Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 14.08
Documents electronically filed and paper documents conventionally filed but converted into electronic form by the court are official court records for all purposes. Certified copies may be issued in the conventional manner or in any manner authorized by law, provided that no certified copies shall be made of any proposed orders. Unless otherwise provided in these rules or by court order, a conventionally filed paper document need not be maintained or retained by the court after the court digitizes, records, scans or otherwise reproduces the document into an electronic record, document or image.
Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 14.08
Advisory Committee Comment-2012 Amendment
Rule 14 is a new rule, drafted to provide a uniform structure for implementation of e-filing and e-service in the district courts. The rule is derived in substantial part, with modification, from the Judicial District E-Filing Pilot Project Provisions, adopted by the Minnesota Supreme Court on October 21, 2010, and amended on March 10, 2011.
Rule 14.01 defines the cases that are subject to mandatory e-filing and e-service. This rule is intended to evolve by amendment by order of the supreme court as additional case categories or additional judicial districts are added to the pilot project. The other requirements for e-filing and e-service are not intended to see frequent amendment, and the committee believes the rules for e-filing and e-service, when authorized, should be maintained as uniform rules statewide.
Rule 14.01(d) provides for requests to be excused from required use of e-filing and e-service, and creates a "good cause" standard for granting that relief. There are few circumstances where the court should grant exemption from the requirements.
Because cases in Minnesota may be commenced by service rather than by filing with the court, the use of e-service under the court's system is possible only after the action has been commenced and is filed, and service may then be effected electronically only on an attorney or party who registers with the system and provides an e-mail address at which service from other parties and notices from the court can be delivered. Rule 14.02 sets forth this procedure. Rule 13.01 imposes an affirmative duty on parties and their attorneys to advise the court of any changes in their address, including their email address.
The format requirements for documents are superficially the same as for other documents-they should be based on an 81/2 by 11 inch format, with a caption at the top and signature block at the end. But they are in fact filed as electronic records on a computer service and served on other parties by e-mail. Rule 14.03 defines the available electronic format for these documents and other requirements applicable to e-filed and eserved documents.
Rule 14.04 establishes the means by which electronic documents are "signed." The rule explicitly states the standard that e-filed and e-served documents as they reside on the computer system used by the court constitute originals, and are not mere copies of documents. The rule does not require the signing or retention of a paper copy of any filed document. It may be prudent for a litigant to maintain copies of these documents as duplicate originals in some limited circumstances, such as where an affidavit is signed by a non-party who may not be available if a dispute were to arise over authenticity.
Rule 14.06 establishes a specific procedure for filing electronic documents that either contain confidential information or are filed under seal. This rule establishes the requirements for electronic documents that are consistent with the requirements in Rule 11.06. Neither rule is intended to expand or limit the confidentiality concerns that might justify special treatment of any document. Under Rule 11.06, filing parties do not have a unilateral right to designate any filing as confidential, and prior permission in some form is required. This permission may flow from a statute or rule explicitly requiring that a particular document or portion of a document be filed confidentially or from a court order that documents be filed under seal. Rule 112 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure contains useful guidance on how confidential information can be handled. Where documents contain both confidential and non-confidential information, it may be appropriate to file redacted "public" versions of confidential or sealed documents.
Rule 14.06 also permits a party to seek either permission or a requirement that certain sealed or confidential documents be filed in paper format. This provision recognizes that certain information may be so sensitive or valuable that placing it in a sealed envelope with a clear warning that it is not to be opened except by court order may be the appropriate means to assure confidentiality.
The security designations "confidential" and "sealed" reflect the security classifications available in the courts case management system. In addition to court staff access, some confidential documents (e.g., in Domestic Violence, Juvenile Delinquency, and Parent/Child relationship cases) may be accessible to certain government entities who have demonstrated a need for access and have signed appropriate nondisclosure agreements. See, e.g., Rule 8, subd. 4(b), of the Rules of Public Access to Records of the Judicial Branch (authorizing access by county attorneys and public defenders, among others).
Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 5.06, a document that is electronically filed is deemed to have been filed by the court administrator on the date and time of its transmittal to the District Court through the E-Filing System, and the filing shall be stamped with this date and time subject to acceptance by the court administrator. If the filing is not subsequently accepted by the court administrator for reasons authorized by Minn. R. Civ. P. 5.04, the date stamp shall be removed and the document electronically returned to the person who filed it.
Advisory Committee Comment-2015 Amendments
The amendments to Rule 14 address several important aspects of the use of the court's e-filing and e-service system. This rule is the workhorse rule for implementation of e-filing and e-service, and governs in all courts and types of cases where e-filing is either required or permitted.
It is worthwhile to understand the reason for "required or permitted" language in the rules. As a means to accomplish orderly and efficient transition to judicial branchwide requirement for e-filing and e-service, the courts have generally begun with permissive use of e-filing and e-service for a subset of the court's business. The courts have then gradually moved to mandatory use in these matters, by all attorney filers.
Several of the changes are not substantive in nature or intended effect. The replacement of "paper" with "document" is made throughout these rules, and simply advances precision in choice of language. Most documents will not be filed as "paper" documents, so paper is retired as a descriptor of them. "Self-represented litigant" is being used uniformly throughout the judicial branch, and is preferable to "nonrepresented party" and "pro se party," both to avoid a Latin phrase not used outside legal jargon and to facilitate the drafting of clearer rules.
Rule 14.01(a) is amended to update the definitions, and includes terms previously defined in Rule 14.06. The term "Self-Represented Litigant" is defined and is used in preference to "pro se party" to use a term more readily understood. The rule also makes it clear that only non-lawyers are treated as "Self-Represented Litigants." A lawyer who is licensed to practice, is a party to a case, and is not otherwise represented is treated as a represented party.
Rule 14.01(b) is updated to establish the current status of electronic filing and electronic service, and to provide for the expanding requirements for use of the electronic means for these functions. The rule implements a clear mandate that represented parties and government agencies must serve and file using the court's system unless otherwise provided by rule or order. Government agencies here would include governmental parties to litigation and other agencies, such as a county sheriff's office, that are regularly involved in the litigation process.
Rule 14.03(d)(2) recognizes that any means of service may suffice under the rules if the party to be served has consented to its use. Thus, service by e-mail outside the court's system is acceptable and effective if the parties have consented to it. In the event a stipulation is made on this subject, however, the parties should specify when that service is effective, as the rules may not establish that date or time. Although there is virtually no limit on how service could be effected with consent of the party being served, in the absence of consent only the methods explicitly authorized by the rules are effective. Rule 14.03(d)(2) deals particularly with special categories of cases where there typically are non-party participants, such as non-party guardians ad litem, probation officers or other court services personnel, victim advocates, or similar interested persons.
The effective date for service is important for most documents. Rule 14.03(e) provides the default rule for most service events. In the event the E-Filing System is not available, Rule 14.01(c) may provide some relief to a party who might otherwise miss a deadline. Rule 14.03(f) recognizes that courts may wish to provide notices to the parties by e-mail without using the court's E-Filing System. This desire is driven by a lack of integration between the court's MNCIS case management system and the e-serve function in the court's E-Filing System. Where the notice is substantively important, such as in child support magistrate cases where the date and time of notice begins the appeal period, the courts should avoid giving formal notices outside the e-service system. Efforts should be made by the courts to remove any barriers to use of the E-Filing System by court personnel since that process will be understood by the parties and generates a record that may be of interest to the parties.
Rule 14.06 is amended to delete the definitions of how various confidential and sealed records will be accessible within the judiciary. These definitions are now set forth in Rule 14.01(a), along with other definitions.
Rule 14.07 is amended to make it clear that even when documents are filed in paper form, the court may scan and digitize their content, and retain only the electronic record of the filing. Ultimately, the duration of retention of that electronic record will be governed by the court's record retention schedule. See District Court Record Retention Schedule 2014, published on the main Minnesota Courts website, www.mncourts.gov under "Justice Partner Resources."
Advisory Committee Comment-2020
Amendments Rule 14 is modified in 2020 to separate its related in-camera review portions and move them to a new rule, 14.07, and renumber current 14.07 as 14.08. Changes are also made to clarify the process for designating non-public documents being e-filed as Confidential or Sealed and distinguish that process from selection of a filing code under Rule l l.03(a)(ii). See the comments under Rule 11 for a full description. Changes are also made to Rule l 4.03(b) to recognize an exemption to rejection of filings in criminal, commitment, juvenile protection, and juvenile delinquency matters for violations of Rule 11; Rule 11 also exempts most of these cases from striking of filings in rule 11.05. See Rule 11 and its comments for a full description.