Page | 1
AGENDA
Florida Courts Technology Commission (FCTC) Meeting
Tallahassee Community College (TCC) Capitol Center
300 West Pensacola Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Access Governance Board
Thursday, May 5, 2016 9:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.
TCC Capitol Center
Conference Room 114 FCTC/RJA Joint Workgroup
Thursday, May 5, 2016 10:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
TCC Capitol Center
Conference Room 114 Judicial Review Workgroup
Thursday, May 5, 2016 10:30 p.m. – 12:00 p.m. TCC Capitol Center Conference Room 111 CCIS Subcommittee Thursday, May 5, 2016 1:30 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. TCC Capitol Center Conference Room 111 Portal Subcommittee Thursday, May 5, 2016 2:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. TCC Capitol Center Conference Room 111 FCTC Meeting:
Friday, May 6, 2016 9:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.
TCC Capitol Center
Conference Rooms, 111 & 114
I. Welcome – Judge Lisa Munyon, FCTC Chair
a. Roll call and introduction of guests
II. Approval of November Minutes
a. Motion to approve the minutes from the February 11, 2016 meeting of the Florida Courts Technology Commission as emailed to the Commission on April 6, 2016.
III. FCTC Action Summary
a. Motion to approve the list of action items from the February 11, 2016 meeting of the Florida Courts Technology Commission.
IV. Court Application Processing System (CAPS) Update – Alan Neubauer
a. CAPS viewer progress report
b. CAPS viewer implementation timeline
V. A2J Gateway Triage Pilot Project – Jim Kowalski
a. Chief Justice Letter on Triage Gateway Pilot Project b. Statewide Triaging Gateway Presentation
VI. Portal Progress Reports – Carolyn Weber
a. E-filing progress report b. Service desk report
Page | 2
VIII. Standards for Third Party Vendors Update– Carolyn Weber IX. Appellate Portal Interface Update – John Tomasino
X. Portal Subcommittee Update – Judge Bidwill
a. E-filing search warrant returns b. Criminal case initiation
c. Proposed rule for web service d. Request to update E-File date stamp e. Notification of filings by pro se filers
XI. DOC Joint Workgroup Update – Judge Bidwill
XII. Judicial Review Workgroup Update– Judge Gagliardi XIII. Interpreter Data Workgroup Update – Tom Genung XIV. CCIS Subcommittee Update – Judge Perkins
XV. Access Governance Board Update – Judge Hilliard
a. Approval of counties to begin implementation of their online electronic records access system b. Monroe County request to withdraw their Online Electronic Records Access application c. Odyssey Counties request for an extension to implement docket numbering
XVI. Data Exchange Workgroup Update – Robert Adelardi
a. Draft Data Exchange Standards
b. CCIS Documentation
XVII. Document Storage Workgroup Update – Steve Shaw XVIII. Technical Standards Subcommittee Update– Jannet Lewis
a. Updating the Integration & Interoperability document
XIX. Electronic Notary and Certification – Mike Smith
XX. Standards Consolidation Workgroup Update – Jannet Lewis XXI. FCTC/RJA Joint Workgroup Update – Murray Silverstein XXII. Other Items/Wrap up
Agenda Item II.
Approval of
Page 1 of 13
Florida Courts Technology Commission Meeting
FCTC Action Items/Summary of Motions
February 11, 2016
A meeting of the Florida Courts Technology Commission was held at the Orange County Courthouse in Orlando, Florida on February 11, 2016. The meeting convened at 9:00 A.M., Chair Judge Lisa T. Munyon presiding.
Members of the Commission in attendance
Judge Lisa T. Munyon, Chair, 9th Circuit Judge Robert Hilliard, Santa Rosa County
Judge Martin Bidwill, 17th Circuit Judge Ronald Ficarrotta, 13th Circuit
Judge Josephine Gagliardi, Lee County Judge Scott Stephens, 13th Circuit
Judge Terence Perkins, 7th Circuit Murray Silverstein, Esq., Tampa
Judge Stevan Northcutt, 2nd DCA Laird Lile, Esq., Naples
Thomas Genung, Trial Court Administrator, 19th Circuit Jannet Lewis, CTO, 10th Circuit
Matt Benefiel, Trial Court Administrator, 9th Circuit Mary Cay Blanks, Clerk of Court, 3rd DCA
Sandra Lonergan, Trial Court Administrator, 11th Circuit Ken Nelson, CTO, 6th Circuit
David Ellspermann, Clerk of Court, Marion County Christina Blakeslee, CTO, 13th Circuit
Sharon Bock, Clerk of Court, Palm Beach County John M. Stewart, Esq., Vero Beach Karen Rushing, Clerk of Court, Sarasota County Elisa Miller, Akerman LLP
Jim Kowalski, Jr., Esq., Jacksonville Area Legal Aid (JALA)
Members not in attendance
Judge C. Alan Lawson, 5th DCA Tanya Jackson, Adam Street Advocates
OSCA and Supreme Court Staff in attendance
John Tomasino, Clerk of the Supreme Court Alan Neubauer
Jeannine Moore Lakisha Hall
Other Attendees
Steve Shaw, CTO, 19th Circuit Craig McLean, CIO, 20th Circuit
Dennis Menendez, CIO, 12th Circuit Terry Rodgers, CTO, 5th Circuit
Mike Smith, CTO, 4th Circuit Fred Buhl, CTO, 8th Circuit
Robert Adelardi, CTO, 11th Circuit Ernie Nardo, Broward County Clerk of Court
Jon Lin, Trial court Administrator, 5th Circuit Thomas Morris, State Attorney, 8th Circuit
Paul Regensdorf, Esq., Jacksonville James Purdy, Public Defenders Association Tyler Winik, Brevard County Clerk of Court Justin Horan, Clay County Clerk of Court Tom Hall, Florida Court Clerks and Comptrollers Douglas Bakke, Hillsborough Clerk of Court Christopher Campbell, Florida Court Clerks and Carolyn Weber, Florida Court Clerks and
Comptrollers Comptrollers
Melvin Cox, Florida Court Clerks and Comptrollers Brent Holliday, Lake County Clerk of Court Repps Galusha, Orange County Clerk of Court Doris Maitland, Lee County Clerk of Court
Page 2 of 13
Toni Bleiweiss, Lee County Clerk of Court Jeff Taylor, Manatee County Clerk of Court Angel Colonneso, Manatee County Clerk of Court Kim Stenger, Polk County Clerk of Court David Winiecki, Sarasota County Clerk of Court Michael Phelps, Polk County Clerk of Court Laurie Reaves, Miami-Dade County Clerk of Court Gerald Cates, Duval County Clerk of Court Amy Borman, 15th Circuit Carol LoCicero, Thomas & LoCicero
Nancy Owens, Thomson Reuters
The meeting began with Judge Munyon welcoming the commission members and other participants to the meeting. She called the meeting to order advising everyone that the meeting was being recorded. The roll was taken with a quorum present.
AGENDA ITEM II. Approval of November Minutes
Tom Hall noted throughout the minutes the Portal is referred to as “e-portal” and should be changed to reflect the “Portal.” Judge Munyon stated the change will be reflected in the minutes before posting on the court’s website and will refer to the “Portal” in the future.
Motion to approve the minutes from the November 19, 2015 meeting of the Florida Courts Technology Commission with the correction of e-portal reflected as Portal throughout summary.
MOTION OFFERED: Tom Genung
MOTION SECONDED: Judge Josephine Gagliardi MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
AGENDA ITEM III. FCTC Approved Items from November 2015 meeting
Motion to accept the Florida Courts Technology Commission’s Approval Items from the November 19, 2015 meeting.
MOTION OFFERED: Tom Genung
MOTION SECONDED: Christina Blakeslee MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
AGENDA ITEM IV. Court Application Processing System (CAPS) Update
a. Alan Neubauer gave an update on the CAPS implementation timeline. Fifty-three counties have a
CAPS viewer implemented in the civil and/or criminal divisions. Ten counties have reported that they will have a CAPS viewer implemented by June 2016. The remaining four counties have reported that they will have a CAPS viewer implemented by December 2016. Alan noted the implementation dates are approximate and are subject to change due to available resources.
AGENDA ITEM V. Portal/e-Filing Progress Report
a. Carolyn Weber discussed the Portal usage statistics. In the month of January, there were 1,117,278
Page 3 of 13
was January 26, 2016, with 59,552 documents submitted. It took approximately 1.3 days for a document to be approved by a clerk and reach the docket. There was a slight increase in average days to docket for November and December 2015 with holidays in those months. Approximately 1.91% of filings were returned to the filer for correction. Attorneys embody the largest filer role on the Portal with 67,758 accounts and self-represented litigants continue to grow with 30,526
accounts. Carolyn referred everyone to the documents in the materials that outline the remaining filer accounts. Roughly 21,490 submissions were in the pending queue for returns to the filer. Of those returns, only 1.93% were by attorneys, while 8.66% were by self-represented litigants. As for criminal e-filing, the 6th Circuit in Pasco County was extended till July 1, 2016. The Portal Projects
Team is continuing to implement the remaining State Attorneys and Public Defenders, as well as working with law enforcement and third party vendors to allow bulk e-filing. Release of version 2016.01 is scheduled for production on April 15, 2016 and will include submitting proposed orders, e-service to judges and third party vendors. In addition, the team is working with the Department of Corrections (DOC) to assist them with saving the documents submitted by the counties to their data management system and is adding the approved A2J interviews to the Portal to assist the Self-Represented Litigants with creating their documents. Carolyn gave a brief update on judicial e-filing implementation and referred to the documents in the materials that outline the counties and circuits along with the number of judicial filings. Mary Cay Blanks pointed out the high percentage of submissions returned to the pending queue for State Agents. Carolyn explained they are a fairly new filer role and not familiar with the Portal. Mary Cay inquired further on capturing statistics on the reasons documents are returned to the pending queue. Carolyn explained that is a free-text field used by the Clerks and cannot be captured. Laird Lile added that it would be beneficial to capture another statistic reporting on how many returned submissions were resolved by the filer. Carolyn noted filers have requested to be able to delete submissions that go back to the pending queue. The filers prefer not to correct the document but go back and re-file the document. Allowing the filers to delete the submissions that go back to the pending queue may be a way to capture the statistics. Karen Rushing mentioned ensuring compliance with the public record requirements. If the filing takes place at the Portal, then you can’t un-file a document. Judge Munyon referenced her signed orders, are not actually rendered until the Clerk accepts them. The pending queue documents have not been accepted by the clerk. Mary Cay brought up the previous day’s discussion on pending queue documents sent for judicial review process and no public record of these documents being accounted for. Murray Silverstein pointed out the various filer roles, other than attorneys, self-represented litigants, clerks and judges that do not have a legal impact on any of their filings. Laird alerted to the pending queue documents that are considered public record. Judge Bidwill commented on the Portal subcommittee’s creation of a study group that will be analyzing the routing practices of the pending queue and the judicial review process by the clerks’ offices around the state, for consistency with the rule.
b. Carolyn gave an update on the Portal service desk statistics. The service desk takes calls regarding
customer service incidents along with technical and system support incidents. Roughly 2,852 customer service incidents were received during January 2016. Of that total, 9 were from judges, 274 were from pro se filers and 2,569 were from attorneys. On average, it took 48 minutes to respond to an incident and 1 hour and 28 minutes to resolve an incident. Roughly 542
Page 4 of 13
minutes to respond to an incident and 3 hours and 11 minutes to resolve an incident. Carolyn displayed the top 10 types of incidents the service desk received from attorneys, judges and pro se filers.
AGENDA ITEM VI. Appellate Portal Interface Update
John Tomasino gave a brief update on the Appellate Portal Interface. OSCA staff have begun discussions with the 1st District Court of Appeal and FCCC staff. Meetings are on-going and further
updates will be provided at the next FCTC meeting.
AGENDA ITEM VII. DIY Florida Update (informational item)
Judge Munyon gave an informational report on the Do If Yourself (DIY) Florida Project, on behalf of Blan Teagle. DIY Florida is a Supreme Court approved initiative, currently monitored by the Access Workgroup of the Judicial Management Council (JMC). The purpose is to provide self-represented litigants the ability to create their own pleadings and other court documents for certain limited case types using A2 J document assembly software. OSCA staff was tasked by the Court with an
Implementation Plan and asked to work with relevant Florida Bar groups, who have substantive
expertise as well as the FCCC, which has the software and programming capability to complete and program the automated interviews. The A2J document assembly software is somewhat like TurboTax for courts that enables self-represented litigants to construct documents suitable for filing. On
November 5, 2015, OSCA provided the FCCC with programming instructions for the Small Claims (money lent) process and the process for Dissolution of Marriage with no minor children and no property. Programming instructions for the Landlord Tenant process were held back because tenant interviews were being developed by the Housing Umbrella Group (HUG) and the Public Interest Law Section (PILS) of The Florida Bar. On January 22, 2016, OSCA staff and FCCC staff met via WebEx to walk through the Small Claims (money lent) interview process. A few additional programming changes were identified and some clarification was requested by the FCCC. On February 1, 2016, OSCA staff received the interview process developed by the HUG and PILS for the tenant response. This interview process is now under review by a group of county judges with subject matter expertise. On February 8, 2016, OSCA staff and the FCCC staff met via WebEx, along with the chair of the family law forms
workgroup, to walk through the interview for a dissolution of marriage with no minor children and no property. Again, a few additional programming changes were identified and OSCA and FCCC staff plan to meet again next week to revisit the interview. They anticipate that in the near future the Supreme Court will consider the three FCTC recommendations that were made at the November FCTC meeting. Sharon Bock inquired on the JMC Implementation Plan that was discussed at the November FCTC meeting. Sharon reminded everyone that the Implementation Plan is how the creation of the interview questions is moved to actual implementation. Judge Munyon responded that the FCTC recommended the changes to the Implementation Plan via a letter to the Court and action from the Court is still pending regarding those recommendations. Sharon referenced the Consolidated Pro Se Committee and questioned the FCTC's role in the Implementation Plan. Judge Munyon explained one of the FCTC recommendations to the Court was after the interview questions have been vetted by the JMC, all requests to move the interview questions into production should be submitted to the FCTC for technical review and final approval of the process to the Supreme Court. The FCTC will await the Court’s decision on the recommendation to determine FCTC’s role. Sharon stated some of the
Page 5 of 13
interview questions are expanding beyond the Supreme Court approved forms. Judge Munyon stated this concern was pointed out in her letter to the Court, and she requested direction from the Court to determine if these system generated documents should go through the same rules process as
traditional forms. Murray encouraged the Consolidated Pro Se Committee to reach out to the Florida Bar rule committees on the expansion of the Supreme Court forms.
Carolyn Weber presented a demonstration of the A2J software. The software can be tested at https://test.myflcourtaccess.com. To generate a DIY document, the link will bring up the three different interviews that the FCCC has been working on. For demonstration purposes, Carolyn went through the small claims complaint interview. Carolyn explained the questions and the links for the filers at each step. The links throughout the interview process assist the filers with more information. The links will open in a separate tab so the filer can return to their place in the application. The
responses to the questions and party information will populate the information on the form, as well as create all the data elements the Portal needs for a new case initiation. When the form is generated and submitted to the Portal, all the information will be pre-populated on the screens, prior to the filing process. Carolyn added that the Portal will have links to a self-represented user manual as well as training videos. The self-represented filers will be able to save and exit throughout the interview process and their workbench will house their filings so they can resume the process. Tom Hall noted the save and exit feature was an improvement that the FCCC added, as this functionality could not be performed in the original A2J software.
AGENDA ITEM VIII. CCIS Subcommittee Update
Judge Perkins discussed the objective of the CCIS Subcommittee. The subcommittee was assigned with configuring a way to use the court’s current technology to identify related parties in Unified Family Court litigation. Judge Perkins noted the broader application of related party alerts beyond Unified Family Court, as well as on a statewide level. The subcommittee determined CCIS 3.0 has the greatest potential to provide the related party information on a statewide basis. A Related Party workgroup was formed to determine what is currently being captured on forms or filings of any type and what is required to provide the related case information. The workgroup is currently working with the Clerks to determine how the required data elements can be captured in the various CMS. Judge Perkins explained once this information is obtained the subcommittee will look at how to get the information into CCIS 3.0 and bring the information to the CAPS viewers for the judge or case manager to view the related case information. Tom Genung said some time ago the FCTC Data Elements Workgroup developed the approved electronic filing data elements for civil, criminal, and traffic divisions. These data elements are captured in the XML (Extensible Markup Language) envelope. You can find a list of the approved data elements on the Florida Courts E-filing page http://flcourts.org/resources-and-services/court-technology/efiling/. These data elements may assist the subcommittee in their research of related case information.
AGENDA ITEM IX. Portal Subcommittee Update
a. Judge Bidwill discussed the progress of law enforcement agencies submitting search warrant
returns electronically. A local workgroup in Broward County met to determine if electronic issuance of search warrants can be expanded around the state for a statewide approach. The
Page 6 of 13
challenge is there is not a uniform case number in the Portal to file to an existing case. An initiation of a separate type of case number for warrants would have to be done. The subcommittee formed a workgroup consisting of clerks, law enforcement and court representatives to develop a uniform approach to submitting search warrants electronically.
b. Judge Bidwill explained the request from the public defenders and state attorneys to establish a
method of utilizing a web service to download the documents from the Portal they receive by e-service, instead of via email. Tom Morris and Nichole Hanscom will draft a proposed rule change and present at the next subcommittee meeting.
c. This agenda item was discussed earlier under the e-filing progress report. (Agenda Item V. a.)
Judge Bidwill added that the judicial review workgroup will be proposing a revised standard on the process if necessary.
AGENDA ITEM X. DOC Portal Workgroup Update
Judge Bidwill explained the formation of this workgroup was to determine any benefits of improving efficiencies between the Department of Corrections and the Court. An in-person meeting is scheduled for April 19, 2016 in Tallahassee. The subcommittee will discuss submitting electronic proposed violation of probation affidavits and warrants; the subsequent return of any approved warrants
electronically sent back to the DOC and the Clerk; and the possibility of setting up some type of system in the facilities to allow pro se filers to submit filings electronically.
AGENDA ITEM XI. Standards for Third Party Vendors
Carolyn Weber advised the standards are currently in draft format to permit third party vendors to write their application to connect to the Portal. The functionality is currently available in the Q&A environment and they are working with two vendors to ensure the standards are sufficient. Once the standards are finalized they will be presented to the E-Filing Authority Board for approval and the functionality will be included in the Portal 2016.01 release. The standards will be posted and available on the Board’s webpage prior to the April 2016 release.
AGENDA ITEM XII. Proposed Order Workgroup Update
Judge Bidwill stated the proposed order functionality is included in the upcoming release and called on Carolyn Weber to explain how a circuit would request to utilize this functionality. Carolyn explained they are currently working with the 8th Circuit and Mentis on technical standards to ensure the flow
process and statuses are returned. Once specifications are completed and finalized they will be
available to all the vendors who want to pull that information into their viewers. This functionality will allow the circuits to process the proposed orders through the CAPS viewers and then send the
proposed orders back to the Portal or CMS. Again, these specifications will be finalized and available prior to the April 2016 release. Judge Munyon requested a demo of the proposed order process at the next FCTC meeting. Carolyn stated she can give a demo in a test environment if a circuit or county has requested to utilize the functionality. Karen Rushing expressed the Florida Bar’s concern on the policies set by the court as it relates to these proposed orders and inquired on the Court’s
encouragement to utilize this functionality for statewide uniformity. Judge Munyon replied that she does not feel the Court will require judges to process proposed orders this way until the CAPS viewers
Page 7 of 13
are fully implemented and have the ability to e-file orders. Murray concurred with Karen on statewide uniformity.
AGENDA ITEM XIII. Interpreter Data Workgroup Update
Tom Genung discussed the importance of capturing interpreter language up front and the current civil litigation in the 7th circuit regarding providing language services in court proceedings. The workgroup
is currently gathering survey responses from the Clerks to determine if the CMS currently capture the interpreter data information in all case types. Of the 67 counties, 35 counties are currently capturing the interpreter data in all case types; 3 counties are capturing the interpreter data in some case types and 17 counties are not capturing the interpreter data at all. We are awaiting responses from 12 counties and working with the chief judges and court administrators to assist with submitting responses. Benchmark, Odyssey and Showcase capture if an interpreter is required. Clericus can capture the spoken language on each demographic record and has the ability to add a party to the case entitled, “Interpreter.” Once the responses have been finalized, the workgroup will begin to analyze the systems to determine the modifications necessary to capture the interpreter data and the costs involved. The CAPS viewers would require modifications on the ability to pull the information from the CMS for court administrators to run reports on language needs prior to court proceedings. Tom
further added, long term solutions would require Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) integration with the Clerks CMS to capture the interpreter data up front.
AGENDA ITEM XIV. Docket Code Workgroup Update
Karen Rushing gave a brief report on the Court Clerks Best Practices Workgroup that issued a best practice report on December 8, 2015 and was adopted by the Executive Committee of the FCCC on December 10, 2015. A timeline was not imposed on the clerks to implement because the Clerks are currently focusing on implementing their online electronic records access systems and upgrading to CCIS 3.0. Karen said changes made to the Portal that no longer require the drop down menus, along with the added search box, has minimized the concern with standardized docket codes.
AGENDA ITEM XV. Access Governance Board Update
Judge Hilliard referred to the documents in the meeting materials on the approval of counties to begin implementation of their online electronic records access system.
Motion to approve the Access Governance Board’s recommendation that the forty-eight Clerks of Court who submitted a certification request to the Office of the State Courts Administrator move their online electronic records access system from the pilot phase into production and to
discontinue the submission of monthly progress reports be approved. Within 90 days from the Court’s approval, the clerk must implement their access system in accordance with AOSC14-19 (amended May 23, 2014) and AOSC15-18.
MOTION OFFERED: Judge Robert Hilliard MOTION SECONDED: Tom Genung MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Page 8 of 13 Judge Hilliard stated Monroe County submitted a letter requesting an extension to begin the
90-day public access pilot project.
Motion to approve the recommendation from the Access Governance Board to grant Monroe County’s extension request for an additional 120 days to begin their 90-day public access pilot program.
MOTION OFFERED: David Ellspermann MOTION SECONDED: Tom Genung MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Judge Hilliard informed the members that the Public Defenders Association and the Department of Corrections have requested to have a user role added to the Standards for Access to Electronic
Court Records and the Access Security Matrix. Nichole Hanscom discussed the public defenders
role on access to electronic records for clients that they are expected to counsel and provide guidance to. The proposed public defenders Access Security Matrix is supported by the Rules of Judicial Administration as well as Florida Statutes.
Motion to approve the Access Governance Board’s recommendation that the Office of the Public Defender have a defined role added to the AO 15-18 Access Security Matrix. The public defender’s office would be added to the matrix as User Role 12, designating them as attorney of record by default in specific case types allowed by statutes until such time as they are no longer counsel of record or other counsel is assigned.
Standards submitted by the public defender will be adopted with the following changes. Public defenders will be granted access, as the Attorney of Record, to all defined case types where the statute defines them and grants them party access where the public defender is specifically assigned or no attorney has been assigned. As cases are newly created, the Public Defender will be granted access as an Attorney of Record by default on all statutorily defined case types. Access will then be changed to General Government and Constitutional Officers when the public defender is no longer counsel of record or another attorney is assigned. Each public defender’s office 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.
MOTION OFFERED: David Ellspermann MOTION SECONDED: Tom Genung MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Judge Munyon commented that the FCTC will prepare a letter to the Supreme Court requesting
approval of the forty-eight clerks to implement their online electronic records access system, as well as adding a public defender user role to the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records and the
Page 9 of 13
The DOC request is under consideration by the Access Governance Board and will be deferred until the next FCTC meeting.
AGENDA ITEM XVI. Data Exchange Workgroup Update
Robert Adelardi stated the proposed data exchange standards as well as the CCIS documentation is available for review on the Florida Courts Technology Standards webpage
http://flcourts.org/resources-and-services/court-technology/technology-standards.stml. Robert reached out to vendors and interested parties to provide feedback on the proposed standards by March 18, 2016. Once feedback has been summarized and concerns addressed, the workgroup should be ready to move forward with the presentation of the proposed standards at the next FCTC meeting.
AGENDA ITEM XVII. Document Storage Workgroup Update
Steve Shaw discussed the previous meetings with Mentis to acquire their view of PDF redaction. As the Court emerges down the path from TIFF to PDF, the workgroup has identified different hurdles in the workflow processes as with signatures and timestamps. In addition, the workgroup has met with Creative Solutions Inc. (CSI), Adobe’s engineering staff and Steve Levenson, to address some of the technologies that the workgroup is trying to develop solutions for. In March 2016, the workgroup will be meeting to discuss redefining the cost of moving from TIFF storage to PDF storage and should be able to propose some standard changes to simplify the process. The Florida Bar is continuing to move forward on their l initiative of educating attorneys on PDF’s.
AGENDA ITEM XVIII. Standards Consolidation Workgroup Update
Jannet Lewis said the workgroup is making progress and is continuing to review the portions of the Florida Bar rules that deal with technology standards. Presently, many sections of the standards are being updated; therefore, there are no requested changes at this time. One of the benefits of having the consolidated standards was to have the ability to search the document and the use of discreet hyperlinks. In order for the hyperlinks to be maintained properly, official repositories will need to be established for the referenced materials.
Motion to approve the Standards Consolidation Workgroup recommendation that official
repositories of referenced information in the Consolidated Standards be established for consistency, reliability, and accuracy. Whereby: The master copy of the standards shall be hosted and
maintained by the OSCA; The master copy of the Supreme Court Orders shall be hosted and
maintained by the Supreme Court Clerk of Court; Request that the Florida Bar host the master copy of the court rules; Establish that the master copy of the statutes shall be referenced on the
Legislature’s On-Line Sunshine website.
MOTION OFFERED: Jannet Lewis
MOTION SECONDED: Murray Silverstein MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Page 10 of 13
AGENDA ITEM XIX. FCTC/RJA Joint Workgroup Update
Murray Silverstein referenced the report sent to the members via email that included current actions and recommendations from the joint workgroup. The role of the workgroup has expanded beyond the comparison of the technology standards and the Rules of Judicial Administration. The workgroup was created to enhance greater collaboration in areas in which the Rules of Judicial Administration overlap technology standards in order to promote the full and effective implementation of a uniform,
statewide digital court system, inclusive of electronic filing, e-service, document retention, and full access to judicial branch records free of confidential, exempt or sensitive information. Murray gave a high-level overview of the workgroup’s recommendations.
Website - The FCTC does not have an actual website, but instead a series of pages on the Court Technology portion of the Florida Courts website. The Joint Workgroup recommends that the FCTC have and maintain its own website.
Hyperlink to Official Locations – In conjunction with the Consolidated Standards Workgroup recommendation on an established repository for referenced materials in the consolidated
standards, the Joint Workgroup further recommends an established repository location for Rules of Court, Technology Standards, and Administrative Orders. In addition, the official repository also bear responsibility to ensure the information is kept current and reliable.
Service by the Portal – With rule 2.516 being amended by the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee (RJAC), the workgroup suggests that the technology standard 3.1.7 Electronic
Notification of Receipt be updated and revised to reflect that the Portal’s “notification” of receipt now actually effects service of process, under rule 2.516.
CAPS – The Joint Workgroup has not recommended any substantive changes to this part, although the workgroup suggests that the CAPS provisions be streamlined, revised for greater understanding and readability, while also being brought current with other changes presently being considered.
a) Murray continued with the current confidentiality certifications on the Portal that are based on
Standard 3.1.18, Documents Exempt from Public Access. This provision was created for the purpose of attempting to effect compliance with rules 2.420 (confidentiality) and 2.425 (minimization). Rule 2.515 is currently being amended so that lawyers and self-represented filers are held to the same
certifications of the rule, that contains no confidential or sensitive information, as well as certifications for ADA compliance.
Motion to approve the Joint Workgroup’s recommendation for the elimination of the 3 “radio buttons” as part of the filing through the Portal and instead propose the suggested Portal warning language to include hyperlinking to the noted rules and confidential form. WARNING: As an attorney or self-represented filer, you are responsible to protect confidential information under Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.420 and 2.425. Before you file, please ensure that you have complied with these rules, including the need to complete a Notice of Confidential Information form or motion required under Rule 2.420 regarding confidential information. Your failure to
comply with these rules may subject you to sanctions.
MOTION OFFERED: Laird Lile
Page 11 of 13
Paul Regensdorf had concerns with removing the certification buttons and did not feel it would enhance attorney compliance with filing the Notice of Confidential Information form.
MOTION CARRIED
Portal Attachment Size – Rules 2.515 (service) and 2.525 (e-filing) include limitations on the megabyte (MB) size of attachments. The e-service rule does not technically interface with filings through the Portal but contains technical limitations in rule 2.525, of 5 MB. Carolyn explained on the current submission file size, a request to increase it from the current 25 MB per filing
submission to 50 MB. The second file size limitation has to do with providing service through the Portal. Rule 2.516 limits the PDF that can be attached to provide service, to no more than 5 MB in size, including the email. Therefore, increasing the file size of the document attached to the email, from 5 MB to 10 MB is requested.
Motion to approve the Joint Workgroup’s recommendation on the following process regarding filing and service size limitations:
RJAC present for committee approval, on an expedited basis effective prior to the Portal’s
next April 2016 release, a rule amendment to rules 2.516 and 2.525 to eliminate any reference to filing or service size limitations for documents or attachments, with the rule referring expressly to the applicable standards;
Florida Supreme Court Technology Standards 3.1.1 (size of filing) and 3.1.17 (Exhibits) be
amended immediately, in anticipation of favorable action by the RJAC, Board of Governors (BOG) and the Supreme Court, to increase the “single submission/single session” filing size limitation to 50 MB;
On an interim basis, that the Florida Supreme Court enter an administrative order making this
change until a full rule amendment can be effectuated.
MOTION OFFERED: Murray Silverstein MOTION SECONDED: Mary Cay Blanks
Paul commented on the proposed email attachment limitation change from 5 MB to 10 MB. He believes the FCTC should ensure attorney’s email servers can handle the increased limitation. Paul further inquired on eliminating the filing and service size limitation. In the interim, will lawyers know where to go to find the size limit? Murray stated once the rule is amended and the size limitation is deleted, attorneys will be referred to the Florida Supreme Court Technology Standards, 3.1.1 and 3.1.17. The various websites that will include rules and standards on them will be multi-directional and point practitioners back and forth. Paul suggested referencing the Florida Courts Technology
Standards webpage if the rule is going to tell attorneys what to look for. Alan explained how the FCTC website can be given its own URL address i.e., www.FCTC.flcourts.org, and can be linked directly to the FCTC webpage. This would allow direct access to the FCTC webpage instead of navigating the
FLCOURTS webpages. Chris Blakeslee commented that the FLCOURTS website was set up to include all the commissions of the Supreme Court, per the direction of the Court. Alan Neubauer spoke on the email component of documents and attachments being increased to 10 MB. A survey was done on the
Page 12 of 13
publically available and private email systems as well as their configuration, and 10 MB was within the realm of acceptable sizes.
MOTION CARRIED
b) Murray discussed Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 12-2. The Professional Ethics Committee was asked by the
Board of Governors to issue a formal opinion on whether lawyers may permit supervised nonlawyers to use the lawyer’s access credentials, for filing documents to the court via the Portal. Currently, the Portal permits only lawyers to obtain a user name and password for filing and allows nonlawyers, who are supervised by the lawyer, to file documents electronically on the lawyer’s behalf. Murray inquired as to the third-party vendors now having rights to file through the Portal, can you delegate the
authority to a third-party service provider, without using your credentials. It has been determined through a series of interfaces, signals are transmitted from the attorney’s server to the third-party server. The third-party server takes the embedded security information, within the documents and flips it to the Portal. With numerous concerns and questions over legalities, the lawyer remains responsible for entrusting their credentials to a third-party vendor. Laird commented on behalf of John Stewart, the BOG will be addressing Ethics Opinion 12-2.
c) For informational purposes, Murray summarized the previous FCTC referrals and gave a highlighted
overview on the current actions of the RJAC.
ADA Compliance Certification - the RJAC adopted their Subcommittee C’s recommendation that rule 2.515 be amended to include the added certification by the attorney. The approved amendment must now be approved by the BOG and then presented to the Court as part of the Bar’s 3-year cycle amendments.
Judicial E-Signatures – the RJAC’s Subcommittee C presented its report on the use of electronic signatures by judges, as well as the FCTC’s concern over Standard 5.4.1 without an authorizing court rule. As a result, the Subcommittee recommended creation of a new rule 2.455 (Judicial Signatures). Due to rule 2.515 undergoing analysis and possible amendment, new
consideration is being given to include judicial e-signatures in the revised rule 2.515, rather than creation of a separate rule.
Retention of Paper Documents – This referral was to determine whether the list of documents required to be retained in paper, in rule 3.030 could be reduced, with a similar consideration given to the list of documents to be retained in paper, in rule 5.043. The RJAC determined the need to elicit the expertise of those criminal law and estate/probate law practitioners to analyze the ability to dramatically reduce or eliminate the retention of any paper documents.
AGENDA ITEM XX. Retention of Paper Documents
Tom Genung pointed out concerns by the Clerks that many of the rules dealing with the retention of court records are for paper documents. He was tasked with assessing the court administrators to determine if a revision of the retention schedule is required for digitized format. The TCA’s overwhelmingly agreed that the records retention schedule did not need any changes, in light of electronic documents, and it was clear that retention periods should not be increased.
Page 13 of 13
AGENDA ITEM XXI. Other Items/Wrap Up
Judge Munyon advised everyone the next FCTC meeting is scheduled for May 5-6, 2016 in Tallahassee. She noted, with Judge George Reynolds retirement in June and his many years contributing to the Commission, she would like to recognize him at the May meeting.
Motion to adjourn the FCTC meeting.
MOTION OFFERED: Murray Silverstein MOTION SECONDED: Laird Lile
Agenda Item III.
Approval of February
Action Summary
Page 1 of 3
FCTC
Action Summary
February 2016
FCTC approved a motion to recommend to the Supreme Court that the following Clerks of Court who submitted a certification request move their online electronic records access system from the pilot phase into production and to discontinue the submission of monthly progress reports be approved. Within 90 days from the Court’s approval, the clerk must implement their access system in
accordance with AOSC14-19 (amended May 23, 2014) and AOSC15-18.
1. Alachua County 2. Baker County 3. Bradford County 4. Broward County 5. Calhoun County 6. Citrus County 7. Collier County 8. Columbia County 9. DeSoto County 10. Dixie County 11. Duval County 12. Escambia County 13. Flagler County 14. Franklin County 15. Gadsden County 16. Gilchrist County 17. Glades County 18. Gulf County 19. Hardee County 20. Hendry County 21. Hernando County 22. Highlands County 23. Indian River County 24. Jackson County 25. Jefferson County 26. Lafayette County 27. Lake County 28. Leon County 29. Liberty County 30. Madison County 31. Marion County 32. Martin County 33. Miami-Dade County 34. Nassau County 35. Okaloosa County 36. Okeechobee County 37. Orange County 38. Osceola County 39. Pinellas County 40. Polk County 41. Putnam County 42. Santa Rosa County 43. Sarasota County 44. St Johns County 45. Sumter County 46. Union County 47. Walton County 48. Washington County
Page 2 of 3 FCTC approved a recommendation from the Access Governance Board to recommend to the Supreme
Court that Monroe County’s extension request for an additional 120 days to begin the 90-day public access pilot project be granted.
*Note: Monroe County withdraw their application on March 17, 2016.
FCTC approved a motion to recommend to the Supreme Court that the Office of the Public Defender have a defined role added to the AOSC15-18 Access Security Matrix. The Public Defender’s Office would be added to the matrix as User Role 12, designating them as attorney of record by default in specific case types allowed by statutes until such time as they are no longer counsel of record or other counsel is assigned.
Standards submitted by the public defender will be adopted with the following changes. Public
defenders will be granted access, as the Attorney of Record, to all defined case types where the statute defines them and grants them party access where the public defender is specifically assigned or no attorney has been assigned. As cases are newly created, the Public Defender will be granted access as an Attorney of Record by default on all statutorily defined case types. Access will then be changed to General Government and Constitutional Officers when the public defender is no longer counsel of record or another attorney is assigned. Each public defender’s office 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.
FCTC approved a motion to recommend to the Supreme Court that official repositories of referenced information in the Consolidated Standards be established for consistency, reliability, and accuracy. Whereby:
o The master copy of the standards shall be hosted and maintained by the OSCA; o The master copy of the Supreme Court Orders shall be hosted and maintained by the
Supreme Court Clerk of Court;
o Request that the Florida Bar host the master copy of the court rules;
o Establish that the master copy of the statutes shall be referenced on the Legislature’s On-Line Sunshine website.
FCTC approved a recommendation from the RJA Joint Workgroup for the elimination of the 3 “radio buttons” as part of the filing through the Portal and instead propose the suggested warning language on the Portal to include hyperlinking to the noted rules and confidential form.
o WARNING: As an attorney or self-represented filer, you are responsible to protect confidential information under Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.420 and 2.425. Before you file, please ensure that you have complied with these rules, including the need to complete a Notice of Confidential Information form or motion required under Rule 2.420 regarding confidential information. Your failure to comply with these rules may subject you to sanctions.
Page 3 of 3 FCTC approved a recommendation from the RJA Joint Workgroup on the following process
regarding filing and service size limitations:
o RJAC presented for committee approval, on an expedited basis effective prior to the Portal’s April 2016 release, a rule amendment to rules 2.516 and 2.525 to eliminate any reference to filing or service size limitations for documents or attachments, with the rule referring expressly to the applicable standards;
o Florida Supreme Court Technology Standards 3.1.1 (size of filing) and 3.1.17 (Exhibits) be amended immediately, in anticipation of favorable action by the RJAC, Board of
Governors (BOG) and the Supreme Court, to increase the “single submission/single session” filing size limitation to 50 MB;
o On an interim basis, that the Florida Supreme Court enter an administrative order making this change until a full rule amendment can be effectuated.
Agenda Item IV.
Court Application
Processing System
CAPS VIEWER PROGRESS REPORT– MAY 2016
CAPS VIEWER IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS
IMPLEMENTED
Fifty-three (53) counties have implemented their judicial viewer in both the civil and criminal divisions. Two (2) counties have implemented in either one of the civil or criminal divisions, as follows:
Taylor Criminal Pinellas Civil
SCHEDULED
Seven (7) counties anticipate an implementation date, in both the civil and criminal divisions, as follows:
Okaloosa May 2016 Collier May 2016
Gadsden May 2016 Escambia June 2016
Osceola May 2016 Putnam September 2016
Monroe May 2016
Two (2) counties anticipate an implementation date in the civil division, with the criminal divisions TBD, as follows:
Miami-Dade (Civil) July 2016 Miami-Dade (Criminal) TBD
Pasco (Civil) September 2016 Pasco (Criminal) TBD
Pinellas (Criminal) TBD
UNDETERMINED
Three (3) counties do not have an anticipated implementation date in either the civil or criminal divisions, as follows:
Clay (Civil) TBD Clay (Criminal) TBD
Nassau (Civil) TBD Nassau (Criminal) TBD
Duval (Civil) TBD Duval (Criminal TBD
Note: Further implementation delays could result with lack of funding resources.
TBD REASONS
The 4th Circuit counties, (Clay, Nassau and Duval) have decided to change over to a different CAPS Viewer, ICMS3 and are
currently in discussions with the City of Jacksonville and IT staff to orchestrate the transition. At this time, there is no anticipated implementation date.
Pasco and Pinellas counties continue to have delays in the criminal division implementation due to a lack of funding. With no
sustainable state funding for technology on the near horizon, the 6th circuit obtained the JAWS code from the 13th circuit and
contacted the Pinellas County Business Technology Services staff and the Pasco Clerk of Court IT Staff for assistance. Both entities have agreed to assist with expanding the JAWS development and are in various stages of discussion with the 13th Circuit
about the JAWS code. At this time, there is no anticipated implementation date.
Miami-Dade County’s criminal division has been delayed until the county can implement a new CJIS platform which supports
the use of images. Until a CJIS platform is implemented, there is no anticipated implementation date.
“LIVE” CAPS IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
An up-to-date status report of all the CAPS viewer county implementations is maintained and published at http://bit.ly/1S3WXA2
CAPS Viewer Implementation Timeline
Implemented Implemented
Civil Criminal Go-Live Date
(civil/criminal) Civil Criminal
Go-Live Date (civil/criminal)
Mentis June 2016 June 2016 Benchmark Mentis Implemented Implemented November 2014 Odyssey
Mentis May 2016 May 2016 Benchmark Mentis May 2016 May 2016 Benchmark
Mentis Implemented Implemented April 2012 Clericus
Mentis Implemented Implemented November 2013 Clericus ICMS Implemented Implemented July 2013 Clericus
ICMS Implemented Implemented July 2013 Clericus
Mentis Implemented Implemented March 2014 Clericus ICMS Implemented Implemented August 2014 New Vision
Mentis May 2016 May 2016 CDS
Mentis Implemented Implemented March 2014 Clericus Mentis July 2016 TBD Odyssey/CJIS
Mentis Implemented Implemented March 2016 Benchmark
Mentis Implemented Implemented March 2014 Clericus Mentis Implemented Implemented September 2014 Clericus
Mentis Implemented Implemented March 2014 Clericus Mentis Implemented Implemented January 2012 Clericus
Pioneer Implemented Implemented July 2013 Benchmark
Mentis Implemented Implemented July 2014 Clericus
Mentis Implemented Implemented July 2014 Clericus JAWS Implemented Implemented April 2013/April 2014 Odyssey
Mentis Implemented Implemented July 2014 Clericus
Mentis Implemented Implemented July 2014 Clericus ICMS Implemented Implemented February 2014 Benchmark
Mentis Implemented Implemented July 2014 Clericus ICMS Implemented Implemented January 2014 Clericus
Mentis Implemented Implemented July 2014 Clericus ICMS Implemented Implemented January 2014 Clericus
Mentis May 2016 Implemented July 2014 CDS/Clericus ICMS Implemented Implemented January 2014 Clericus
ICMS Implemented Implemented January 2014 Clericus
ICMS TBD TBD Odyssey ICMS Implemented Implemented January 2014 Clericus
ICMS TBD TBD Showcase
ICMS TBD TBD Clericus In-House (JVS) Implemented Implemented 2009 Showcase
Mentis Implemented Implemented November 2015 Benchmark JAWS May 2016 May 2016 Odyssey
Mentis Implemented Implemented September 2015 Clericus
Mentis Implemented Implemented July 2013 Showcase In-House (CMS)
Implemented Implemented June 2013 Odyssey
Mentis Implemented Implemented March 2016 Clericus
Mentis Implemented Implemented March 2015 Clericus ICMS Implemented Implemented September 2015 FACTS
In-House Implemented Implemented September 2014 In-House
JAWS September 2016 TBD Clericus
JAWS Implemented TBD June 2015/ Odyssey Mentis Implemented Implemented July 2014 Benchmark
Mentis Implemented Implemented December 2013 Clericus
Pioneer Implemented Implemented June 2015 Benchmark Mentis Implemented Implemented December 2013 Clericus
Pioneer September 2016 September 2016 Clericus Mentis Implemented Implemented September 2014 Benchmark
Pioneer Implemented Implemented June 2015 Benchmark
Pioneer Implemented Implemented December 2015 In-House Mentis Implemented Implemented November 2014 Benchmark
Mentis May 2016 May 2016 Showcase
ICMS Implemented Implemented 1999 Courtview Mentis Implemented Implemented February 2014 Clericus
ICMS Implemented Implemented 1999 Clericus Mentis Implemented Implemented February 2014 Clericus
ICMS Implemented Implemented 1999 Clericus Mentis Implemented Implemented February 2016 Odyssey
ICMS Implemented Implemented 1999 Clericus
ICMS Implemented Implemented 1999 Benchmark
ICMS Implemented Implemented 1999 Clericus
CMS System(s) CMS System(s) Pinellas Suwannee Wakulla Madison Holmes St. Johns Martin Indian River Marion 16 Sumter Okeechobee St. Lucie Volusia 1 Escambia Okaloosa Santa Rosa Walton Leon Liberty 5 Citrus Hernando Lake 3 Columbia Dixie Hamilton Lafayette 4 Clay Duval Taylor Nassau 6 Pasco 14 15 18 19 7 Flagler Putnam 17 8 Alachua Baker Bradford Gilchrist Levy Union Gulf Hillsborough Palm Beach Bay Monroe 10 12 Desoto Hardee Jackson Manatee Sarasota Highlands Polk Brevard Seminole Miami-Dade Washington Broward Jefferson
Current CAPS Viewer Implementation Date Circuit County CAPS
System
Calhoun
9
Orange Osceola
Note: Implementation dates are subject to change due to available funding
Circuit County CAPS System
Current CAPS Viewer Implementation Date 13 11 2 Franklin Gadsden
In-House systems not CAPS compliant - No certification demos scheduled at this time Charlotte Collier Glades Hendry Lee 20 Updated: 4/28/2016 Page 1 of 1
Agenda Item V.
Access to Justice (A2J)
Gateway Triage Pilot
<!Court of jflortba
500 South Duval Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 JORGE LABARGA CHIEF JUSTICE BARBARA 1. PARIENTE R. FRED LEWIS PEGGY A. QUINCE CHARLES T. CANADY RICKY POLSTON JAMES E.C. PERRY
JUSTICES
Mr. William A. Van Nortwick, Jr.
Chair, Subcommittee on Access to
and Delivery of Legal Services
50 N. Laura Street, Suite 3100
Jacksonville, Florida 32202-3659
Dear Mr. Van Nortwick:
April 13, 2016
JOHN A. TOMASINO CLERK OF COURT SILVESTER DAWSON MARSHAL
I am writing on behalf of the Florida Supreme Court to thank you, James
Kowalski, Dominic MacKenzie, and Kathleen McLeroy for providing the Court
with an update on the triage gateway pilot project.
The Court appreciates the work of The Florida Bar Foundation and the
Florida Justice Technology Center. While we recognize that this is a pilot project
and all of the details have not yet been resolved, the Foundation and Technology
Center, in compliance with all requirements of The Florida Bar, should include not
only lawyer referral but also FloridaLawHelp.org, particularly as it relates to
consumer financial counseling. The Court also encourages the Foundation and
Technology Center to incorporate the Florida DIY efforts into the triage gateway
expansion plan.
Furthermore, the Commission should review the findings of the pilot
including the full quantitative, qualitative, and replication analysis in order to
evaluate whether a statewide triage gateway is a viable part of the solution to the
access to civil justice challenge. Among other elements of the evaluation, the
Mr. William A. Van Nortwick, Jr.
April 13, 2016
Page Two
Court is interested in participant outcomes; participant demographics (race,
ethnicity, gender, age, etc.); and the gateway's effectiveness in addressing the
needs of participants with limited English proficiency and participants with low
literacy levels. In the event the planned two-month operational period is
insufficient, The Florida Bar Foundation and the Florida Justice Technology
Center should provide an interim report with the specifications and plan for the
extension of the pilot.
Please convene monthly conference calls of the subcommittee, The Florida
Bar Foundation, The Florida Bar, Office of the State Courts Administrator, and the
Florida Justice Technology Center, both as a means for keeping the various entities
informed about the status of the pilot project and also as a way to continue
gathering input on implementation issues as they may arise.
The subcommittee's commitment to this initiative is admirable and I
commend the work that has been done thus far. The Court looks forward to
additional reports as the pilot project progresses.
Sincerely,
JL/dgh
cc:
Members, Florida Commission on Access to Civil Justice
1200 rules
4 million fact patterns
LESS 1 MINUTE
THE POWER OF EXPERT SYSTEMS
Example
5
Users enter
demographic
information
Step 1
Answer questions
about their legal issues
Step 2
Access partners,
articles, eFiling
resources, & lawyers
Step 3
It’s as easy as
1, 2, 3.
The Portal's interview
process receives and
analyzes various
demographic and legal
issues, then directs users to
helpful resources.
Personalized
Solutions for
Unique Clients
5Client
6
LAWYERS &
LEGAL AID
Local orgs. that
provide lawyers
for advice or
representation
SELF-HELP
ARTICLES
Articles on legal
topics that offer
context and
relevant law
CLERK OF
COURT
Gain access to
court records,
scheduling, and
workshops
The Portal Provides Access to:
COMMUNITY
PARTNERS
Local agencies
and orgs. that
provide shelter,
counseling, and
material support
DOCUMENT
ASSEMBLY
Create motions
and pleadings
automatically or
with templates
Once the portal identifies a user’s legal issues, the portal may refer the user to any number
of community orgs., legal aids, or self-help information for legal assistance.
The Florida Justice Technology
Center's mission is to increase
access to justice through the use
of innovative technology.
8
Building the bridge
•
Launching in Clay County in
2016
•
Assistance for Family and
Landlord/Tenant Issues
•
Built on New Mexico’s triage
model, in development for over
2 years
•
Expanded issue-types and
Agenda Item VI.
Florida Courts E-Filing Authority Board
E-Filing Portal Progress Report Period
March 2016
Carolyn Weber, Portal Program Manager
Category
Number
E-Filing Submissions
1,294,515
Individual Documents Submitted
Total Number of Pages
1,933,456
8,694,563
Average Submissions per Weekday
56,131
Highest Volume Day: Mar. 8
61,324
Peak # of filings in 1 hour: 3 pm
7,681
New Case Initiation
61,897
Portal Users
111,145
March E-Filing Statistics
Monthly E-Filing Submissions for
Mar. 2015 through Mar. 2016
0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000
Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Submissions Documents
March Average
Hourly Submissions
81 75 70 73 72 72 147 360 1,805 4,242 5,596 6,101 4,401 4,992 6,709 7,681 7,315 3,295 1,045 590 336 253 190 130 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,00012am 1am 2am 3am 4am 5am 6am 7am 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm 9pm 10pm 11pm
Average # Days to Docket
In March
0.92 0.97 0.98 0.98 1.06 0.75 1.9 0.95 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.3 1.3 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Days 0.92 0.97 0.98 0.98 1.06 0.75 1.9 0.95 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.3 1.3
% Filings Returned to Filer for
Correction in March
2.28% 2.22% 2.16% 2.18% 2.10% 2.09% 2.09% 2.14% 2.13% 2.06% 1.91% 1.97% 1.97%Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16
Portal Activity by Filer
Role for March
Filer Roles
Total # of Accounts
# of Submissions
Attorneys
68,649
1,197,218
Self-Represented Litigants
34,384
5,819
Judges
599
33,590
Mediators
581
1,580
Process Servers
584
40,798
Court Reporters
287
946
Mental Health Professionals
210
1,284
Law Enforcement
364
4,064
Pending Queue Returns by Filer
Role for March
Filer Role
No. Submissions Returned
% Total Submissions
Attorney
23,822
1.99%
Self-Represented Litigant
590
10.14%
Clerk
42
0.61%
Judge
502
1.49%
Mediator
43
2.72%
Process Server
397
0.97%
Court Reporter
21
2.22%
Mental Health Professional
44
3.45%
Law Enforcement
36
0.89%
Self-Represented Litigant
Accounts and Submissions
13,343 15,036 16,730 18,466 20,366 22,148 23,953 25,606 27,257 28,821 30,506 32,355 34,384 4,181 4,167 4,018 4,407 4,718 4,977 4,960 5,668 4,839 4,617 4,860 4,991 5,819 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000
Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16
Accounts Submissions
