study Committee on Public Records,4 both of which recommended that the Supreme Court initiate a policy development process to guide the judicial branch in protecting privacy while providing electronic access to court records. After eighteen months of diligent work, the Committee submitted its comprehensive report and recommendations in August 2005, with twenty-four recommendations divided into three separate groups. On behalf of the Supreme Court and the people of this State, we offer our deepest gratitude to the Committee and to its chair, Professor Jon Mills, for their dedication, time and commitment.5
From January through June 2006, the Court accepted public comment concerning the report and recommendations in three stages. The Court held three public meetings, on March 1, April 19, and June 14, 2006, to receive public comment. The Court appreciates the participation of those who provided comments and attended the public meetings.6 The Committee had the difficult task of recommending comprehensive policies to the Supreme Court to regulate the electronic release of records. Two competing yet important values must be balanced in any responsible set of policies: openness and transparency in court records, on the one hand, and individual privacy, on the other hand. Any viable policy must balance these two vital principles.
The Florida court system has consistently been willing to consider and incorporate innovative techniques and new technologies into court processes. The strategic plan of the judicial branch expressly recognizes the value of information technology to improve court access and operations,7 and the current two-year operational plan for the branch includes specific objectives related to electronic filing, integrated information systems, automated forms and increased reliance on web-based information communication.8
The same technology that offers substantial benefit can bring significant risk. The instantaneous and inexpensive dissemination of information contained in court records enhances accountability and supports efficiency but also poses a potential threat to the privacy interests of individuals and corporations. The potential of access to all court records electronically raises the specter of increased opportunity for identity theft and misuse of personal information.
As the Committee observed in connection with Recommendation Eight, “a court file is primarily a conduit and repository of information exchanged among parties and the court. As such, the court file is not an open forum available for the gratuitous publication of extraneous and potentially damaging personal information.”9 When extraneous and potentially damaging personal information is available not just in paper form at the courthouse but also in electronic form, the potential for harm increases significantly.
The challenge for the judicial branch, as noted by the Committee, is “not merely to create an electronic access policy as a companion to an ‘over the counter’ records policy, but to create a blueprint for a comprehensive policy on court records that will serve the public and the courts as they move through the transition from a system of primarily paper records to one of primarily digital records.”10
Policies regarding privacy and access to records must be consistent with the fundamental vision and mission of the judicial branch and ongoing efforts to achieve that vision and mission.11 The bundle of issues regarding privacy, confidentiality and access to court records is connected inextricably within the larger context of the integration of emerging technologies into modern society, and these issues are not merely technical but are central to the future functioning of the courts and to relations between citizens and their government.
The efficiency of digital information management will over time compel migration from paper-based systems to electronic systems. Many clerks of court in Florida, including the Clerk of this Court, already employ scanning systems to convert paper documents into digital form for purposes of records storage and management. Additionally, several clerks of court have been authorized by this Court to accept some filings in electronic form, so that the record exists in electronic form from the beginning. Large volume institutional users of the courts, such as law enforcement agencies, state attorneys, public defenders and law firms, increasingly prefer electronic exchange of information with the courts. The issue is not whether the courts will make records available electronically, but rather when and under what conditions they will do so.
Several themes emerged from public comment and input, especially as a result of comments received from various representatives of the clerks of court. First, the clerks, as ministerial officers charged with maintaining custody of court records, cannot and should not be responsible for making substantive decisions regarding whether documents accepted for filing are confidential under current Rule of Judicial Administration 2.051(c)(8). Therefore, of critical importance is Recommendation Two of the report, which requires that rule 2.051 (c)(8) be amended to narrow “its application to a finite set of exemptions that are appropriate in the court context and readily identifiable. ” In directing that the rule be amended, the present administrative order specifically does not address the applicability of the absorption doctrine.12 Thus, as part and parcel of the specification of exemptions through an amendment to rule 2.051(c)(8), the substance of Recommendation Seventeen is approved: the filer bears responsibility for asserting and establishing the confidentiality of documents beyond the categories listed in rule 2.051(c)(8).
In the same vein, the concerns of certain clerks of court and the Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers are acknowledged; the responsibility for identifying unauthorized filings cannot be placed on the clerks of court. Thus, in directing that Recommendation Eight be studied, it is understood that the current rules already provide for sanctions against those who are responsible for unauthorized filings and that the rules should be studied to determine whether any sanctions need to be strengthened to further the goal of preventing gratuitous publication of extraneous and potentially damaging information.
Second, it will be extremely difficult and unnecessarily complicated to develop a responsible system of public access to court records if each clerk of court proposes, and the Court attempts to consider, different systems of electronic access. Therefore, before public access to electronic documents systems will be allowed, the clerks of court must be prepared to comply with technical and substantive standards adopted by the Court. These standards will address policies such as user interface and identification, access fees, sealing of court documents and the redaction of confidential information. In addition, the offer of The Honorable R. B. “Chips” Shore, Clerk of Court of Manatee County, to conduct a pilot program is accepted so that the Court can examine first-hand a proposed model for public access. On behalf of the Court, we express our appreciation to Mr. Shore, who has offered thoughtful and responsible suggestions for dealing with these issues.
Third, there is a crucial distinction between maintenance of court records in electronic form, whether they are electronically filed or scanned, and public dissemination of those records through electronic means. Unfettered electronic access to all court records cannot be allowed without polices in place that protect privacy interests and guard against unintended consequences detrimental to the judicial process.
With these caveats and observations in mind, the action taken on the twenty-four recommendations contained in the Committee’s report is outlined in the attached action chart. Recommendations specifically referred to various committees and other entities for implementation or for further study are addressed with more elaboration below.
1. The substance of Recommendation Eleven, General Policy On Electronic Access To Court Records, is approved. The goal of providing electronic access to non-confidential court records when appropriate precautions and conditions are met is fully supported. These precautions and conditions must not be so onerous that approval of electronic access exists in theory but not in practice. These precautions and conditions may be summarized as:
(a) revision of Rule of Judicial Administration 2.051 to set forth a “finite set of exemptions that are readily identifiable,” pursuant to Recommendation Two, but with the clarification that the Court has not made a decision as to whether the absorption doctrine applies;
(b) provision of adequate public notice, prominently posted in clerks’ offices and on websites, stating that inclusion of personal information in court records may make that information public; this includes notice to unrepresented litigants, as set forth in Recommendation Three;
(c) ongoing and cooperative education of attorneys, judges, court staff and clerks of court concerning the privacy implications of the inclusion of personal information in court records and the scope of confidential information under Florida and federal law, as set forth in Recommendation Three;
(d) development by the Florida Courts Technology Commission, in cooperation with the clerks of court, of uniform technical and substantive standards governing the electronic release of court records to be adopted by the Court; these standards should be submitted to the Chief Justice by November 1, 2006, and should address user identification and access fee issues, as well as the screening, redacting, striking and sealing of court records to ensure that confidential information is not improperly released;
(e) public inspection of court records must remain available at no cost at the courthouse, other than those costs authorized by statute, as set forth in Recommendation Twelve(c);
(f) court records must remain fully accessible to judges and court personnel for judicial purposes, as set forth in Recommendation Twelve(d); and
(g) records in juvenile, probate and family cases, pursuant to general law, are not to be made available to the general public via a website until further study is made.
2. To implement or further study a number of the Committee’s recommendations, the Committee on Access to Court Records will be established by separate administrative order. The Committee’s charge, which will be fully set out in the administrative order, is to develop proposed revisions to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.051 regarding confidentiality and access to records in response to Recommendations Two (Scope Of Confidentiality), as modified herein; Twelve (Conditions for Electronic Access), as modified herein; Thirteen (Confidential Information);13 Sixteen (Unsealing Of Records); and Seventeen (Responsibility Of Filer), as modified herein. The Committee also will consider Recommendation Eight (Unauthorized Filings), as modified herein.
3. The concept of a pilot program, such as that proposed by The Honorable R. B. “Chips” Shore, Clerk of Court of Manatee County, is approved. The Florida Courts Technology Commission, with the assistance of the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA), shall develop an implementation strategy for a one-year pilot project to be conducted by the Clerk of Court of Manatee County. The Florida Courts Technology Commission, with the assistance of the OSCA, shall specify terms and conditions of the pilot project, including project goals, criteria for evaluation, reporting requirements, and a timeframe for conclusion and reporting of the results of the project. At the conclusion of the pilot period, the Florida Courts Technology Commission, with the assistance of the OSCA, shall submit a report to the Court documenting the results of the project and identifying recommendations regarding electronic access policies.
4. Until the pilot program is studied and uniform technical and substantive standards governing clerk of court websites offering electronic access to court records are adopted by the Court, in cooperation with the clerks of court, it is necessary to continue a modified moratorium. The moratorium is not intended to be a de facto prohibition against release of information by electronic means to the public. By separate Administrative Order AOSC 06-21,14 consistent with Recommendation Five, an interim policy on the electronic release of court records is adopted. The interim policy supersedes the limited moratorium contained in In re: Committee on Privacy and Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC04-4 (Feb. 12, 2004) (on file with Clerk, Fla. Sup. Ct.), and shall remain in effect until further order. However, the Chief Justice will review the policy by July 1, 2007, to determine whether it should be further modified.
5. The Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers is requested to advise the Chief Justice by November 1, 2006, as to the form and placement of public notice regarding the loss of privacy and the consequences that can occur due to the unnecessary filing of personal information in court records, including notice to unrepresented litigants as set forth in Recommendation Three (Notice Regarding Personal Information).
6. The Florida Bar, the Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers, the Florida Court Education Council, and the Education Sections of the Florida Conference of District Court of Appeal Judges, the Florida Conference of Circuit Judges, and the Florida Conference of County Court Judges are requested to advise the Chief Justice by November 1, 2006, as to how each entity envisions responding to the relevant educational components of Recommendation Three (Education Regarding Personal Information).
7. Consistent with Recommendation Six (Materials Recommended for Protection - Confidentiality of Certain Drug Court Information), the Task Force on Treatment-Based Drug Court is requested to review applicable Florida statutes, federal law, court rules, and local drug court policies regarding protection of confidential information in drug court cases, and to advise the Chief Justice as to the appropriate scope of confidentiality regarding medical, mental heath, and drug treatment information in drug court cases and to propose any recommended revisions to court rules, Florida statutes, or drug court policies necessary to protect confidential information in these cases.
8. Also in response to Recommendation Six (Materials Recommended for Protection), the Steering Committee on Families and Children in the Court is requested to develop proposed rules of court or statutory amendments, as appropriate, to require that psycho-social evaluations, psychological evaluations, and guardian ad litem reports be placed under seal.
9. To implement Recommendation Seven (Revision to Rules and Forms Leading to Extraneous Personal Information), the Steering Committee on Families and Children in the Court is requested to review the Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms and to propose revisions to those forms to remove any requirements for personal information that is not necessary for purposes of adjudication or case management. The various Florida Bar rules committees are also requested to review their respective bodies of rules and forms and to propose amendments to those rules and forms consistent with this recommendation. These committees should keep the Committee on Access to Court Records apprised of their work.
10. Related to Recommendation Seven, the Family Law Rules Committee is requested to propose amendments to Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.285, Mandatory Disclosure, designed to reduce the unnecessary filing of financial information in family law cases, consistent with Recommendation Nine.
11. Consistent with Recommendation Ten (Duty to Protect Discovery Information), the various Florida Bar rules committees are requested to study whether rules exist or rules should be adopted that would require attorneys and litigants to refrain from filing discovery information with the court until such time as it is filed for good cause.
12. The Florida Courts Technology Commission is requested, with the assistance of the Office of the State Courts Administrator, to review Recommendations Twenty (Automated Search Technology), Twenty-One (Replacement of Commercial Court Records Databases) and Twenty-Three (User Identification) and to advise the Chief Justice on the implications and advisability of available policy options. In doing so, the Commission should be mindful that any access systems in Florida should be designed to minimize irresponsible use of court records. The Commission is requested to study other access systems, including the PACER system used in federal courts.
13. The Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers and the Florida Courts Technology Commission are requested to consider Recommendation Twenty-Two (Users Access Fees) and to advise the Chief Justice on the implications and advisability of system funding models that are uniform statewide and do not impose costs beyond those necessary to support the system.
As reflected in the attached action chart, a number of the recommendations are deferred pending responses to these referrals and will be addressed after consideration of those responses.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on June 30, 2006.
Chief Justice Barbara J. Pariente
Chief Justice-Elect R. Fred Lewis
Thomas D. Hall, Clerk of Court
1/ See Committee on Privacy and Court Records, Privacy, Access and Court Records: Report and Recommendations of the Committee on Privacy and Court Records (2005) (hereinafter Report).
2/ See In re: Comm, on Privacy and Court Records. Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC04-4 (Feb. 12, 2004) (on file with Clerk, Fla. Sup. Ct.); In re: Comm, on Privacy and Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC 03-49 (Nov. 25, 2003) (on file with Clerk, Fla. Sup. Ct.).
3/ See Judicial Management Council, Report and Recommendations of the Judicial Management Council of Florida on Privacy and Access to Court Records (2001).
4/ See Study Committee on Public Records, Report of the Study Committee on Public Records (2002).
5/ The Committee was composed of: Ms. Kristin Adamson, Tallahassee; Mr. Andrew Z. Adkins, Gainesville; The Honorable Edward H. Fine, West Palm Beach; Professor A. Michael Froomkin, Coral Gables; The Honorable Lydia Gardner, Orlando; The Honorable Jacqueline R. Griffin, Orlando; Mr. Thomas D. Hall, Tallahassee; Mr. Henry PI. Hamage, Miami; Mr. Jon Kaney, Jr., Ormond Beach; The Honorable Judith L. Kreeger, Miami; Professor Jon Mills, Gainesville; The Honorable Barbara T. Scott, Punta Gorda; The Honorable Kim A. Skievaski, Pensacola; The Honorable Elijah Smiley, Panama City; Mr. Walt Smith, Sarasota; The Honorable Larry Turner, Gainesville.
6/ Public comments currently are available on the Florida Supreme Court website: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub info/index.shtml.
7/ See Judicial Management Council, Taking Bearings, Setting Course; The Long-Range Strategic Plan for the Florida Judicial Branch (1998) (hereinafter Taking Bearings).
8/ See The Florida Supreme Court, Horizon 2006; The 2004-2006 Operational Plan for the Florida Judicial Branch (2005).
9/ Report, supra note 1, at 54.
10/ Id. at 7.
11/ See Taking Bearings, supra note 7.
12/ See Report, supra note 1, at 29 (“The question is whether the rule incorporates, or absorbs, state exemptions and federal confidentialities, thus making them confidentialities under court rule.”).
13/ Recommendation Thirteen, which urges revision of rule 2.051 to clarify that those records defined in the rule are confidential and may not be released except as provided, is approved as being consistent with existing law. This recommendation is referred to the new committee for a proposed rule amendment or committee note consistent with this recognition.
14/ See In re: Interim Policy on Electronic Release of Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC06-21 (June 30, 2006) (on file with Clerk, Fla. Sup. Ct.).
ACTION ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND COURT RECORDS
RECOMMENDATION | ACTION |
---|---|
GROUP ONE | |
RECOMMENDATION ONE: PRIVACY PROTECTION REFORM Recommends Florida Legislature enact effective privacy protection laws, consider resolution to Congress. | Letter to Legislature advising of recommendation. |
RECOMMENDATION TWO: SCOPE OF CONFIDENTIALITY Review and explore revision of the rule 2.051 to narrow its application to a finite set of exemptions that are appropriate in the court context and are readily identifiable. | Refers notice component to the Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers to advise Court as to form and placement of notice. |
RECOMMENDATION THREE: NOTICE AND EDUCATION REGARDING PERSONAL INFORMATION Public notice and education of clerks, attorneys, judges, and court staff regarding loss of privacy due to unnecessary filing of personal information in court records. | Refers education component to the Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers, The Florida Bar, Florida Court Education Council, and the Education Sections of the Florida Conference of District Court of Appeal Judges, the Florida Conference of Circuit Judges, and the Florida Conference of County Court Judges for input to Chief Justice on how each will implement this recommendation. |
RECOMMENDATION FOUR: COORDINATION AND OVERSIGHT OF RECORDS POLICIES. Create governance structure to oversee polices regarding all aspects of court records. | Defers pending completion of work of the Committee on Access to Court Records. |
RECOMMENDATION FIVE: INTERIM POLICY Provide interim policy on allowable electronic access until permanent rules adopted. | Approves interim policy, with modifications, in separate administrative order. |
RECOMMENDATION SIX: MATERIALS RECOMMENDED FOR PROTECTION (A) Rule revision to place psycho-social evaluations, psychological evaluations, and guardian ad litem reports under seal; (B) Treatment-Based Drug Court Steering Committee to make recommendations regarding the appropriate scope of confidentiality regarding medical, mental health and drug treatment information in drug court cases. | Refers to Steering Committee on Families and Children in the Court to propose rule revisions and statutory amendments, as appropriate. Refers to Treatment-Based Drug Court Steering Committee for recommendations and to propose necessary revisions to rules, statutes, or drug court polices. |
GROUP TWO - MINIMIZATION | |
RECOMMENDATION SEVEN: REVISION OF RULES AND FORMS LEADING TO EXTRANEOUS PERSONAL INFORMATION Review and revise rules of court and forms across all case types to avoid the filing of personal information not necessary for adjudication or case management. | Refers to Steering Committee on Families and Children in the Court to review the Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms and propose amendments consistent with recommendation. Refers to Florida Bar rules committees to review respective bodies of rules and forms and to propose amendments consistent with recommendation. |
RECOMMENDATION EIGHT: UNAUTHORIZED FILINGS Study court rule to prohibit the filing of documents that are not authorized by court rule or statute, or seeking relief by the court. | Refers to Committee on Access to Court Records to study and make recommendations consistent with administrative order. |
RECOMMENDATION NINE: RULE OF FAMILY LAW PROCEDURE 12.285 Revise rule 12.285 to reduce the unnecessary filing of financial information in family law cases. | Refers to Family Law Rules Committee to implement. |
RECOMMENDATIONS TEN: DUTY TO PROTECT DISCOVERY INFORMATION Create rule of procedure to require attorneys and litigants refrain from filing discovery information until such time as it is filed for good cause. | Refers to Florida Bar rules committees to determine if existing rules address or can be amended to address this concern. |
GROUP THREE | |
RECOMMENDATION ELEVEN: GENERAL POLICY ON ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO COURT RECORDS Judicial branch of Florida should adopt as a goal the provision of general public electronic access to court records through remote means in jurisdictions where conditions in Recommendation Twelve are met. | Approves substance of recommendation, with modification to conditions to ensure that they are not so onerous that electronic access is approved only in theory. |
The Committee on Privacy and Court Records (the Committee) submitted a report in August 2005, making twenty-four recommendations regarding electronic access to court records in Florida.1/ In response to this report, Administrative Order AOSC06-20 has been issued directing certain action concerning most of the Committee’s recommendations.2/
In Recommendation Five of its report, the Committee recommended that an interim policy be established controlling the electronic release of court records until such time as a permanent policy is announced and implemented. After consultation with the Court, the interim policy recommended by the Committee is approved with modification.
This interim policy allows extensive docket information, as well as all final orders and judgments of the courts, to be made available electronically, such as on a website, as long as no confidential information is released. In addition, a chief judge of a jurisdiction can direct that all records in a case of significant public interest may be made available electronically. To facilitate orderly access to records affecting real property, the interim policy allows certain records affecting real property to be released. Finally, under this policy, any non-confidential Florida court record can be provided electronically in response to a request, provided the record has been manually inspected by the clerk of the court in order to ensure that no confidential information is released.
Therefore, it is ordered that effective July 1, 2006, no court record, as defined by Rule of Judicial Administration 2.051(b)(1)(a), shall be released in any electronic form3/ by any Florida clerk of court except as provided herein below:4/
1. The following court records may be made available electronically by a Florida clerk of court provided that no information is released that is confidential pursuant to federal or state law, court rule, or court order:
a. progress dockets, limited to case numbers and case type; party name, race, gender and year of birth; names and addresses of counsel; lists or indices of any judgments, orders, pleadings, motions, notices or other documents in the court file; notations of court events, clerk actions and case dispositions; name and date of birth and death of deceased in probate cases, address of attorney of record or selfrepresented party in probate case;
b. court records that are Official Records as defined by section 28.001, Florida Statutes (2005);5/
c. court schedules and calendars;
d. traffic court records; and
e. all appellate court filings, including motions, briefs, petitions, orders and opinions.
2. The following records may be made available electronically provided the clerk of court ensures that the described records are manually inspected and no confidential information is released:
a. the chief judge of a jurisdiction may, sua sponte, direct the electronic release of a record or records in a case of significant public interest;
b. records may be transmitted to a party, an attorney of record in a case or an attorney expressly authorized by a party in a case to receive the record;
c. a record that has been individually and specifically requested;
d. records may be transmitted to a governmental agency or agent;
e. civil cases in which a state agency, as defined by section 119.011(2), Florida Statutes (2005), is a party, with the exception that court files that are sealed pursuant to statute, court rule or court order shall not be available absent a specific order from the court unsealing the file;
f. pleadings, proof of service, motions and orders in actions affecting title to real property or tenancies to real property, including foreclosure of mortgages, ejectments, actions to clear title, specific performance, residential and nonresidential evictions, forcible entry and detainers, lien contest actions, partition actions and actions in which a lis pendens has been filed;
g. pleadings, proof of service, motions and orders in actions for declaratory judgments to establish foreign decrees as Florida judgments; and
h. injunctions affecting real property, excluding domestic violence injunctions, and orders denying or dismissing an injunction affecting real property.
While the records identified above may be made available electronically, this administrative order does not require that they must be nor does this administrative order create an obligation on any clerk of court to provide remote electronic access to court records. Article V of the Constitution of the State of Florida charges the chief judges of the district and circuit courts with the administrative supervision of the courts within their jurisdiction. Therefore, any questions that may arise regarding implementation of this interim policy should be addressed to the chief judge of the jurisdiction.
This order supersedes the limited moratorium contained in In re: Committee on Privacy and Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC04-4 (Feb. 12, 2004) (on file with Clerk, Fla. Sup. Ct.), and shall remain in effect until further order.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on June 30, 2006.
Chief Justice Barbara J. Pariente
Thomas D. Hall, Clerk
1/ See Committee on Privacy and Court Records, Privacy, Access and Court Records: Report and Recommendations of the Committee on Privacy and Court Records ( 2005 ).
2/ See In re: Implementation of Report and Recommendations of Comm, on Privacy and Court Records, Fla . Admin . Order No. AOSC06-20 (June 30, 2006 ) (on file with Clerk, Fla. Sup. Ct .).
3/
For purposes of this Administrative Order, “electronic form” is defined by Section 3.40 of the Guidelines for Public Access to Court Records developed by the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Courts Administrators:
Section 3.40 - Definition Of In Electronic Form. Information in a court record ‘in electronic form’ includes information that exists as:
(a) electronic representations of text or graphic documents;
(b) an electronic image, including a video image, of a document, exhibit or other thing;
(c) data in the fields or files of an electronic database; or
(d) an audio or video recording, analog or digital, of an event or notes in an electronic file from which a transcript of an event can be prepared.
A document transmitted via a facsimile machine and not captured as a digital file is not contemplated to be within the meaning of “electronic form.”
4/ The confidentiality requirements of the interim policy stated in this administrative order govern any electronic release of court records, notwithstanding chapter 2006-285, Laws of Florida, amending section 119.071(7)(d), Florida Statutes (2005).
5/ Certain official records are confidential by statute. Further, section 28.2221, Florida Statutes (2005), prohibits a clerk of court from publishing on an Internet website records in cases governed by the Florida Rules of Family Law, the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, or the Florida Probate Rules. Nothing in this order should be construed to negate these or any other statutory or rule restrictions.
The Committee on Privacy and Court Records was established in November of 2003 and charged with providing recommendations regarding the electronic release of court records in Florida.1/ In August 2005 the committee submitted its report.2/ The committee’s overall conclusion was that while remote electronic access to court records should be a goal of the Florida judicial branch, numerous obstacles exist that do not allow for responsible provision of such access at this time. The committee therefore made a number of recommendations directed to addressing those obstacles and developing the necessary conditions for responsible electronic access to court records.
The Court supports the goal of remote electronic access to court records and agrees with the Committee on Privacy and Court Records that at present the necessary conditions do not exist to permit a general, unrestricted distribution of court records. To assist in developing the necessary policies for electronic access, the Committee on Access to Court Records (hereinafter the Committee) is hereby established for a term to expire on July 1, 2008.
The primary purpose of the Committee is to review Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.051 and develop proposed revisions to the rule with regard to the following matters:3/
1. Recommendation Two: Scope of Confidentiality. Review and explore revisions of rule 2.051 to narrow its application to a finite set of exemptions that are appropriate in the court context and are identifiable. The Committee should note that the Supreme Court has not made a decision as to whether the absorption doctrine4 applies.
2. Recommendation Eight: Unauthorized Filings. Study court rules to prohibit the filing of documents that are not authorized by court rule or statute, or seeking relief by the court. The responsibility for identifying unauthorized filings cannot be placed on the clerks of court. It is understood that the current rules already provide for sanctions against those who are responsible for unauthorized filings; accordingly, the rules should be studied to determine whether any sanctions need to be strengthened to further the goal of preventing gratuitous publication of extraneous and potentially damaging information.
3. Recommendation Twelve: Conditions for Electronic Access. Propose amendments to rule 2.051 to allow remote access to court records in electronic form to the general public in jurisdictions where conditions are met.
4. Recommendation Thirteen: Confidential Information. Propose revisions to rule 2.051 to clarify that those records defined in the rule are confidential and may not be released except as provided. Because this requirement is already established in existing law, the Committee is directed to propose a rule amendment or committee note that is consistent with the recognition of the current legal requirements.
5. Recommendation Sixteen: Unsealing of Records. Propose revisions to rule 2.051 to provide a clear and effective mechanism through which a preliminary determination that a record is exempt or confidential can be challenged and reviewed.
6. Recommendation Seventeen: Responsibility of Filer. Propose revisions to rule 2.051 to provide for certain responsibilities of the filer of court documents regarding confidential information.
In addition, the Committee is directed to advise the Florida Courts Technology Commission and the Office of the State Courts Administrator regarding the terms and conditions the Committee finds advisable in the implementation of the pilot program authorized in Administrative Order AOSC06-20. The Committee is also directed to advise the Chief Justice, by June 1, 2007, of the advisability of alteration to the interim policy on electronic release of court records set out in Administrative Order AOSC06-21. The Committee may make other recommendations it deems appropriate.
The following persons are hereby appointed to serve on the Committee for a term that expires on July 1, 2008:
The Honorable Judith L. Kreeger, Chair
Circuit Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit
Ms. Sharon Abrams
Court Technology Officer, Eleventh Judicial Circuit
Ms. Kristin Adamson
Attorney, Tallahassee
Ms. Robin Berghorn
General Counsel, Ninth Judicial Circuit
The Honorable David Ellsperman
Clerk of Court, Marion County
The Honorable Mel Grossman
Circuit Court Judge, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit
Mr. Jonathan Kaney, Jr.
Attorney, Ormond Beach
The Honorable Melanie May
Appellate Court Judge, Fourth District Court of Appeal
Mr. Timothy McLendon
Attorney, Gainesville
Mr. Paul Regensdorf
Attorney, Ft. Lauderdale
Mr. Murray B. Silverstein
Attorney, St. Petersburg
The Honorable Kim A. Skievaski
Chief Judge, First Judicial Circuit
The Honorable Elijah Smiley
County Judge, Bay County
Mr. Walt Smith
Court Administrator, Twelfth Judicial Circuit
The Honorable Charles Williams
Circuit Judge, Twelfth Judicial Circuit
Judge Judith Kreeger shall serve as Chair and Justice Barbara J. Pariente shall serve as Supreme Court liaison to the Committee. Staff support for the Steering Committee shall be provided by the Office of the State Courts Administrator.
The Committee is directed to submit a progress report by June 1, 2007, and a final report by June 1, 2008. The Committee is authorized to propose amendments to rules of court procedure on issues addressed in this administrative order, for consideration by the Court. Recommended amendments to the rules of court procedure or forms shall be filed in petition form with the Clerk of the Florida Supreme Court. Mr. Paul Regensdorf shall serve as the liaison between the Committee and The Florida Bar Rules of Judicial Administration Committee.
Should the Committee make recommendations that require additional funding or resources to implement, the Committee is directed to establish the necessary liaison relationship with the District Court of Appeal Budget Commission or the Trial Court Budget Commission, as appropriate. At a minimum, the Committee shall provide the chair of the respective budget commission with copies of Committee reports and recommendations that reference the need for additional court funding or resources.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on August 21, 2006.
Chief Justice R. Fred Lewis
Thomas D. Hall, Clerk of Court
1/ See In re: Comm, on Privacy and Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC03-49 (Nov. 25, 2003) and In re: Comm, on Privacy and Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC04-4 (Feb. 12, 2004).
2/ See Committee on Privacy and Court Records, Privacy, Access and Court Records: the Report and Recommendations of the Committee on Privacy and Court Records (2005) (hereinafter Report).
3/ These tasks refer to recommendations by the Committee on Privacy and Court Records as set forth in the Report and as modified in Implementation of Report and Recommendations of the Committee on Privacy and Court Records, Fla. Admin Order No. AOSC06-20 (June 30, 2006) (hereinafter AOSC06-20).
4/ See Report, supra note 1, at 29 (“The question is whether the rule incorporates, or absorbs, state exemptions and federal confidentialities, thus making them confidentialities under court rule.”).
In June 2006, the interim policy on the electronic release of court records recommended by the Committee on Privacy and Court Records1/ was approved with modifications in In re: Interim Policy on Electronic Release of Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC06-21 (June 30, 2006) (on file with Clerk, Fla. Sup. Ct.). In August 2006, the Committee on Access to Court Records (Access Committee) was established and charged with, among other things, advising the Chief Justice “of the advisability of alterations to the interim policy.”2/ The Access Committee submitted its recommended changes to the interim policy in June 2007.3/
This administrative order revises and supersedes the interim policy contained in Administrative Order AOSC06-21. After consultation with the Court, the revisions to the interim policy recommended by the Access Committee are approved. The revised interim policy continues to allow extensive docket information, as well as all final orders and judgments of the courts, to be made available electronically, such as on a publicly accessible internet website, as long as no confidential information is released. In addition, as originally provided, a chief judge of a jurisdiction can direct that all non-confidential records in a case of significant public interest may be made available electronically. To facilitate orderly access to records affecting real property, the revised interim policy continues to allow certain records affecting real property to be released. Further, any non-confidential Florida court record can be provided electronically in response to a request, provided the record has been manually inspected by the clerk of the court in order to ensure that no confidential information is released.
The revised policy clarifies that it does not apply to records under the control of court administration. It also limits the application of the provision that addressed “traffic court records” to civil traffic infraction case records and disallows the electronic release of images of traffic citations, which can contain personal identifying information. The revised interim policy allows for the electronic release of the full date of birth of defendants in criminal cases. It permits clerks of court to provide attorneys remote electronic access to records in cases in which the entire court file is not confidential.
Therefore, it is ordered that no court record, as defined by Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(b)(1)(a), shall be released in any electronic form4/ by any Florida clerk of court except as provided herein below:5
1. This policy does not apply to digital recordings of judicial proceedings or other records in the custody or control of court administrators.
2. The following court records may be made available electronically by a Florida clerk of court provided that no information is released that is confidential pursuant to federal or state law, court rule, or court order:
a. progress dockets, limited to case numbers and case type; party name, race, gender and year of birth; names and addresses of counsel; lists or indices of any judgments, orders, pleadings, motions, notices or other documents in the court file; notations of court events, clerk actions and case dispositions; full date of birth of defendant in criminal cases; name and date of birth and death of deceased in probate cases, addresses of attorney of record or self-represented parties in probate cases;
b. court records that are Official Records as defined by section 28.001, Florida Statutes (2006);6
c. court schedules and calendars;
d. civil traffic infraction case records, but not images of traffic infraction citations; and
e. all appellate court filings, including motions, briefs, petitions, orders and opinions.
3. The following records may be made available electronically provided the clerk of court ensures that the described records are manually inspected and no confidential information is released:
a. the chief judge of a jurisdiction may, sua sponte, direct the electronic release of a record or records in a case of significant public interest;
b. records may be transmitted to a party, an attorney of record in a case or an attorney expressly authorized by a party in a case to receive the record;
c. a record that has been individually and specifically requested;
d. records may be transmitted to a governmental agency or agent;
e. civil cases in which a state agency, as defined by section 119.011(2), Florida Statutes (2006), is a party, with the exception that court files that are sealed pursuant to statute, court rule or court order shall not be available absent a specific order from the court unsealing the file;
f. pleadings, proof of service, motions and orders in actions affecting title to real property or tenancies to real property, including foreclosure of mortgages, ejectments, actions to clear title, specific performance, residential and nonresidential evictions, forcible entry and detainers, lien contest actions, partition actions and actions in which a lis pendens has been filed;
g. pleadings, proof of service, motions and orders in actions for declaratory judgments to establish foreign decrees as Florida judgments;
h. injunctions affecting real property, excluding domestic violence injunctions, and orders denying or dismissing an injunction affecting real property; and
i. attorneys may be provided general remote electronic access to non-confidential records in cases in which the entire court file is not confidential.
While the records identified above may be made available electronically, this administrative order does not require that they must be nor does this administrative order create an obligation on any clerk of court to provide remote electronic access to court records. Article V of the Constitution of the State of Florida charges the chief judges of the district and circuit courts with the administrative supervision of the courts within their jurisdiction. Therefore, any questions that may arise regarding implementation of this interim policy should be addressed to the chief judge of the jurisdiction.
This order shall remain in effect until further order.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on September 7, 2007.
Chief Justice R. Fred Lewis
Thomas D. Hall, Clerk
1/ See Committee on Privacy and Court Records, Privacy, Access and Court Records: Report and Recommendations of the Committee on Privacy and Court Records (2005).
2/ See In re: Committee on Access to Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC06-27 (Aug. 21, 2006) (on file with Clerk, Fla. Sup. Ct.)
3/ See Committee on Access to Court Records, Interim Progress Report and Recommendations on Modification to Interim Policy on Electronic Access to Court Records (2007).
4/ For purposes of this administrative order, “electronic form” is defined by Section 3.40 of the Guidelines for Public Access to Court Records developed by the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Courts Administrators:
Section 3.40 - Definition Of In Electronic Form. Information in a court record ‘in electronic form’ includes information that exists as:
(a) electronic representations of text or graphic documents;
(b) an electronic image, including a video image, of a document, exhibit or other thing;
(c) data in the fields or files of an electronic database; or
(d) an audio or video recording, analog or digital, of an event or notes in an electronic file from which a transcript of an event can be prepared.
A document transmitted via a facsimile machine and not captured as a digital file is not contemplated to be within the meaning of “electronic form.”
5/ The requirements of the interim policy stated in this administrative order govern any electronic release of court records, notwithstanding chapter 2007-251, Laws of Florida, amending section 119.071(5)(a)7.d., Florida Statutes (2006), and creating section 119.0714, Florida Statutes.
6/ Certain official records are confidential by statute. Further, section 28.2221, Florida Statutes (2006), prohibits a clerk of court from publishing on an Internet website records in cases governed by the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, or the Florida Probate Rules. Nothing in this order should be construed to negate these or any other statutory or rule restrictions.
Technology is increasingly influencing the manner in which the court system conducts its business. This trend represents significant promise with regard to access for court users as well as the generation of data necessary for the efficient management of the courts, yet at the same time presents numerous challenges. The purpose of the Florida Courts Technology Commission is to advise the Chief Justice and Supreme Court on matters relating to the use of technology in the Judicial Branch.
The Commission shall have primary responsibility to coordinate and review recommendations with regard to all court policy matters relating to the use of technology in support of the effective administration of justice. The Appellate Court Technology Committee, the Trial Court Technology Committee, the Electronic Filing Committee, and any other court technology committees or workgroups that may be established shall adhere to technology policies and standards adopted by the Commission. Court technology committees or workgroups with proposals that implicate court technology policy shall present those policy recommendations to the full Commission for review and approval, prior to submission to the Supreme Court.
Over the next two years, the Commission shall perform the following specific tasks:
1. Develop a comprehensive framework for the implementation of technology within the court system that addresses the needs of judicial officers, court managers and staff, and court users. This shall include assessing existing technology utilized in the state courts to determine whether it is sufficient to meet current and anticipated future needs and, if it is not, making appropriate recommendations for adjustments. The proposed framework should be consistent with the goals and objectives established in the Long-Range Strategic Plan and the 2006-2008 Operational Plan for the Florida Judicial Branch.
2. Complete the following projects that originated from In re: Implementation of Report and Recommendations of the Committee on Privacy and Court Records, No. AOSC06-20 (Fla. June 30, 2006):
a. In cooperation with the clerks of court, propose uniform technical and substantive standards that would allow consideration of remote access to court records in electronic form, conditioned on the effective identification and protection of confidential and exempt information. These standards should address user identification issues, the screening, redacting, striking, and sealing of court records to ensure that confidential information is not improperly released. The standards should assimilate recommendations that are to be provided by the Committee on Access to Court Records, the Steering Committee on Children and Families in the Court, and the Electronic Filing Committee.
b. Continue to oversee, monitor, and evaluate the pilot project implemented by the Clerk of Court of Manatee County for electronic release of court records.
c. Evaluate appropriate security precautions that are necessary with regard to any automated search technologies that may extract information from court records; consider methods or regulations that require commercial users of electronic court records to regularly update their databases with records that have been corrected or purged of erroneous, expunged, and sealed records; and advise the Chief Justice on the implications and advisability of available policy options.
d. Review and evaluate matters relating to user access fees identified by the Committee on Privacy and Court Records1/ and advise the Chief Justice on the implications and advisability of system funding models that are uniform statewide and do not impose costs beyond those necessary to support the system.
3. Continue to provide guidance and oversight on the development of an electronic filing portal that establishes a common entry point for all electronically filed court submissions in all jurisdictions. The Commission shall formulate proposed policies to ensure uniformity and standards to secure a comprehensive electronic record. The Commission shall also ensure proper outreach to court stakeholders to obtain input, and incorporate the results of that outreach effort into the electronic filing portal implementation plan submitted to the Court.
4. Ensure that the technology utilized at all levels of the State Courts System is capable of full integration.
5. Perform such other assignments related to the use of technology in the Judicial Branch as may be directed by the Chief Justice.
The Commission should integrate appropriate security policies into all projects to ensure the integrity and efficiency of court technology systems.
The Commission should also work to incorporate the principles of accessibility into all court technology projects, through consideration and application of the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; sections 262.601 through 262.606, Florida Statutes; and any other applicable state or federal disability laws.
The Commission is authorized to propose amendments to rules of court procedure and judicial administration if necessary to effectuate the tasks identified hereinabove, and in so doing the Commission is directed to establish the necessary liaison relationships with the appropriate Florida Bar rules committees.
Should the Commission make recommendations that require additional funding or resources to implement within the court system, the Commission is directed to establish the necessary liaison relationships with the District Court of Appeal Budget Commission and the Trial Court Budget Commission. At a minimum, the Commission shall provide the Chair of the appropriate Budget Commission with copies of Commission reports and recommendations that reference the need for additional court funding or resources.
The following individuals are appointed to the Commission for a term to expire on November 30, 2009:
The Honorable Mary Cay Blanks
Clerk of Court, Third District Court of Appeal
2001 S.W. 117th Avenue
Miami, Florida 33175-1716
The Honorable Angela M. Cox
County Court Judge, Duval County
330 E. Bay Street, Room 356
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Honorable Gary M. Farmer
Appellate Court Judge, Fourth District Court of Appeal
1525 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
The Honorable Jim Fuller
Clerk of Court, Duval County
Duval County Courthouse, Room 103
330 East Bay Street
Jacksonville, Florida 32202-2919
The Honorable Marci L. Goodman
Circuit Court Judge, First Judicial Circuit
Santa Rosa County Courthouse, Box K
6865 Caroline Street
Milton, Florida 32570
The Honorable Sally A. Heyman
Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners
Stephen P. Clark Center
111 N.W. 1st Street, Suite 220
Miami, Florida 33128-1963
The Honorable Judith L. Kreeger
Circuit Court Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit
73 West Flagler Street
Miami, Florida 33130
The Honorable C. Alan Lawson
Appellate Court Judge, Fifth District Court of Appeal
300 South Beach Street
Daytona Beach, Florida 32114
Mr. Ted McFetridge
Trial Court Administrator, Eighth Judicial Circuit
201 E. University Avenue, Room 417
Gainesville, Florida 32601
The Honorable Manuel Menendez, Jr.
Chief Judge, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
800 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 602
Tampa, Florida 33602
The Honorable Wayne M. Miller
County Court Judge, Monroe County
Monroe County Courthouse Annex
502 Whitehead Street, 1st Floor
Key West, Florida 33040
Mr. Ken Nelson
Court Technology Officer, Sixth Judicial Circuit
324 South Fort Harrison, Room 103
Clearwater, Florida 34616
Ms. Carol Ortman
Trial Court Administrator, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit
Broward County Courthouse
201 S.E. 6th Street, Room 880
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Mr. Paul R. Regensdorf
Stearns, Weaver, Miller, Weissler, Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A.
200 East Law Olas Boulevard
21st Floor, Penthouse A
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Mr. Murray B. Silverstein
Murray B. Silverstein, P.A.
150 2nd Avenue, Suite 900
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-3341
Mr. Kent Spuhler
Executive Director, Florida Legal Services
2425 Torreya Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4039
The Honorable Charles E. Williams
Circuit Court Judge, Twelfth Judicial Circuit
2002 Ringling Boulevard
Sarasota, Florida 34237
Judge Judith L. Kreeger will serve as Chair and Justice Raoul G. Cantero, III, will serve as the Supreme Court’s liaison to the Commission through November 30, 2009. Staff support will be provided by the Office of the State Courts Administrator.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on November 19, 2007.
Chief Justice R. Fred Lewis
1/ See Committee on Privacy and Court Records, Privacy, Access and Court Records: Report and Recommendations of the Committee on Privacy and Court Records (2005).
Technology is increasingly influencing the manner in which the court system conducts its business. This trend represents significant promise with regard to access for court users as well as the generation of data necessary for the efficient management of the courts, yet at the same time presents numerous challenges. The purpose of the Florida Courts Technology Commission is to advise the Chief Justice and Supreme Court on matters relating to the use of technology in the Judicial Branch.
The current term of the Commission is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2009. In order to allow the Commission to complete its pending business, I hereby extend the Committee’s term through June 30, 2010. The Commission shall continue to utilize the directives and membership established in Administrative Order AOSC07-59, dated November 19, 2007.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on June 1, 2009.
Chief Justice Peggy A. Quince
Thomas D. Hall, Clerk Supreme Court
The judicial branch of Florida has long embraced the use of information technologies to increase the effectiveness, efficiency, and accessibility of the courts. Technology holds great promise for both the courts and court users. Technology has and will continue to impact court operations, similar to the way in which technology has changed business practices in other organizations. This Court recognizes that the transition of Florida’s courts from paper-based information management to systems that rely primarily on digital records represents a fundamental change in the internal operations of the courts. Accordingly, care must be taken to ensure that this transformation is accomplished in a deliberate and responsible manner. As this Court said with regard to electronic access by the public to court records, “these issues are not merely technical but are central to the future functioning of the courts and to relations between citizens and their government.”1
Section 16, Chapter 2009-61, Laws of Florida (Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1718), provides:
The Legislature requests that, no later than July 1, 2009, the Supreme Court set statewide standards for electronic filing to be used by the clerks of court to implement electronic filing. The standards should specify the required information for the duties of the clerks of court and the judiciary for case management.
Electronic filing of court records primarily concerns the electronic transmission of records and supporting documentation from lawyers and litigants to the clerks of court, and further transmissions among first parties to an action, other parties, and clerks. This technology can make the process of submitting documents to the court and to other parties simpler, quicker, and less costly. It can also reduce the costs incurred by clerks of court for storing and transferring documents.
Electronic filing by itself does not effectuate migration of a court to a digital record system. Electronic filing is only one component, albeit perhaps the most critical component, of a comprehensive environment in which other components of the court process are also automated. This broader digital environment can be understood as electronic access to the courts, which integrates electronic filing, electronic records management, automated scheduling, electronic records access, as well as other aspects of the court process. Electronic filing systems implemented in the Florida judicial branch must be compatible with this Court’s goal of migration toward a comprehensive digital environment in an orderly fashion.
Related to the implementation of electronic filing is the concept of a single statewide Internet portal for electronic access to and transmission of court records to and from all Florida courts. This Court has previously endorsed the portal concept and directed the Electronic Filing Committee of the Florida Courts Technology Commission to develop a plan for implementation of the Florida Courts E-Portal. Thus, electronic filing systems must also be compatible with the Florida Courts E-Portal.
The Florida Courts Technology Commission is charged with advising the Chief Justice and Supreme Court on matters relating to the use of technology in the Judicial Branch. The Florida Courts Technology Commission and the Electronic Filing Committee have reviewed and proposed revisions to the electronic filing standards. The attached Florida Supreme Court Statewide Standards for Electronic Access to the Courts are hereby adopted, incorporated herein by reference, and shall be effective upon the signing of this order. These standards may be revised by the Court in the future, as may be necessary to achieve the mutual objectives of the judicial and legislative branches as identified in Chapter 2009-61, Laws of Florida.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on July 1, 2009.
Chief Justice Peggy A. Quince
Thomas D. Hall Clerk, Supreme Court
1/ In Re: Implementation of Report and Recommendations of the Committee on Privacy and Court Records, AOSC06-20 (Fla. June 30, 2006).
Florida Supreme Court
Standards for Electronic Access to the Courts
June 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | 4 |
2.0 DEFINITIONS | 6 |
3.0 FLORIDA COURTS E-PORTAL (E-PORTAL) | 6 |
3.1 E-PORTAL FUNCTIONALITY | 8 |
4.0 REQUESTS FOR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION AND FILING OF DOCUMENT INITIATIVES | 9 |
4.1 E-FILING STANDARDS | 9 |
4.1.1 SIZE OF FILING | 9 |
4.1.2 DOCUMENT FORMAT | 9 |
4.1.3 ELECTRONIC COVER SHEETS - DATA ACCOMPANYING SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS | 9 |
4.1.4 UNIFORM PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION | 10 |
4.1.5 ELECTRONIC NOTIFICATION OF RECEIPT | 10 |
4.1.6 SECURITY | 10 |
4.1.7 FILING PROCESS AND PAYMENT | 10 |
4.1.8 WEB BASED APPLICATION STANDARDS | 10 |
4.1.9 LEGAL TRANSMISSION ENVELOPE | 11 |
4.1.10 COURT CONTROL OF COURT DOCUMENTS - DATA STORAGE | 11 |
4.1.11 LOCAL VALIDATION | 11 |
4.1.12 DOCUMENT FIDELITY AND AUTHENTICITY | 11 |
4.1.13 EMBEDDED HYPERLINKS | 11 |
4.1.14 EXHIBITS | 12 |
4.1.15 DOCUMENTS EXEMPT FROM PUBLIC ACCESS | 12 |
4.1.16 ARCHIVING | 12 |
4.1.17 ACCOMMODATION OF PAPER SUBMISSIONS | 12 |
4.1.18 PUBLIC ACCESS | 12 |
4.1.19 SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS | 12 |
4.1.20 ADDING A PARTY | 12 |
4.2 TECHNICAL FAILURE | 13 |
4.2.1 DETERMINATION OF FAILURE AND EFFECT ON DUE DATE | 13 |
4.2.2 PROCEDURE WHERE NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING NOT RECEIVED | 13 |
4.2.3 RETRANSMISSION OF ELECTRONIC FILING | 13 |
4.2.4 SYSTEM AVAILABILITY AND RECOVERY PLANNING | 13 |
4.3 CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDED COURT REQUIREMENTS | 15 |
4.3.1 ACCESS | 15 |
4.4. ADA AND TECHNOLOGY COMPLIANCE | 15 |
ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS | 15 |
5.0 ELECTRONIC SERVICE | 16 |
5.1 COMPUTATION OF TIME | 16 |
6.0 DELIVERY OF ELECTRONIC CASE FILES | 16 |
7.0 ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES | 17 |
7.1 SIGNATURES OF REGISTERED USERS | 17 |
7.2 MULTIPLE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD SIGNATURES | 18 |
7.3 ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS AND/OR HANDWRITTEN SIGNATURES | 18 |
7.4 JUDGE SIGNATURE | 18 |
8.0 CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DESIGN FRAMEWORK | 18 |
OVERVIEW | 18 |
APPELLATE CASE MANAGEMENT | 19 |
DESIGN GUIDELINES | 19 |
CURRENT DATA COLLECTION SYSTEMS | 21 |
SECURITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY | 22 |
OTHER STANDARDS | 22 |
9.0 GOVERNANCE | 22 |
Upon consideration of the status of electronic filing in the Supreme Court of Florida (the Court), and in compliance with this Court’s Revised Opinion in In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Florida Probate Rules, 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 – Electronic Filing, 102 So. 3d 451 (Fla. 2012), and the Court’s Order dated November 28, 2012, the schedule for implementation of electronic filing at the Supreme Court of Florida through the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal (Portal) is amended as follows:
1. Effective 12:01 a.m., Wednesday, February 27, 2013, e-filing through the Portal in the Court will be optional for all attorneys.
2. Effective 12:01 a.m., Monday, April 1, 2013, e-filing through the Portal in the Court will be mandatory for all attorneys.
3. The URL address for the Portal is www.myflcourtaccess.com. Prior to filing, each filer will be required to register for a password secured Portal account. Once assigned a user name and password, it is the responsibility of the filer to safeguard his or her username and password to prevent unauthorized filings. Any electronic filings received via the filer’s username are presumed to have been submitted by the filer.
4. Informational training videos about appellate court filings using the Portal are available for all users at http://www.flclerks.com/eFiling_authority.html.
5. Documents may be submitted in an Adobe portable document format (“PDF”), Microsoft Word 97 or higher, or Corel WordPerfect or other format which may be later specified by the Court.
6. The filing date shall be the date of receipt by the Portal. Pleadings filed electronically will automatically have the Court’s time/date stamp electronically affixed along the top of the first page of the document. Filers should leave a sufficient margin on the first page to accommodate the Court’s time/date stamp. Filers must submit pleadings so that they are properly oriented to be read without needing to be rotated (such as on their side or upside-down).
7. When making filings the user should follow instructions provided through the Portal and select the appropriate document type when prompted. Each separate pleading or document filed electronically through the Portal must be submitted as a single complete document. Likewise, multiple documents must be submitted as separate documents.
a. For example, a brief should NOT be filed in separate parts such as the cover page as one filing, the table of contents as a second filing, the table of citations as a third filing and the body of the brief as a fourth filing. A brief is a single document and must be filed as a single filing as a Mandatory Document as indicated within the Portal.
b. If a pleading consists of more than one document (such as an appendix), each document should be filed as an Optional Document as indicated within the Portal.
c. If a separate type of filing is submitted at the same time (such as a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees), it should be filed as an Optional Document as indicated within the Portal.
d. If any document filed is larger than the limitation size indicated on the Documents page of the Portal, it must be broken into parts that will then be numbered and attached as Volumes of that document as indicated within the Portal.
8. Letters and correspondence addressed to the Court or the Clerk of the Court, including transmittal and cover letters, are not permitted to be filed electronically with the Court and may not be included with electronic pleadings.
9. The electronic copy of a document is not required to contain the attorney’s original signature, but may include an electronic signature indicator in the form of /s/ [name] on the appropriate signature line. Submission of a document to the Portal by a registered attorney will constitute a notice of appearance in the case by that attorney if an appearance in the case has not previously been made. By submitting a document to the Portal, an attorney certifies that he or she is complying with all rules of procedure regarding service to his or her opponents or other parties — the Portal is not currently able to provide electronic service to or for parties — in compliance with Rule 2.516 of the Rules of Judicial Administration.
10. After a document has been electronically filed through the Portal, confirmation will be automatically emailed to the filer at his or her registered email address(s) confirming receipt by the Court.
11. Once an electronic filing has been submitted to the Court through the Portal, it becomes a filing with the Court. Court filings will be docketed in the case after processing by the Clerk’s Office during regular business hours unless the electronic filing is not docketed based on a deficiency. The filer will be notified and may then re-file after correcting the deficiency.
12. If the filer discovers after submitting the document that there is a mistake, he or she must file an amended filing as well as a motion requesting that the Court accept the amended filing. To avoid multiple filings of the same document, filers should carefully review their filings before submitting them to the Portal.
13. Failure to comply with this order may result in the filing being stricken and the case being dismissed or the filing being stricken and submission of the case to the Court without the benefit of the filing. If, for any reason, a party is unable to comply with this order, counsel must file a motion as a separate document with the paper original brief or pleading setting forth the reasons for which counsel cannot comply and requesting a hardship exception.
14. No paper copy of any document filed through the Portal by an attorney is required to be filed and will not be accepted by the Court, absent a specific order by the Court. Any requirement for the filing of multiple paper copies that may remain in the rules of procedure is discontinued.
15. Documents that have been filed through the Portal will no longer be accepted via email as provided in Administrative Order 04-84.
16. Non-attorney parties and attorneys not in good standing with The Florida Bar are currently not permitted to file through the Portal at this time and must continue to file in paper format pursuant to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration; however, the additional copies to be filed with the Court prescribed by the rules are no longer required.
17. Members of The Florida Bar are requested to remain diligent in keeping track of updated requirements regarding filing through the Portal. Additional Administrative Orders may issue as required and will be posted on this Court’s web site at: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/adminorders/index.shtml.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on February 18, 2013.
Ricky Polston, Chief Justice
Thomas D. Hall, Clerk of Court
The Florida State Courts System has had a long-standing commitment to responsible access to electronic court records. Since 2004, considerable efforts have been directed toward developing the infrastructure and policies necessary to protect and limit confidential and sensitive information in court records, while simultaneously establishing mechanisms to afford public access to non-confidential court records. These efforts included the adoption of a limited moratorium on access to electronic court records to address concerns about sensitive and confidential information contained in these records. See In re: Committee on Privacy and Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC04-4 (Feb. 12, 2004); In re: Implementation of Report and Recommendations of the Committee on Privacy and Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC06-20 (June 30, 2006); In re: Interim Policy on Electronic Release of Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC06-21 (June 30, 2006); and In re: Revised Interim Policy on Electronic Release of Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC07-49 (Sept. 7, 2007).
The Court also adopted new rules and amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 to minimize the presence of sensitive and confidential information in court records, require filers to identify and protect confidential information in their pleadings, and narrow the scope of statutory exemptions applicable to court records to a standard list of twenty exemptions subject to automatic redaction by the clerks of court. See In re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 and the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, amend-to-rule-of-jud-admin">31 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 2010); In re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420, 124 So. 3d 819 (Fla. 2013); and In re: Implementation of Committee on Privacy and Court Records Recommendations – Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure; the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration; the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure; the Florida Probate Rules; the Florida Small Claims Rules; the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure; and the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, 78 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 2011).
During this time period, the Court also adopted standards and rules to implement e-filing and e-service in the trial and appellate courts, significantly moving the courts toward a fully electronic, mostly paperless environment. See In re: Statewide Standards for Electronic Access to the Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC09-30 (July 1, 2009); In re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Florida Probate Rules, 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 – Electronic Filing, 102 So. 3d 451 (Fla. 2012); In re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, 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 Procedures – E-Mail Service Rules, 102 So. 3d 505 (Fla. 2012); and In re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516, amendments-to-the-fla-rules-of-juvenile-procedure-1">112 So. 3d 1173 (Fla. 2013).
The Florida Courts Technology Commission (hereinafter “FCTC”) has recommended approval and adoption of the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records and Access Security Matrix in accordance with its authority under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.236 to “establish, periodically review and update technical standards for technology used and to be used in the judicial branch to receive, manage, maintain, use, secure and distribute court records by electronic means, consistent with technology policies established by the supreme court.” Adoption of the standards and matrix is the next logical step toward responsible public access to electronic court records.
The standards and matrix, developed by the Governance Access Board under the authority of FCTC, provide a carefully structured mechanism to facilitate appropriate, differentiated levels of access to court records to members of the general public and user groups with specialized credentials, and judges and court and clerks’ office staff, based upon governing statutes and court rules. The standards and matrix are based upon a model developed by the Manatee County Clerk of Court for a pilot program that operated from 2007 to 2011 under Supreme Court supervision and oversight. That program was determined to have been successful in providing appropriate access to electronic court records while effectively protecting confidential information in an evaluation performed by the National Center for State Courts in 2011.
Clerks currently providing limited online Internet access, pursuant to the authority of AOSC07-49, may continue to provide that service so long as the clerk applies to FCTC’s Access Governance Board for approval to provide online access consistent with this amended administrative order within 60 days from its issuance; otherwise the clerk shall terminate such limited online Internet access currently provided pursuant to AOSC07-49.
As part of the process of implementing the standards and matrix, a statewide pilot program will monitor and coordinate all established clerk initiatives relating to online access to electronic court records. Under the pilot program, each clerk or circuit court will apply to FCTC’s Access Governance Board, through the Office of the State Courts Administrator, for approval by the FCTC of its electronic records access system. Within 120 days from approval of the clerk’s initial application, a 90-day pilot program must begin and, at the end of such pilot, the clerk shall be fully compliant with this administrative order. After establishing compliance with the requirements of the standards and matrix adopted herein, the clerk shall request approval to provide online access to electronic court records. As the certification process is implemented, the Court will review for approval each clerk’s certification request to ensure that sufficient security measures are in place.
Access to electronic court records presently is governed by the restrictions imposed by In re: Revised Interim Policy on Electronic Release of Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC07-49 (Sept. 7, 2007). The Court hereby adopts the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records and Access Security Matrix, as amended by the Court, to supersede the restrictions imposed by AOSC07-49. The Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records and Access Security Matrix are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.2/
The Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records and Access Security Matrix shall be effective upon the signing of this administrative order. No other electronic access may be provided other than pursuant to this administrative order.
DONE AND ORDERED, nunc pro tunc, to March 19, 2014, at Tallahassee, Florida, on May 23, 2014.
Ricky Polston, Chief Justice
John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court
1/ An amended version of this administrative order is hereby issued to clarify procedures and time frames relating to the orderly transition from current policies governing the access to electronic court records, established in In re: Revised Interim Policy on Electronic Release of Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC07-49 (Sept. 7, 2007), to the implementation of the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records and Access Security Matrix adopted in this administrative order. See pages 4 through 6 of this amended administrative order.
2/ The Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records and the Access Security Matrix are also available on the Florida Courts website. See http://www.flcourts.org/resources-and-services/court-technology/technologystandards.stml.
Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records
March 2014
These standards establish statewide technical and operational requirements for access to electronic court records by the public, special user groups, judges, and court and clerk’s office personnel. These standards also implement the Access Security Matrix, which governs remote web-based and clerks’ office access to electronic court records.
ACCESS METHODS
There are three different methods for accessing electronic court records:
1. Direct access via application to internal live data;
2. Web-based application for replicated or live data with security;
3. Web-based portal for public viewing of replicated data and variable levels of security based on user role.
Direct or web-based access to live production data is generally limited to court and clerk officers and authorized court and clerk’s office personnel. Most users will access replicated data to protect the integrity and availability of the official court record maintained by the clerk.
ACCESS SECURITY MATRIX
The Access Security Matrix (the “Matrix”) appended to these standards governs access to electronic court records based upon user roles and applicable rules, statutes, and administrative policies. The Matrix performs the following functions:
1. Establishes user groups;
2. Establishes access levels;
3. Assigns access level for each user group based on case type;
4. Assigns access level for all docket codes.
The Access Governance Board, under the authority of the Florida Courts Technology Commission (the “FCTC”), is responsible for maintaining the Matrix by timely incorporating legislative and rule changes that impact access to electronic court records. Access permitted under the Matrix applies equally to electronic and paper court records.
USER GROUPS
Access to electronic court records is determined by the user’s role and applicable statutes, rules, and administrative policy. Access may be restricted to certain user groups based on case type, document type, or information contained within records. All individuals and entities authorized under these standards to have greater access than the general public must establish policies to protect confidential records and information in accordance with applicable rule and statutory requirements. Remote electronic access may be more restrictive than clerk in-house electronic access.
USER GROUPS | ACCESS PERMITTED | SECURITY REQUIREMENTS |
---|---|---|
Judges and authorized court and clerk’s office personnel | All court records, except those expunged pursuant to s. 943.0585, F.S., with discretionary limits based on local security policy. Each court and clerk must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. Access to records sealed pursuant to s. 943.059(4), F.S., is permitted for judges to assist in performance of case-related adjudicatory responsibilities. | In-house secure network and secure web access. |
Parties | All records in the party’s case except those that are expunged or sealed; access may be denied to information automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order, depending upon case type and the language of the order. | Secure access on case-by-case basis. Access by notarized request to insure identity of party. |
General public | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order. No remote access to images of records in cases governed by the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, or Florida Probate Rules, pursuant to s. 28.2221(5)(a), F.S. | None. Anonymous web-based access permitted. |
Individuals registered for subscriber service | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order. Viewable on request remote access to images of records in cases governed by the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, or Florida Probate Rules, pursuant to s. 28.2221(5)(a), F.S. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. |
Attorneys of record | All records except those that are expunged or sealed; access may be denied to records or information automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order, depending upon the type of case and the language of the court order. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. |
Authorized state or local government agencies | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. |
Certified law enforcement officers of federal or state law enforcement agencies, including state attorney’s offices, and state attorney general’s office | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by ss. 119.07 Access to HIV test results as permitted by ss. 775.0877(2)(e), and 951.27 F.S., and 960.003, F.S. Access to sexually transmitted disease results as permitted by s. 384.29(1), F.S. Access to birth certificates as permitted by ss. 382.013(5) Access to mental health records as permitted by s. 916.107(8), F.S. Access to addresses of domestic violence victims, and identities of victims of sexual and child abuse when originating from law enforcement as permitted by s. 119.071(2), F.S. Access to children and families in need of services records as permitted by s. 984.06(3), F.S. Access to juvenile records as permitted by ss. 39.0132(4)(a)(1), F.S. Access to juvenile delinquency records as permitted by s. 985.04, F.S. Access limited to law enforcement personnel who require access in performance of their official job duties. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining an authorized user list. |
Department of Children and Families personnel, or authorized service providers of the agency | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by s. 119.071 Access to birth certificates as permitted by ss. 382.013(5) and 382.025(1)(a)5., F.S. Access to children and families in need of services records as permitted by s. 984.06(3), F.S. Access to juvenile records as permitted by s. 39.0132(3), F.S. Access to juvenile delinquency records as permitted by s. 985.04, F.S. Access to records is limited to agency personnel and service providers who require access in performance of their official job duties. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each agency must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
Commercial purchasers of bulk records | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by s. 119.071, F.S, | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Commercial purchaser gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining an authorized user list. |
Administrative | Access for administrative purposes only to manage accounts for an organization with multiple users | Secure access to maintain and update user accounts. Gatekeeper can represent an agency under a single notarized agreement. |
ACCESS SECURITY MATRIX
The five District Courts of Appeal sought and received approval from the Appellate Courts Technology Commission to utilize the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal (statewide portal) for electronic receipt of case-related documents. Starting December 14, 2018, all filings to the Second District Court of Appeal must be submitted via the statewide portal except when a paper filing is authorized. In 2019, at dates to be announced, all filings to the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth District Courts of Appeal must be submitted via the statewide portal except when a paper filing is authorized. When electronically filing documents via the statewide portal, filers shall comply with all relevant Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, and Florida Supreme Court Standards for Electronic Access to the Courts. Filers are encouraged to utilize the statewide portal for electronic service of their filings and for payment of their case-related fees.
This administrative order does not affect the service of documents originating from the five District Courts of Appeal, which will continue to use eDCA to serve all acknowledgment letters, orders, opinions, mandates, and other outgoing filings on electronic filers through a link provided by eDCA Casemail. As a result, all electronic filers remain obligated to register as eDCA users and remain responsible for ensuring their email addresses are current in their eDCA accounts.
DONE AND ORDERED, at Tallahassee, Florida, on December 10, 2018.
Chief Justice Charles T. Canady
John Tomasino, Clerk of Court
The Florida State Courts System strives to promote public trust and confidence in the judicial branch by delivering timely, consistent, and useful information through traditional and innovative communication methods and safeguarding the security, integrity, and confidentiality of court data.
In re: Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC14-19 (amended May 23, 2014), governs appropriate, differentiated levels of access to electronic court records. Through AOSC14-19, the Supreme Court adopted the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records and the Access Security Matrix. The standards and matrix provide a carefully structured mechanism to facilitate appropriate, differentiated levels of access to court records to members of the general public, user groups with specialized credentials, judges, and court and clerks’ office staff, based upon governing statutes and court rules. Through subsequent administrative orders the standards and security matrix have been amended, as necessary and appropriate.
The Access Governance Board (Board) of the Florida Courts Technology Commission (Commission) has recommended additional amendments to the standards. In some online electronic records access systems, attorneys have indefinite access even after they are no longer the attorney of record. Therefore, the Board recommended updating the Attorney of Record user role in the standards to denote an attorney’s access will be changed to registered user when the attorney’s appearance is terminated in accordance with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.505(f). The Board also recommended removing the requirement of a written notarized agreement to access electronic records for users who are Public in Clerks’ offices and Registered Users. Lastly, the Board recommended updating the gatekeeper language in the standards to allow one or more gatekeepers, or a designee authorized by an agency head or an authorized gatekeeper, to add, update, and delete user or agency information to manage access and ensure security. The Commission concurred with the Board’s recommendations and submitted amended standards for the Court’s consideration.
As a means for the judicial branch to continue to ensure responsible access to electronic court records, the Court hereby adopts the amended Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records to supersede those adopted in In re: Access to Electronic Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC18-16 (June 21, 2018). The amended standards are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.1/
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on April 16, 2019.
Chief Justice Charles T. Canady
John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court
1/ The Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records and the Access Security Matrix are also available on the Florida Courts website. See https://www.flcourts.org/Resources-Services/Court-Technology/Technology-Standards.
Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records
April 2019
These standards establish statewide technical and operational requirements for access to electronic court records by the public, special user groups, judges, and court and clerk’s office personnel. These standards also implement the Access Security Matrix, which governs remote web-based and clerks’ office access to electronic court records.
ACCESS METHODS
There are three different methods for accessing electronic court records:
1. Direct access via application to internal live data;
2. Web-based application for replicated or live data with security; and
3. Web-based portal for public viewing of replicated data and variable levels of security based on user role.
Direct or web-based access to live production data is generally limited to authorized court and clerk’s office personnel. Most users will access replicated data to protect the integrity and availability of the official court record maintained by the clerk.
ACCESS SECURITY MATRIX
The Access Security Matrix (the “Matrix”) appended to these standards governs access to electronic court records based upon user roles and applicable court rules, statutes, and administrative policies. The Matrix performs the following functions:
1. Establishes user groups;
2. Establishes access levels; and
3. Assigns access level for each user group based on case type.
The Access Governance Board (“the Board”), under the authority of the Florida Courts Technology Commission (the “FCTC”), is responsible for maintaining the Matrix by timely incorporating legislative and rule changes that impact access to electronic court records. Access permitted under the Matrix applies equally to electronic and paper court records.
USER AGREEMENTS
The FCTC, in conjunction with the clerks, must develop and maintain agreements clearly defining responsibilities for user access.
Clerks may use an online agreement, instead of a paper agreement, that requires users to agree to terms using an online click-through (for example, clicking on the “I AGREE” button, as with other online term agreements) as long as the agreement terms are versioned so that updates can be tracked. When agreement terms change, users are required to accept the new terms, either electronically or in paper. A notarized agreement is required for each user role, except for the Registered User role as defined by the Matrix. User agreements submitted in paper shall be retained by the clerk.
GATEKEEPER
In an effort to effectively manage access and ensure security, an agency may utilize one or more gatekeepers, or a designee authorized by an agency head or an authorized gatekeeper who shall be an employee of that agency, for the purpose of adding, updating, and deleting user or agency information. A gatekeeper shall only add users commensurate with an agency’s user role type and/or as registered users. Each agency shall be responsible for ensuring that each user added by the gatekeeper is only given access that is commensurate to their job duties. Nothing in this definition shall nullify any other duty imposed upon the gatekeeper by the Board.
USER ROLES
Access to electronic court records is determined by the user’s role and applicable statutes, court rules, and applicable administrative policy. Access may be restricted to certain user roles based on case type, document type, or information contained within court records. All individuals and entities authorized under these standards to have greater access than the general public must establish policies to protect confidential records and information in accordance with applicable court rule and statutory requirements. Remote electronic access may be more restrictive than inperson in-house electronic access at clerks’ offices.
MATRIX USER ROLES | ACCESS PERMITTED | USER SECURITY REQUIREMENTS |
---|---|---|
User Role 1 Judges and authorized court and clerk’s office personnel | All court records, except those expunged pursuant to s. 943.0585, F.S., with discretionary limits based on local security policy. Each court and clerk must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. Access to records sealed pursuant to s. 943.059(4), F.S., is permitted for judges to assist in performance of case-related adjudicatory responsibilities. | In-house secure network and secure web access. |
User Role 2 Florida State Attorneys Offices | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order. Access to Social Security numbers by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. Access to HIV test results as permitted by s. 381.004(5)(c), F.S. Access to sexually transmitted disease results as permitted by s. 384.29(1), F.S. Access to birth certificates as permitted by ss. 382.013(5) and 382.025(1)(a)5, F.S. Access to mental health records as permitted by ss. 394.4615(3)(b), 394.4655(3)4)(c), and F.S. Access to identities of victims of sexual and child abuse when originating from law enforcement as permitted by s. 119.0714(1)(h), F.S. Access to children and families in need of services records as permitted by s.984.06(3), F.S. Access to juvenile records as permitted by ss. 39.0132(4)(a)(1) and 985.04(1)(b), F.S. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each state attorney must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
User Role 3 Attorneys of record | All records except those that are expunged or sealed; access may be denied to records or information automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order, depending upon the type of case and the language of the court order. Access will be changed to Registered User when the attorney’s appearance is terminated in accordance with rule 2.505. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. The gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. |
User Role 4 Parties | All records in the party’s case except those that are expunged or sealed; access may be denied to information automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order, depending upon case type and the language of the order. | Secure access on case-by-case basis. Access by notarized request to insure identity of party. |
User Role 5 Public in Clerks’ offices and Registered Users | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order. Viewable on request remote access to images of records in cases governed by the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, or Florida Probate Rules, pursuant to s. 28.2221(5)(a), F.S. | Secure access through user name and password or in person at Clerks’ offices. |
User Role 6 General government and constitutional officers | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each agency must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
User Role 7 General public (without registration agreement) | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order. No remote access to images of records in cases governed by the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, or Florida Probate Rules, pursuant to s. 28.2221(5)(a), F.S. | None. Anonymous web-based access permitted. |
User Role 8 Certified law enforcement officers of federal and Florida state and local law enforcement agencies, Florida Department of Corrections, and their authorized users | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. Access to HIV test results as permitted by ss. 381.004(2)(e), and 951.27 F.S. Access to sexually transmitted disease results as permitted by s. 384.29(1), F.S. Access to birth certificates as permitted by ss. 382.013(5) and 382.025(1)(a)5., F.S. Access to identities of victims of sexual and child abuse when originating from law enforcement as permitted by s. 119.0714(1)(h), F.S. Access to children and families in need of services records as permitted by s. 984.06(3), F.S. Access to juvenile records as permitted by ss. 39.0132(4)(a)(1) and 985.04(1)(b), F.S. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining an authorized user list. Each agency must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
User Role 9 Florida Attorney General’s Office and the Florida Department of Children and Families | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. Access to birth certificates as permitted by ss. 382.013(5) and 382.025(1)(a)5., F.S. Access to children and families in need of services records as permitted by s. 984.06(3), F.S. Access to juvenile records as permitted by ss. 39.0132(4)(a)(1) and 985.04(1)(b), F.S. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each agency must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
User Role 10 Florida School Districts (Truancy) | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. Access to juvenile delinquency records as permitted by s. 985.04(1)(b), F.S. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each school district must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
User Role 11 Commercial purchasers of bulk records | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. No remote access to images of records in cases governed by the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, Florida Rules of Juvenile procedure, or Florida Probate Rules, pursuant to s. 28.2221(5)(a), F.S. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Commercial purchaser gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining an authorized user list. |
User Role 12 Florida Public Defenders’ Offices (Institutional Access only) | All records except those that are expunged or sealed; access may be denied to records or information automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order, depending upon the type of case and the language of the court order. The Office of the Public Defender is considered the attorney of record at a defendant’s first appearance as permitted by s. 985.045(2) and rules 8.010 and 8.165, Fla. R. Juv. P. for juvenile defendants and s. 27.51 and rule 3.130, Fla. R. Crim. P. for adult defendants. Access will be changed to User Role 6 when the public defender is no longer the attorney of record or another attorney is assigned. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. The gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each public defender must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
SECURITY MATRIX
The transition from a paper-based information management system to one that primarily relies on digital records represents a fundamental change in the internal operations of Florida's state courts. As stated in In re: Statewide Standards for Electronic Access to the Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC09-30 (July 1, 2009), “electronic filing is only one component... of a comprehensive environment in which other components of the court process are also automated.”
Through their implementation of electronic filing and reliance on an automated case management system, the Supreme Court and the district courts of appeal have been leaders as the Florida state courts transition to a fully electronic environment that is largely paperless. Additionally, considerable efforts have been directed toward developing the infrastructure and policies necessary for parties to electronically file documents through the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal (“Portal”), while simultaneously establishing mechanisms to accept and maintain documents electronically. In 2013, this Court further endorsed the comprehensive automated court environment concept by directing attorneys to electronically file documents in both the civil and criminal divisions. 1 Since then, electronic filing (“e-filing”) has been a successful endeavor that saves time and money. An electronic court file that is fully accessible by all judicial system participants provides significant opportunities for increased efficiencies and, ultimately, cost savings to the judiciary.
The trial courts are an integral component in the transition to a fully electronic court environment. As funding has become available, the trial courts have worked diligently to implement the Court Application Processing System (“CAPS”), which is a computer application designed for in-court and in-chambers use by trial court judges and court staff, enabling them to work electronically on cases from any location and across many devices and data sources. The purpose of CAPS is to provide judges with rapid and reliable access to case information; provide access to and use of case files and other data while managing cases, scheduling and conducting hearings, adjudicating disputes, and recording and reporting judicial activity; and allow judges to prepare or accept, review, modify, electronically sign, file, and serve orders. However, although significant progress has been made to implement these systems, not all circuits, counties, or divisions have a fully-operational CAPS at this time.
Successful implementation of judicial e-filing using CAPS in the trial courts, as recommended by the Florida Courts Technology Commission (“Commission”), is contingent upon CAPS being implemented in every trial court, the appropriate functionality being available in CAPS, and the system being integrated with the Portal to receive proposed orders and file electronically signed orders.
Therefore, mandatory judicial e-filing must be undertaken concomitantly with the broader issue of ensuring access to CAPS for all judges. In conjunction with the Judicial E-filing Workgroup, the Commission submitted the Judicial E-Filing Workgroup Report (August 23, 2018), which is a proposed plan to address workload and other considerations associated with judicial e-filing. That report recommends trial courts operate within CAPS to electronically sign orders, including those prepared in court, and file them through the Portal or directly to the clerk's case maintenance system, utilizing standardized self-populating templates. Additionally, the report supports the continued development and improvement of the Portal and recommends filers use the Portal to submit proposed orders to CAPS.
After considering the Judicial E-Filing Workgroup Report, and in order for the judicial branch to continue enhancing the utilization of technology in a uniform manner to increase the effectiveness, efficiency, and accessibility of the state courts, the Court hereby adopts as its policy that the Court Application Processing System (CAPS) be deployed in every circuit, county, and division of Florida’s trial courts and that CAPS be used by all judges, when available. Each circuit is directed to pursue, from their respective counties, the funding necessary to implement and maintain CAPS in all divisions.
Moreover, the Court hereby requires judges to electronically sign orders and file them through the Portal or directly to the clerk’s case maintenance system when CAPS is available, fully-operational, and integrated with the Portal to receive proposed orders and file electronically signed orders. The Court also encourages the utilization of standardized, self-populating templates to improve the consistency of orders from case to case and county to county. Finally, although several CAPS systems allow for the direct filing of proposed orders, the Court supports the continued development of the Portal and hereby encourages the submission of proposed orders through the Portal to CAPS.
Chief judges of the trial courts are responsible for overseeing implementation of judicial e-filing within their respective circuit, pursuant to the policies and guidance set forth in this administrative order. Chief judges shall notify the Florida Courts Technology Commission when each county within their respective circuit has fully implemented judicial e-filing in accordance with this administrative order. If a trial court is not able to fully implement judicial e-filing in every county in that circuit within six months of the date of this order, the chief judge shall report that information to the Florida Courts Technology Commission and continue to report on a biannual basis thereafter until every county within the circuit has fully implemented judicial e-filing. The report shall include a description of the trial court’s progress and indicate the reasons it has not implemented judicial electronic filing within that jurisdiction, including when it is not practical. In multi-county circuits, the report should provide this information on a county-by-county basis.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on November 1, 2019.
1. See In re: Electronic Filing in the Supreme Court of Florida Via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC13-7, and In re: Electronic Filing of Criminal Cases in the Trial Courts of Florida Via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC13-48.
Chief Justice Charles T. Canady
John Tomasino, Clerk of Court
In March 2014, the Supreme Court adopted the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records and the Access Security Matrix. In re: Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC14-19 (amended May 23, 2014), governs appropriate, differentiated levels of access to electronic court records and prescribes a process by which a clerk of court who wishes to provide court records online must develop and test in a pilot program its online electronic records access system and, when it demonstrates through such pilot program compliance with the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records and the Access Security Matrix adopted by the Supreme Court, seek Supreme Court approval to provide online access to electronic court records.
Since that time, the Florida Courts Technology Commission (hereinafter “Commission”) has recommended changes to the standards and security matrix, as necessary based on rules and statutes. The Court has adopted revisions to the standards and matrix through In re: Access to Electronic Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC19-20 (April 16, 2019).
The Commission received and reviewed requests from the Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel (hereinafter “OCCCRC”) regarding access to specific case types defined by sections 27.511(5) and 27.511(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and the Florida Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office (hereinafter “SGALO”) regarding access to a child’s confidential dependency records based on the authority in section 39.820, Florida Statutes. The Commission has recommended updating the standards and security matrix by creating separate user roles for the OCCCRC and the SGALO. Additionally, the Commission also recommended that the OCCCRC and the SGALO be required to establish policies ensuring that access to confidential records and information is limited to necessary individuals requiring access in the performance of their official duties. The Commission further recommended several administrative and structural changes to the Matrix, including updating the definition for institutional access and consolidating, collapsing, or renaming certain case types.
As a means for the judicial branch to continue to ensure responsible access to electronic court records, the Court hereby adopts the amended Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records and the amended Access Security Matrix to supersede those previously adopted. The amended standards and matrix are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.1/
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on November 20, 2020.
Chief Justice Charles T. Canady
John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court
1/ The Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records and the Access Security Matrix are also available on the Florida Courts website. See https://www.flcourts.org/Resources-Services/Court-Technology/Technology-Standards.
Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records
November 2020
These standards establish statewide technical and operational requirements for access to electronic court records by the public, special user groups, judges, and court and clerk’s office personnel. These standards also implement the Access Security Matrix, which governs remote web-based and clerks’ office access to electronic court records.
ACCESS METHODS
There are three different methods for accessing electronic court records:
1. Direct access via application to internal live data;
2. Web-based application for replicated or live data with security; and
3. Web-based portal for public viewing of replicated data and variable levels of security based on user role.
Direct or web-based access to live production data is generally limited to authorized court and clerk’s office personnel. Most users will access replicated data to protect the integrity and availability of the official court record maintained by the clerk.
ACCESS SECURITY MATRIX
The Access Security Matrix (the “Matrix”) governs access to electronic court records based upon user roles and applicable court rules, statutes, and administrative policies. The Matrix performs the following functions:
1. Establishes user groups;
2. Establishes access levels; and
3. Assigns access level for each user group based on case type.
The Access Governance Board (“the Board”), under the authority of the Florida Courts Technology Commission (the “FCTC”), is responsible for maintaining the Matrix by timely incorporating legislative and rule changes that impact access to electronic court records. Access permitted under the Matrix applies equally to electronic and paper court records.
USER AGREEMENTS
The FCTC, in conjunction with the clerks, must develop and maintain agreements clearly defining responsibilities for user access.
Clerks may use an online agreement, instead of a paper agreement, that requires users to agree to terms using an online click-through (for example, clicking on the “I AGREE” button, as with other online term agreements) as long as the agreement terms are versioned so that updates can be tracked. When agreement terms change, users are required to accept the new terms, either electronically or in paper. A notarized agreement is required for each user role, except for the Registered User role as defined by the Matrix. User agreements submitted in paper shall be retained by the clerk.
GATEKEEPER
In an effort to effectively manage access and ensure security, an agency may utilize one or more gatekeepers, or a designee authorized by an agency head or an authorized gatekeeper who shall be an employee of that agency, for the purpose of adding, updating, and deleting user or agency information. A gatekeeper shall only add users commensurate with an agency’s user role type and/or as registered users. Each agency shall be responsible for ensuring that each user added by the gatekeeper is only given access that is commensurate to their job duties. Nothing in this definition shall nullify any other duty imposed upon the gatekeeper by the Board.
USER ROLES
Access to electronic court records is determined by the user’s role and applicable statutes, court rules, and applicable administrative policy. Access may be restricted to certain user roles based on case type, document type, or information contained within court records. All individuals and entities authorized under these standards to have greater access than the general public must establish policies to protect confidential records and information in accordance with applicable court rule and statutory requirements. Remote electronic access may be more restrictive than in-person in-house electronic access at clerks’ offices.
MATRIX USER ROLES | ACCESS PERMITTED | USER SECURITY REQUIREMENTS |
---|---|---|
User Role 1 Judges and authorized court and clerk’s office personnel | All court records, except those expunged pursuant to s. 943.0585, F.S., with discretionary limits based on local security policy. Each court and clerk must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. Access to records sealed pursuant to s. 943.059(4), F.S., is permitted for judges to assist in performance of case-related adjudicatory responsibilities. | In-house secure network and secure web access. |
User Role 2 Florida State Attorneys' Offices | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to Social Security numbers by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. Access to HIV test results as permitted by s. 381.004(5)(c), F.S. Access to sexually transmitted disease results as permitted by s. 384.29(1), F.S. Access to birth certificates as permitted by ss. 382.013(5) and 382.025(1)(a)5, F.S. Access to mental health records as permitted by ss. 394.4615(3)(b), 394.4655(3)4)(c), and F.S. Access to identities of victims of sexual and child abuse when originating from law enforcement as permitted by s. 119.0714(1)(h), F.S. Access to children and families in need of services records as permitted by s.984.06(3), F.S. Access to juvenile records as permitted by ss. 39.0132(4)(a)(1) and 985.04(1)(b), F.S. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each state attorney must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
User Role 3 Attorneys of record | All records except those that are expunged or sealed; access may be denied to records or information automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order, depending upon the type of case and the language of the court order. Access will be changed to Registered User when the attorney’s appearance is terminated in accordance with rule 2.505, Fla. R. Jud. Admin.. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. The gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. |
User Role 4 Parties | All records in the party’s case except those that are expunged or sealed; access may be denied to information automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order, depending upon case type and the language of the order. | Secure access on case-by-case basis. Access by notarized request to insure identity of party. |
User Role 5 Public in Clerks’ offices and Registered Users | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), or made confidential by court order. Viewable on request remote access to images of records in cases governed by the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, or Florida Probate Rules, pursuant to s. 28.2221(5)(a), F.S. | Secure access through user name and password or in person at Clerks’ offices. |
User Role 6 General government and constitutional officers | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each agency must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
User Role 7 General public (without registration agreement) | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. No remote access to images of records in cases governed by the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, or Florida Probate Rules, pursuant to s. 28.2221(5)(a), F.S. | None. Anonymous web-based access permitted. |
User Role 8 Certified law enforcement officers of federal and Florida state and local law enforcement agencies, Florida Department of Corrections, and their authorized users | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. Access to HIV test results as permitted by ss. 381.004(2)(e), and 951.27 F.S. Access to sexually transmitted disease results as permitted by s. 384.29(1), F.S. Access to birth certificates as permitted by ss. 382.013(5) and 382.025(1)(a)5., F.S. Access to identities of victims of sexual and child abuse when originating from law enforcement as permitted by s. 119.0714(1)(h), F.S. Access to children and families in need of services records as permitted by s. 984.06(3), F.S. Access to juvenile records as permitted by ss. 39.0132(4)(a)(1) and 985.04(1)(b), F.S. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining an authorized user list. Each agency must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
User Role 9 Florida Attorney General’s Office and the Florida Department of Children and Families | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. Access to birth certificates as permitted by ss. 382.013(5) and 382.025(1)(a)5., F.S. Access to children and families in need of services records as permitted by s. 984.06(3), F.S. Access to juvenile records as permitted by ss. 39.0132(4)(a)(1) and 985.04(1)(b), F.S. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each agency must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
User Role 10 Florida School Districts (Truancy) | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. Access to juvenile delinquency records as permitted by s. 985.04(1)(b), F.S. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each school district must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
User Role 11 Commercial purchasers of bulk records | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. No remote access to images of records in cases governed by the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, Florida Rules of Juvenile procedure, or Florida Probate Rules, pursuant to s. 28.2221(5)(a), F.S. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. Commercial purchaser gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining an authorized user list. |
User Role 12 Florida Office of the Public Defender (Institutional Access only) | All records except those that are expunged or sealed; access may be denied to records or information automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order, depending upon the type of case and the language of the court order. The Office of the Public Defender is considered the attorney of record at a defendant’s first appearance as permitted by s. 985.045(2) and rules 8.010 and 8.165, Fla. R. Juv. P. for juvenile defendants and s. 27.51 and rule 3.130, Fla. R. Crim. P. for adult defendants. Access will be changed to User Role 6 when the public defender is no longer the attorney of record or another attorney is assigned. | Secure access through user name and password by written notarized agreement. The gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each public defender must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
User Role 13 Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel (Institutional Access only) | All records except those that are expunged or sealed; access may be denied to records or information automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order, depending upon the type of case and the language of the court order. The Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel (OCCCRC) is considered the attorney of record at a party’s first appearance in civil proceedings listed in §27.511(6), F.S., and in criminal proceedings is entitled to appointment as attorney of record upon the Public Defender’s declaration of conflict in case types listed in §27.511(5), F.S. Access will be changed to User Role 6 when the OCCCRC is no longer the attorney of record or another attorney is assigned. | Secure access through username and password by written notarized agreement. The gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each regional counsel must establish written policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
User Role 14 Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by §§119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. Access to birth certificates as permitted by §§382.013(5) and 382.025(1)(a)5., F.S. Access to children and families in need of services records as permitted by §984.06(3), F.S. Access to juvenile records as permitted by §§ 39.0132(4)(a)(1) and 985.04(1)(b), F.S. Access for guardian ad litem appointed as permitted by §39.822, F.S. | Secure access through username and password by written notarized agreement. The gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each guardian ad litem must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
ACCESS SECURITY MATRIX
In March 2014, the Supreme Court adopted the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records and the Access Security Matrix (hereinafter “Standards and Matrix”) in In re: Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC14-19 (amended May 23, 2014), which governs appropriate, differentiated levels of access to electronic court records.
Since then, the Florida Courts Technology Commission (hereinafter “Commission”) has recommended changes to the Standards and Matrix, as necessary, based on applicable rules and statutes, and the Court adopted the most recent revisions through In re: Access to Electronic Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-108 (Nov. 20, 2020).
The Commission has proposed updates to the language in the Standards to match the language in the Matrix for User Roles 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 14. Additionally, the Commission has proposed revisions to the descriptive language for Level B and Level C Access regarding sealed and confidential records in the Matrix.
The Commission also reviewed a request from the Office of Statewide Prosecution (hereinafter “Office”) and has recommended adding the Office to the Standards and Matrix affording them the same level of access as the Florida State Attorneys’ Offices. In addition, the Commission has recommended that the Office be required to establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in the performance of their official duties.
Furthermore, the Commission has recommended that the Court approve an administrative change to the privacy designation for certain case types from “Public” to “Confidential” in the Matrix.1/
As a means for the judicial branch to continue to ensure responsible access to electronic court records, the Court hereby adopts the amended Standards and Matrix to supersede those previously adopted. The amended Standards and Matrix are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.2/
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on September 3, 2021.
Chief Justice Charles T. Canady
John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court
1/ These case types are confidential in the clerk of court case maintenance systems but are not depicted on the Access Security Matrix. Therefore, the change recommended by the Commission does not affect the access that each user role has.
2/ The Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records and the Access Security Matrix are also available on the Florida Courts website. See https://www.flcourts.org/Resources-Services/Court-Technology/Technology-Standards.
Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records
September 2021
These standards establish statewide technical and operational requirements for access to electronic court records by the public, special user groups, judges, and court and clerk’s office personnel. These standards also implement the Access Security Matrix, which governs remote web-based and clerks’ office access to electronic court records.
ACCESS METHODS
There are three different methods for accessing electronic court records:
1. Direct access via application to internal live data;
2. Web-based application for replicated or live data with security; and
3. Web-based portal for public viewing of replicated data and variable levels of security based on user role.
Direct or web-based access to live production data is generally limited to authorized court and clerk’s office personnel. Most users will access replicated data to protect the integrity and availability of the official court record maintained by the clerk.
ACCESS SECURITY MATRIX
The Access Security Matrix (the “Matrix”) governs access to electronic court records based upon user roles and applicable court rules, statutes, and administrative policies. The Matrix performs the following functions:
1. Establishes user groups;
2. Establishes access levels; and
3. Assigns access level for each user group based on case type.
The Access Governance Board (“the Board”), under the authority of the Florida Courts Technology Commission (the “FCTC”), is responsible for maintaining the Matrix by timely incorporating legislative and rule changes that impact access to electronic court records. Access permitted under the Matrix applies equally to electronic and paper court records.
USER AGREEMENTS
The FCTC, in conjunction with the clerks, must develop and maintain agreements clearly defining responsibilities for user access.
Clerks may use an online agreement, instead of a paper agreement, that requires users to agree to terms using an online click-through (for example, clicking on the “I AGREE” button, as with other online term agreements) as long as the agreement terms are versioned so that updates can be tracked. When agreement terms change, users are required to accept the new terms, either electronically or in paper. A notarized agreement is required for each user role, except for the Registered User role as defined by the Matrix. User agreements submitted in paper shall be retained by the clerk.
GATEKEEPER
In an effort to effectively manage access and ensure security, an agency may utilize one or more gatekeepers, or a designee authorized by an agency head or an authorized gatekeeper who shall be an employee of that agency, for the purpose of adding, updating, and deleting user or agency information. A gatekeeper shall only add users commensurate with an agency’s user role type and/or as registered users. Each agency shall be responsible for ensuring that each user added by the gatekeeper is only given access that is commensurate to their job duties. Nothing in this definition shall nullify any other duty imposed upon the gatekeeper by the Board.
USER ROLES
Access to electronic court records is determined by the user’s role and applicable statutes, court rules, and applicable administrative policy. Access may be restricted to certain user roles based on case type, document type, or information contained within court records. All individuals and entities authorized under these standards to have greater access than the general public must establish policies to protect confidential records and information in accordance with applicable court rule and statutory requirements. Remote electronic access may be more restrictive than in-person in-house electronic access at clerks’ offices.
ACCESS LEVELS
Access levels are defined as follows:
A. All but expunged, or sealed under Ch. 943, F.S.;
B. All but expunged, or sealed under Ch. 943, F.S., or sealed by court order;
C. All but expunged, or sealed under Ch. 943, F.S. or sealed by court order or confidential under Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. rule 2.420;
D. All but expunged, sealed, or confidential; record images viewable upon request;
E. Case number, party names, dockets only;
F. Case number and party names only;
G. Case number only; and
H. No access.
Viewable on request access level applies to documents containing confidential information that must be redacted; this access level requires examination of the case file by a clerk to identify and redact confidential information before the record can be viewed.
MATRIX USER ROLES | ACCESS PERMITTED | USER SECURITY REQUIREMENTS |
---|---|---|
User Role 1 Judges and authorized court and clerk’s office personnel | All court records, except those expunged pursuant to s. 943.0585, F.S., with discretionary limits based on local security policy. Each court and clerk must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. Access to records sealed pursuant to s. 943.059(4), F.S., is permitted for judges to assist in performance of case-related adjudicatory responsibilities. | In-house secure network and secure web access. |
User Role 2 Florida State Attorneys' Offices and the Office of Statewide Prosecution | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, or, unless Level B access is assigned to this role in the Access Security Matrix, those records automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to Social Security numbers by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. Access to HIV test results as permitted by s. 381.004(5)(c), F.S. Access to sexually transmitted disease results as permitted by s. 384.29(1), F.S. Access to birth certificates as permitted by ss. 382.013(5) and 382.025(1)(a)5, F.S. Access to mental health records as permitted by ss. 394.4615(3)(b), 394.4655(3)4)(c), and F.S. Access to identities of victims of sexual and child abuse when originating from law enforcement as permitted by s. 119.0714(1)(h), F.S. Access to children and families in need of services records as permitted by s.984.06(3), F.S. Access to juvenile records as permitted by ss. 39.0132(4)(a)(1) and 985.04(1)(b), F.S. | Secure access through username and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each state attorney must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
User Role 3 Attorneys of record | All records except those that are expunged or sealed; access may be denied to records or information automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1) Fla. R. Gen. Pract. & Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order, depending upon the type of case and the language of the court order. Access will be changed to Registered User when the attorney’s appearance is terminated in accordance with rule 2.505, Fla. R. Gen. Pract. & Jud. Admin.. | Secure access through username and password by written notarized agreement. The gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. |
User Role 4 Parties | All records in the party’s case except those that are expunged or sealed; access may be denied to information automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Gen. Pract. & Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order, depending upon case type and the language of the order. | Secure access on case-by-case basis. Access by notarized request to insure identity of party. |
User Role 5 Public in Clerks’ offices and Registered Users | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Gen. Pract. & Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Viewable on request remote access to images of records in cases governed by the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, or Florida Probate Rules, pursuant to s. 28.2221(5)(a), F.S. | Secure access through username and password or in person at Clerks’ offices. |
User Role 6 General government and constitutional officers | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, or, unless Level "B" access is assigned to this role in the Access Security Matrix, those records automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Gen. Pract. & Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. | Secure access through username and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each agency must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
User Role 7 General public (without registration agreement) | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Gen. Pract. & Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. No remote access to images of records in cases governed by the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, or Florida Probate Rules, pursuant to s. 28.2221(5)(a), F.S. | None. Anonymous web-based access permitted. |
User Role 8 Certified law enforcement officers of federal and Florida state and local law enforcement agencies, Florida Department of Corrections, and their authorized users | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, or, unless Level "B" access is assigned to this role in the Access Security Matrix, those records automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Gen. Pract. & Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. Access to HIV test results as permitted by ss. 381.004(2)(e), and 951.27 F.S. Access to sexually transmitted disease results as permitted by s. 384.29(1), F.S. Access to birth certificates as permitted by ss. 382.013(5) and 382.025(1)(a)5., F.S. Access to identities of victims of sexual and child abuse when originating from law enforcement as permitted by s. 119.0714(1)(h), F.S. Access to children and families in need of services records as permitted by s. 984.06(3), F.S. Access to juvenile records as permitted by ss. 39.0132(4)(a)(1) and 985.04(1)(b), F.S. | Secure access through username and password by written notarized agreement. The agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining an authorized user list. Each agency must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
User Role 9 Florida Attorney General’s Office and the Florida Department of Children and Families | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, or, unless Level "B" access is assigned to this role in the Access Security Matrix, those records automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Gen. Pract. & Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. Access to birth certificates as permitted by ss. 382.013(5) and 382.025(1)(a)5., F.S. Access to children and families in need of services records as permitted by s. 984.06(3), F.S. Access to juvenile records as permitted by ss. 39.0132(4)(a)(1) and 985.04(1)(b), F.S. | Secure access through username and password by written notarized agreement. The agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each agency must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
User Role 10 Florida School Districts (Truancy) | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, or, unless Level "B" access is assigned to this role in the Access Security Matrix, those records automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Gen. Pract. & Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. Access to juvenile delinquency records as permitted by s. 985.04(1)(b), F.S. | Secure access through username and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each school district must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
User Role 11 Commercial purchasers of bulk records | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Gen. Pract. & Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. No remote access to images of records in cases governed by the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, Florida Rules of Juvenile procedure, or Florida Probate Rules, pursuant to s. 28.2221(5)(a), F.S. | Secure access through username and password by written notarized agreement. Commercial purchaser gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining an authorized user list. |
User Role 12 Florida Office of the Public Defender (Institutional Access only) | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, or, unless Level "B" access is assigned to this role in the Access Security Matrix, access may be denied to records or information automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Gen. Pract. & Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order, depending upon the type of case and the language of the court order. The Office of the Public Defender is considered the attorney of record at a defendant’s first appearance as permitted by s. 985.045(2) and rules 8.010 and 8.165, Fla. R. Juv. P. for juvenile defendants and s. 27.51 and rule 3.130, Fla. R. Crim. P. for adult defendants. Access will be changed to User Role 6 when the public defender is no longer the attorney of record or another attorney is assigned. | Secure access through username and password by written notarized agreement. The gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each public defender must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
User Role 13 Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel (Institutional Access only) | All records except those that are expunged or sealed; access may be denied to records or information automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Gen. Pract. & Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order, depending upon the type of case and the language of the court order. The Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel (OCCCRC) is considered the attorney of record at a party’s first appearance in civil proceedings listed in §27.511(6), F.S., and in criminal proceedings is entitled to appointment as attorney of record upon the Public Defender’s declaration of conflict in case types listed in §27.511(5), F.S. Access will be changed to User Role 6 when the OCCCRC is no longer the attorney of record or another attorney is assigned. | Secure access through username and password by written notarized agreement. The gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each regional counsel must establish written policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
User Role 14 Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, or, unless Level "B" access is assigned to this role in the Access Security matrix, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Gen. Pract. & Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by §§119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. Access to birth certificates as permitted by §§382.013(5) and 382.025(1)(a)5., F.S. Access to children and families in need of services records as permitted by §984.06(3), F.S. Access to juvenile records as permitted by §§ 39.0132(4)(a)(1) and 985.04(1)(b), F.S. Access for guardian ad litem appointed as permitted by §39.822, F.S. | Secure access through username and password by written notarized agreement. The gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each guardian ad litem must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
ACCESS SECURITY MATRIX
In March 2014, the Supreme Court adopted the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records (hereinafter “Standards”) and the Access Security Matrix (hereinafter “Matrix”) in In re: Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC14-19 (amended May 23, 2014), to govern appropriate, differentiated levels of access to electronic court records.
Since then, the Florida Courts Technology Commission (hereafter “Commission”) has recommended changes to the Standards and the Matrix, as necessary, based on applicable rules and statutes, and the Court adopted the most recent revisions through In re: Access to Electronic Court Records, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC21-45 (September 3, 2021).
In June 2021, the Florida Court Clerks & Comptrollers (hereinafter “FCCC”) chose to voluntarily implement the Matrix into the Comprehensive Case Information System (hereinafter “CCIS”), a statewide electronic court case data system that is maintained by the FCCC. As a result of the changes to CCIS made by the FCCC in June 2021, several government users’ access to confidential case information in CCIS was affected, which prompted several requests for amendments to the Standards and the Matrix to be submitted.
After thoughtfully reviewing all amendment requests, the Commission recommended that the Court create a separate user role for the Justice Administrative Commission (hereinafter “JAC”). Additionally, the Commission recommended that the JAC be required to establish policies and procedures to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access to said records and information in the performance of their official duties.
The Commission also recommended that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement be added to the existing Certified Law Enforcement Officers of Federal and Florida State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, and Florida Department of Corrections user role on the Standards and the Matrix.
Moreover, since The Florida Bar (hereinafter “Bar”) is an extension of the judicial branch, the Commission recommended that the Bar be provided with the same access as judges and authorized court and clerk’s office personnel.
Additionally, the Commission recommended revising the access levels for the Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel to allow attorney of record access to certain criminal and civil cases.
The Commission further recommended revising current access levels for other user types to ensure the appropriate access to case information was properly reflected on the Matrix.
Further, the Commission recommended that the Mortgage Foreclosure case type be consolidated into the Circuit Civil case type, and that Medical Malpractice be moved from the Circuit Civil Private (Sexual Abuse) case type to the Circuit Civil case type, and small claims access be expanded for certain users.
As a means for the judicial branch to continue to ensure responsible access to electronic court records, the Court hereby adopts the amended Standards and Matrix to supersede those previously adopted. The amended Standards and Matrix are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.1/
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on March 24, 2022.
Chief Justice Charles T. Canady
John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court
1/ The Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records and the Access Security Matrix are also available on the Florida Courtswebsite. See https://www.flcourts.org/Resources-Services/Court-Technology/Technology-Standards.
Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records
March 2022
These standards establish statewide technical and operational requirements for access to electronic court records by the public, special user groups, judges, and court and clerk’s office personnel. These standards also implement the Access Security Matrix, which governs remote web-based and clerks’ office access to electronic court records.
ACCESS METHODS
There are three different methods for accessing electronic court records:
1. Direct access via application to internal live data;
2. Web-based application for replicated or live data with security; and
3. Web-based portal for public viewing of replicated data and variable levels of security based on user role.
Direct or web-based access to live production data is generally limited to authorized court and clerk’s office personnel. Most users will access replicated data to protect the integrity and availability of the official court record maintained by the clerk.
ACCESS SECURITY MATRIX
The Access Security Matrix (the “Matrix”) governs access to electronic court records based upon user roles and applicable court rules, statutes, and administrative policies. The Matrix performs the following functions:
1. Establishes user groups;
2. Establishes access levels; and
3. Assigns access level for each user group based on case type.
The Access Governance Board (“the Board”), under the authority of the Florida Courts Technology Commission (the “FCTC”), is responsible for maintaining the Matrix by timely incorporating legislative and rule changes that impact access to electronic court records. Access permitted under the Matrix applies equally to electronic and paper court records.
USER AGREEMENTS
The FCTC, in conjunction with the clerks, must develop and maintain agreements clearly defining responsibilities for user access.
Clerks may use an online agreement, instead of a paper agreement, that requires users to agree to terms using an online click-through (for example, clicking on the “I AGREE” button, as with other online term agreements) as long as the agreement terms are versioned so that updates can be tracked. When agreement terms change, users are required to accept the new terms, either electronically or in paper. A notarized agreement is required for each user role, except for the Registered User role as defined by the Matrix. User agreements submitted in paper shall be retained by the clerk.
GATEKEEPER
In an effort to effectively manage access and ensure security, an agency may utilize one or more gatekeepers, or a designee authorized by an agency head or an authorized gatekeeper who shall be an employee of that agency, for the purpose of adding, updating, and deleting user or agency information. A gatekeeper shall only add users commensurate with an agency’s user role type and/or as registered users. Each agency shall be responsible for ensuring that each user added by the gatekeeper is only given access that is commensurate to their job duties. Nothing in this definition shall nullify any other duty imposed upon the gatekeeper by the Board.
USER ROLES
Access to electronic court records is determined by the user’s role and applicable statutes, court rules, and applicable administrative policy. Access may be restricted to certain user roles based on case type, document type, or information contained within court records. All individuals and entities authorized under these standards to have greater access than the general public must establish policies to protect confidential records and information in accordance with applicable court rule and statutory requirements. Remote electronic access may be more restrictive than in-person in-house electronic access at clerks’ offices.
ACCESS LEVELS
Access levels are defined as follows:
A. All but expunged, or sealed under Ch. 943, F.S.;
B. All but expunged, or sealed under Ch. 943, F.S., or sealed by court order;
C. All but expunged, or sealed under Ch. 943, F.S. or sealed by court order or confidential under Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. rule 2.420;
D. All but expunged, sealed, or confidential; record images viewable upon request;
E. Case number, party names, dockets only;
F. Case number and party names only;
G. Case number only; and
H. No access.
Viewable on request access level applies to documents containing confidential information that must be redacted; this access level requires examination of the case file by a clerk to identify and redact confidential information before the record can be viewed.
MATRIX USER ROLES | ACCESS PERMITTED | USER SECURITY REQUIREMENTS |
---|---|---|
User Role 1 Judges and authorized court and clerk’s office personnel | All court records, except those expunged pursuant to s. 943.0585, F.S., with discretionary limits based on local security policy. Each court and clerk must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. Access to records sealed pursuant to s. 943.059(4), F.S., is permitted for judges to assist in performance of case-related adjudicatory responsibilities. | In-house secure network and secure web access. |
User Role 2 Florida State Attorneys' Offices and the Office of Statewide Prosecution | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, or, unless Level B access is assigned to this role in the Access Security Matrix, those records automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to Social Security numbers by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. Access to HIV test results as permitted by s. 381.004(5)(c), F.S. Access to sexually transmitted disease results as permitted by s. 384.29(1), F.S. Access to birth certificates as permitted by ss. 382.013(5) and 382.025(1)(a)5, F.S. Access to mental health records as permitted by ss. 394.4615(3)(b), 394.4655(3)4)(c), and F.S. Access to identities of victims of sexual and child abuse when originating from law enforcement as permitted by s. 119.0714(1)(h), F.S. Access to children and families in need of services records as permitted by s.984.06(3), F.S. Access to juvenile records as permitted by ss. 39.0132(4)(a)(1) and 985.04(1)(b), F.S. | Secure access through username and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each state attorney must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
User Role 3 Attorneys of record | All records except those that are expunged or sealed; access may be denied to records or information automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1) Fla. R. Gen. Pract. & Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order, depending upon the type of case and the language of the court order. Access will be changed to Registered User when the attorney’s appearance is terminated in accordance with rule 2.505, Fla. R. Gen. Pract. & Jud. Admin.. | Secure access through username and password by written notarized agreement. The gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. |
User Role 4 Parties | All records in the party’s case except those that are expunged or sealed; access may be denied to information automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Gen. Pract. & Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order, depending upon case type and the language of the order. | Secure access on case-by-case basis. Access by notarized request to insure identity of party. |
User Role 5 Public in Clerks’ offices and Registered Users | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Gen. Pract. & Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Viewable on request remote access to images of records in cases governed by the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, or Florida Probate Rules, pursuant to s. 28.2221(5)(a), F.S. | Secure access through username and password or in person at Clerks’ offices. |
User Role 6 General government and constitutional officers | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, or, unless Level "B" access is assigned to this role in the Access Security Matrix, those records automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Gen. Pract. & Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. | Secure access through username and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each agency must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
User Role 7 General public (without registration agreement) | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Gen. Pract. & Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. No remote access to images of records in cases governed by the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, or Florida Probate Rules, pursuant to s. 28.2221(5)(a), F.S. | None. Anonymous web-based access permitted. |
User Role 8 Certified law enforcement officers of federal and Florida state and local law enforcement agencies, Florida Department of Corrections, and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, or, unless Level "B" access is assigned to this role in the Access Security Matrix, those records automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Gen. Pract. & Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. Access to HIV test results as permitted by ss. 381.004(2)(e), and 951.27 F.S. Access to sexually transmitted disease results as permitted by s. 384.29(1), F.S. Access to birth certificates as permitted by ss. 382.013(5) and 382.025(1)(a)5., F.S. Access to identities of victims of sexual and child abuse when originating from law enforcement as permitted by s. 119.0714(1)(h), F.S. Access to children and families in need of services records as permitted by s. 984.06(3), F.S. Access to juvenile records as permitted by ss. 39.0132(4)(a)(1) and 985.04(1)(b), F.S. | Secure access through username and password by written notarized agreement. The agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining an authorized user list. Each agency must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
User Role 9 Florida Attorney General’s Office and the Florida Department of Children and Families | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, or, unless Level "B" access is assigned to this role in the Access Security Matrix, those records automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Gen. Pract. & Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. Access to birth certificates as permitted by ss. 382.013(5) and 382.025(1)(a)5., F.S. Access to children and families in need of services records as permitted by s. 984.06(3), F.S. Access to juvenile records as permitted by ss. 39.0132(4)(a)(1) and 985.04(1)(b), F.S. | Secure access through username and password by written notarized agreement. The agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each agency must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
User Role 10 Florida School Districts (Truancy) | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, or, unless Level "B" access is assigned to this role in the Access Security Matrix, those records automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Gen. Pract. & Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by ss. 119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. Access to juvenile delinquency records as permitted by s. 985.04(1)(b), F.S. | Secure access through username and password by written notarized agreement. Agency gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each school district must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
User Role 11 Commercial purchasers of bulk records | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Gen. Pract. & Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. No remote access to images of records in cases governed by the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, Florida Rules of Juvenile procedure, or Florida Probate Rules, pursuant to s. 28.2221(5)(a), F.S. | Secure access through username and password by written notarized agreement. Commercial purchaser gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining an authorized user list. |
User Role 12 Florida Office of the Public Defender (Institutional Access only) | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, or, unless Level "B" access is assigned to this role in the Access Security Matrix, access may be denied to records or information automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Gen. Pract. & Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order, depending upon the type of case and the language of the court order. The Office of the Public Defender is considered the attorney of record at a defendant’s first appearance as permitted by s. 985.045(2) and rules 8.010 and 8.165, Fla. R. Juv. P. for juvenile defendants and s. 27.51 and rule 3.130, Fla. R. Crim. P. for adult defendants. Access will be changed to User Role 6 when the public defender is no longer the attorney of record or another attorney is assigned. | Secure access through username and password by written notarized agreement. The gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each public defender must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
User Role 13 Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel (Institutional Access only) | All records except those that are expunged or sealed; or, unless Level "B" access is assigned to this role in the Access Security Matrix, access may be denied to records or information automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Gen. Pract. & Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order, depending upon the type of case and the language of the court order. The Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel (OCCCRC) is considered the attorney of record at a party’s first appearance in civil proceedings listed in §27.511(6), F.S., and in criminal proceedings is entitled to appointment as attorney of record upon the Public Defender’s declaration of conflict in case types listed in §27.511(5), F.S. Access will be changed to User Role 6 when the OCCCRC is no longer the attorney of record or another attorney is assigned. | Secure access through username and password by written notarized agreement. The gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each regional counsel must establish written policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
User Role 14 Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office | All records except those that are expunged or sealed, or, unless Level "B" access is assigned to this role in the Access Security matrix, automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Gen. Pract. & Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order. Access to social security numbers as permitted by §§119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. Access to birth certificates as permitted by §§382.013(5) and 382.025(1)(a)5., F.S. Access to children and families in need of services records as permitted by §984.06(3), F.S. Access to juvenile records as permitted by §§ 39.0132(4)(a)(1) and 985.04(1)(b), F.S. Access for guardian ad litem appointed as permitted by §39.822, F.S. | Secure access through username and password by written notarized agreement. The gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. Each guardian ad litem must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in performance of their official duties. |
User Role 15 Justice Administrative Commission | All records except those that are expunged or sealed; or, unless Level “B” access is assigned to this role in the Access Security Matrix, access may be denied to records or information automatically confidential under rule 2.420(d)(1), Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin., or made confidential by court order, depending upon the type of case and the language of the court order. Access to Social Security numbers by §§119.071(5)(a)6.b. and 119.0714(1)(i), F.S. Access to HIV test results as permitted by §381.004(5)(c), F.S. Access to sexually transmitted disease results as permitted by §384.29(1), F.S. Access to birth certificates as permitted by §§382.013(5) and 382.025(1)(a)5, F.S. Access to mental health records as permitted by §§394.4615(3)(b), 394.4655(3)4)(c), and F.S. Access to identities of victims of sexual and child abuse when originating from law enforcement as permitted by §119.0714(1)(h), F.S. Access to children and families in need of services records as permitted by §984.06(3), F.S. Access to juvenile records as permitted by §§39.0132(4)(a)(1) and 985.04(1)(b), F.S. | Secure access through username and password by written notarized agreement. The gatekeeper is responsible for maintaining authorized user list. The justice administrative commission must establish policies to ensure that access to confidential records and information is limited to those individuals who require access in the performance of their official duties. |
ACCESS SECURITY MATRIX
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article V, section 9, of the Florida Constitution, and rules 2.240 and 2.241, Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration, the Supreme Court of Florida in In re: Redefinition of Appellate Districts and Certification of Need for Additional Appellate Judges, Case No. SC21-1543, determined that a sixth appellate district should be created in Florida, that accompanying changes should be made to the existing boundaries of certain other districts, and that seven new appellate judgeships were needed for the continued effective operation of the newly aligned district courts of appeal; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Article V, section 9, of the Florida Constitution, the Florida Legislature considered the Court’s recommendations and enacted Committee Substitute for House Bill 7027 (2022 Reg. Sess., Enrolled), which the Governor approved on June 2, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the establishment of an additional district court of appeal and the accompanying realignment of other appellate districts requires thoughtful planning and preparation in the State Courts System to ensure that the work of the appellate courts continues without undue disruption; and
WHEREAS, it is recognized that some matters related to establishment of an additional district court of appeal will be within the purview of the chief judges as chief administrative officers of the respective district court pursuant to rule 2.210, Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration, or a judge designated by the Chief Justice to serve as the interim chief administrative officer for the Sixth District Court of Appeal, while other matters will have implications across the court system and therefore warrant consistent application on a branch-wide basis; and
WHEREAS, matters related to establishment of an additional district court of appeal, including unanticipated issues that will no doubt arise during the course of establishment, will benefit from analysis by and insights from a group of district court judges and staff, even if ultimately determined to be within the purview of individual chief judges or a judge designated by the Chief Justice to serve as the interim chief administrative officer for the Sixth District Court of Appeal;
NOW THEREFORE, the Workgroup on the Implementation of an Additional District Court of Appeal is hereby established for the purpose of identifying and making recommendations on the various operational and fiscal matters that are necessary to ensure the ongoing effective and efficient functioning of Florida’s district courts of appeal through this transition, such as human resources; interim and permanent facilities; equipment; technology, security, fiscal, and administrative services; case processing and disposition; and interim governance issues.
The Workgroup may consult with other court system committees and justice system stakeholders as it deems necessary and appropriate. If the Workgroup identifies an issue that appears to be within the jurisdiction of another court system committee, it shall notify the chair of the other committee in writing with a copy to the Chief Justice and State Courts Administrator, for consideration if the other committee determines the matter is within the authority conferred upon it by rule or administrative order. The Workgroup may propose, for consideration by the Supreme Court, statutory changes and amendments to rules of court procedure related to the establishment of a sixth district court of appeal and the accompanying changes to the existing boundaries of certain other districts.
In order to respond quickly as issues arise relating to the realignment of Florida’s appellate courts, the Workgroup shall present its recommendations to the Chief Justice through the State Courts Administrator as they are developed. The Chief Justice will address issues, consistent with the Chief Justice’s authority as chief administrative officer for the judicial branch pursuant to rule 2.205, Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration, that are identified by the Workgroup or are otherwise identified. The Workgroup shall share in writing any of its recommendations on implementation actions that are determined to be exclusively within the authority of the chief judges or a judge designated by the Chief Justice to serve as the interim chief administrative officer for the Sixth District Court of Appeal with the respective judges for their assistance and consideration and provide a copy to the Chief Justice and State Courts Administrator.
Among other activities, the Workgroup shall:
1. Submit by August 19, 2022, a preliminary list of operational issues for which the Workgroup recommends consistent statewide implementation versus discretion in implementation by each district court of appeal pursuant to rule 2.210, Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration. The Workgroup may supplement these issues as necessary.
2. Submit by August 19, 2022, a recommended timeline for completion of critical operational activities in advance of the January 1, 2023, effective date of the district court boundary changes and new judgeships.
3. Submit no later than November 30, 2022, any recommendations that require action by the Supreme Court in advance of the January 1, 2023, effective date of the district court boundary changes and new judgeships.
The following persons are appointed to serve on the Workgroup for a term that expires on June 30, 2023:
Mr. Daniel DiGiacomo
Appellate Court Marshal
The Honorable Brian D. Lambert
Appellate Judge
The Honorable Robert Morris
Appellate Judge
Ms. Kristina Samuels
Appellate Court Clerk
The Honorable Meredith L. Sasso
Appellate Judge
The Honorable John K. Stargel
Appellate Judge
The Honorable Dan Traver
Appellate Judge
Additionally, the following persons are appointed to serve as ex officio non-voting members for a term that expires on June 30, 2023:
The Honorable Jonathan D. Gerber
Chair, Legislative Committee
Florida Conference of District Court of Appeal Judges
The Honorable Stevan Northcutt
Chair, Appellate Court Technology Committee
The Honorable L. Clayton Roberts
Chair, District Court of Appeal Budget Commission
Judge Sasso shall serve as Chair of the Workgroup. The Chair may establish ad hoc subgroups, not limited to members of the Workgroup, as necessary and to report back to the full Workgroup. Staff support shall be provided by the Office of the State Courts Administrator.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on June 7, 2022.
Chief Justice Charles T. Canady
John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court
Effective January 1, 2023, chapter 2022-163, Laws of Fla., authorizes a sixth district court of appeal; realigns the jurisdictional boundaries of the existing First, Second, and Fifth district courts of appeal; and authorizes seven new appellate judgeships. Under the law, the Fourth Judicial Circuit will move from the First District into the Fifth District; the Ninth Judicial Circuit will move from the Fifth District, and the Tenth and Twentieth judicial circuits will move from the Second District, forming the Sixth District; and the Sixth, Twelfth, and Thirteenth judicial circuits will remain in the Second District. The jurisdictional boundaries of the Third District and the Fourth District will not change.
The Workgroup on the Implementation of an Additional District Court of Appeal,1 in cooperation with the affected courts, is charged with making recommendations to the chief justice regarding implementation of the law. Consistent with the Workgroup’s recommendations, this administrative order prescribes procedures to effectuate an orderly transition from five to six appellate districts in Florida.
I. TRANSFER OF CASES FILED BEFORE JANUARY 1, 2023
A. Vesting of Jurisdiction. Pursuant to chapter 2022-163, Laws of Fla., as of 12:01 a.m. on January 1, 2023, jurisdiction of all matters pending in the First District that originated in the Fourth Judicial Circuit shall vest in the Fifth District, and jurisdiction of all matters pending in the Fifth District and the Second District that originated from the Ninth, Tenth, and Twentieth judicial circuits shall vest in the Sixth District.
B. Transfer of Cases. The chief judges of the First, Second, and Fifth district courts of appeal shall implement procedures for the orderly transfer of pending cases originating from judicial circuits that are transitioning from one appellate district court to another. Effective January 1, 2023, the First District shall transfer to the Fifth District any pending cases originating from the Fourth Judicial Circuit; the Second District shall transfer to the Sixth District any pending cases originating from the Tenth and Twentieth judicial circuits; and the Fifth District shall transfer to the Sixth District any pending cases originating from the Ninth Judicial Circuit. The transferring court shall issue in each case being transferred an order of transfer that the clerk shall serve on all parties and on the clerk of the lower tribunal, if any, in which the cause originated. The clerk of the district court receiving a transferred case shall serve on the parties and on the clerk of the lower tribunal, if any, an acknowledgment letter or order in each case. Any subsequent filings in a case that has been transferred shall be filed with the clerk of the receiving court using the new case number identified on the acknowledgment letter or order.
II. FILING OF NEW CASES ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2023
Effective January 1, 2023, all new matters properly within the jurisdiction of a district court of appeal which originate from the Fourth Judicial Circuit must be filed with the Fifth District, and all new matters that originate from the Ninth Judicial Circuit, the Tenth Judicial Circuit, or the Twentieth Judicial Circuit must be filed with the Sixth District. The current mailing address for the clerk of the Sixth District is 811 East Main Street, Lakeland, Florida, 33801. The current mailing address for the clerk of the Second District is 1700 North Tampa Street, Suite 300, Tampa, Florida, 33602.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on November 1, 2022.
Chief Justice Carlos G. Muniz
John Tomasino, Clerk of Court
1. In re: Workgroup on the Implementation of an Additional District Court of Appeal, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC22-18 (June 7, 2022).