AGENDA Florida Courts Technology Commission Meeting Destin ... · VI. Portal Progress Report – Carolyn Weber a. December 2018 E-Filing i. Inactive self-represented litigant accounts

FCTC Meeting February 2019 Page 1 of 2

AGENDA

Florida Courts Technology Commission Meeting

Destin – February 7-8, 2019

Access Governance Board Meeting: Thursday, February 7, 2019 9:00 AM – 10:30 AM

Linkside Conference

Center

Bayside Ballrooms

E-F-G

Operational Procedure Review Meeting: Thursday, February 7, 2019 10:30 AM – 11:30 AM

Portal Subcommittee Meeting: Thursday, February 7, 2019

1:00 PM – 2:30 PM

Cybersecurity Subcommittee Meeting: Thursday, February 7, 2019

2:45 PM – 3:45 PM

Data Element Meeting: Thursday, February 7, 2019

4:00 PM – 5:00 PM

FCTC Meeting: Friday, February 8, 2019 9:00 AM – 2:00 PM

I. Welcome – Judge Lisa Munyon, FCTC Chair

a. Recognition of local guests

b. Roll call

II. Approval of November Meeting Summary – Judge Munyon

a. Motion to approve the minutes from the November 2, 2018 meeting of the

Florida Courts Technology Commission as emailed to the Commission on January

14, 2019.

III. FCTC Action Summary – Judge Munyon

a. Motion to accept the action summary from the November 2, 2018 meeting.

IV. Judicial E-filing of Orders by Judges – Judge Munyon

V. Court Application Processing System (CAPS) Update – Alan Neubauer

a. CAPS Progress Report

b. CAPS Functionality Map

VI. Portal Progress Report – Carolyn Weber

a. December 2018 E-Filing

i. Inactive self-represented litigant accounts

b. December 2018 Service Desk

c. Release 2018.02 update

d. Draft Change Advisory Board report

e. Release 2019.01

f. E-service List request

g. Recommendation on accounts in pending activation status

h. PDF/A language on documents tab for filers

FCTC Meeting February 2019 Page 2 of 2

VII. Judicial Signature Concerns – Carolyn Weber

a. 18th Circuit Chief Judge memo

VIII. Portal Service Interruption Plan – Melvin Cox

a. Draft Service Interruption Communication Policy

IX. E-Filing Authority Board – Murray Silverstein

X. Appellate Portal Interface Update – John Tomasino

XI. CCIS 3.0 Update – Maryanne Marchese

XII. Rules of Judicial Administration Update – Tom Hall

a. Rule 2.505 Attorneys

b. Rule 2.515 Signature and Representations to Court

Subcommittee/Workgroup Updates:

XIII. Cybersecurity Subcommittee – Judge Stephens

a. Cybersecurity Review Subgroup

XIV. Criminal Case Initiation Workgroup – Judge Bidwill

a. Data Element Subgroup

XV. DOC Joint Workgroup – (Informational only*)

*Meeting scheduled for February 28, 2019 in Tallahassee*

XVI. Operational Procedure Review Workgroup – Judge Gagliardi

a. Proposed revisions to FCTC Operational Procedures

XVII. Certification Subcommittee – Judge Perkins

a. Functional Requirements for Court Application Processing System (2nd reading)

XVIII. CMS Technical and Functional Standards Subcommittee – Judge Gagliardi

a. Draft DQM Judicial Case Status Table

b. Excerpts from NCSC

XIX. Access Governance Board – Judge Hilliard

a. Agency Supplemental Request Form (2nd reading)

b. Updating the Access Security Matrix and Standards for Access to Electronic Court

Records

i. Public in Clerk’s Offices and Registered Users (2nd reading)

ii. Consolidating the Matrix (1st reading)

XX. Other Items/Wrap Up – Judge Munyon

a. Next meeting – May 2-3, 2019

Agenda Item II a.

Approval of November Meeting Summary

Page 1 of 13

Florida Courts Technology Commission Meeting Summary November 2, 2018

A meeting of the Florida Courts Technology Commission was held at the Tradewinds Resort in St. Pete

Beach, Florida on November 2, 2018. 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 Ross Bilbrey, 1st DCA

Judge Martin Bidwill, 17th Circuit Judge Robert Hilliard, Santa Rosa County

Judge Josephine Gagliardi, Lee County Judge Ronald Ficarrotta, 13th Circuit

Judge Terence Perkins, 7th Circuit Judge Scott Stephens, 13th Circuit

Judge Stevan Northcutt, 2nd DCA Lonn Weissblum, Clerk of Court, 4th DCA

Mike Smith, CTO, 4th Circuit Noel Chessman, CTO, 15th Circuit

Jon Lin, Trial Court Administrator, 5th Circuit Sandra Lonergan, Trial Court

Administrator, 11th Circuit John M. Stewart, Esquire, Vero Beach

Matt Benefiel, Trial Court Administrator, 9th Circuit Laird Lile, Esquire, Naples

David Ellspermann, Clerk of Court, Marion County Scott Ellis, Clerk of Court, Brevard County

Members not in attendance

Christina Blakeslee, CTO, 13th Circuit Murray Silverstein, Esq., Tampa

Karen Rushing, Clerk of Court, Sarasota County Tanya Jackson, PinPoint Results

Leslie Powell-Boudreaux, Legal Aid Services of

North Florida

OSCA and Supreme Court Staff in attendance

John Tomasino, Clerk of the Supreme Court Roosevelt Sawyer, Jr.

Alan Neubauer Lakisha Hall

Jeannine Moore Hetal Patel

Other Attendees

Robert Adelardi, Eleventh Circuit Craig Van Brussel, First Circuit

Craig McLean, Twentieth Circuit Fred Buhl, Eighth Circuit

Steve Shaw, CTO, 19th Circuit Brian Franza, Tenth Circuit

Terry Rodgers, Fifth Circuit Robin Kelly, Seventh Circuit

Dennis Menendez, Twelfth Circuit Yvan Llanes, Eighteenth Circuit

Jim Weaver, Sixth Circuit Isaac Shuler, Second Circuit

Gerald Land, Sixteenth Circuit John Lake, Fifth Circuit

Melvin Cox, Florida Court Clerks and Comptrollers Carolyn Weber, Florida Court Clerks and

Tom Hall, Florida Court Clerks and Comptrollers Comptrollers

Page 2 of 13

Krys Godwin, The Florida Bar Thomas Morris, State Attorney Eighth Circuit

Tony Landry, Seminole County Clerk of Court Audra Nail, Public Defender, Sixth Circuit

Carolyn Colvin, Public Defender, Sixth Circuit Mark Patterson, State Attorney, Sixth

Dathan Stacy, State Attorney, Sixth Circuit Circuit

Laura Roth, Volusia County Clerk of Court Michael Elso, Brevard County Clerk of

Jeff Taylor, Manatee County Clerk of Court Court

Matt Whyte, Manatee County Clerk of Court Shannon Ramsey-Chessman, Palm Beach

Justin Horan, Clay County Clerk of Court County Clerk

Laurie Rice, Brevard County Clerk of Court Laurie Reaves, Miami-Dade County Clerk

Dave Winiecki, Sarasota County Clerk of Court of Court

Carol LoCicero, Thomas and LoCicero Mike Phelps, Polk County Clerk of Court

Brent Holladay, Lake County Clerk of Court Gerald Cates, Duval County Clerk

Chris Short, Pinellas County Clerk of Court of Court

Teresa Del Rio, Pinellas County Clerk of Court Melissa Grist, Orange County Clerk of

Mike Murphy, Leon County Clerk of Court Court

David Isaacson, Volusia County Clerk of Court David Lane, Charlotte County Clerk of

Kimberly Stenger, Polk County Clerk of Court Court

Paul Jones, Palm Beach County Clerk of Court Jean Sperbeck, Alachua County Clerk of

April Biegler, Brevard County Clerk of Court Court

Mary Lynn Sullivan, Tyler Technologies Mary Lynn Sullivan, Tyler Technologies

Alan Hebdon, Pinellas County Clerk of Court Doris Maitland, Lee County Clerk of

Court

AGENDA ITEM I. Welcome A. Judge Munyon welcomed the commission members and other participants to the meeting. She called the meeting to order and advised everyone the meeting was being recorded. B. Jeannine Moore called roll and noted a quorum was present.

AGENDA ITEM II. Approval of Meeting Summaries A. Motion to approve the meeting summary from the August 3, 2018 meeting of the Florida Courts

Technology Commission.

MOTION OFFERED: Judge Terence Perkins MOTION SECONDED: Sandra Lonergan MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

B. Motion to approve the meeting summary from the September 17, 2018 teleconference of the Florida Courts Technology Commission.

MOTION OFFERED: Judge Josephine Gagliardi MOTION SECONDED: Judge Terence Perkins

Page 3 of 13

MOTION CARRIED UNANMIOUSLY

AGENDA ITEM III. Approval of August FCTC Action Summary A. Motion to accept the action summary from the August 3, 2018 meeting of the Florida Courts

Technology Commission. MOTION OFFERED: Judge Ronald Ficarrotta MOTION SECONDED: Judge Scott Stephens MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

AGENDA ITEM IV. Judicial E-Filing of Orders by Judges Judge Munyon said at the August 3, 2017 FCTC meeting, the Commission approved on second reading a motion to recommend to the Supreme Court that judicial officers electronically file and serve orders through an electronic means by September 1, 2018. The recommendation was sent to the Supreme Court on September 30, 2018. Judge Munyon was invited by then-Chief Justice Labarga to discuss the issue at the Chief Judge’s Quarterly meeting in December 2017. After that discussion, Justice Labarga established the Judicial E-Filing Workgroup to recommend the process by which orders prepared in court by clerks will be handled; identify the strengths and weaknesses of filing proposed orders through the Portal versus a Court Application Processing System (CAPS); and develop a report on anticipated resources needed to implement judicial e-filing and submit it to the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) for cost estimations. On September 17, 2018 the FCTC held a teleconference and approved the Judicial E-Filing Workgroup Report which was due to the Court by September 30, 2018. Judge Munyon was again invited to the Chief Judge’s Quarterly meeting on October 26, 2018 to present the findings of the workgroup. The chief judges seemed receptive to ultimately understanding that they will have to file their orders electronically. The product of the workgroup required additional resources from the Legislature because not all circuits have a fully functional CAPS in every division. Currently, three counties do not have a CAPS implemented. The recommendations from the workgroup were to 1) make judicial e-filing a top priority, 2) try to secure the funding through the Trial Court Budget Commission (TCBC) and 3) implement judicial e-filing in all circuits and all divisions within twenty-four months.

AGENDA ITEM V. Court Application Processing System (CAPS) Update A. Alan Neubauer said Clay, Monroe, and Pasco counties are in the process of deploying a CAPS. Clay and Pasco anticipate having a CAPS deployed in the next three months. Mr. Neubauer discussed the CAPS deployed across the state. Sixty-three counties have deployed a CAPS in one or both the civil and criminal divisions. Currently, 19 counties can receive proposed orders via CAPS and 36 counties can file orders to the Portal or directly to the local clerk CMS. B. Alan Neubauer discussed the CAPS Functionality Map which shows the CAPS deployed by vendors throughout the state. At this time, 30 counties use aiSmartBench; 25 counties use the Integrated Case Management System (ICMS); 5 counties use Benchmark; 4 counties use JAWS; and 3 counties have in-house systems. Mr. Neubauer went on to discuss the statistics of the version of CAPS deployed in each county. Currently, 1.5 counties have CAPS version 2.0 deployed, 43.5 counties have CAPS version 3.0 deployed, and 18 counties have CAPS version 4.0 deployed. Justice Polston asked if Clay, Pasco and

Page 4 of 13

Monroe counties were the only counties unable to file orders via CAPS. Mr. Neubauer said no. The CAPS Progress Report document shows the functionality by circuit, but for future presentations, OSCA staff will breakdown the functionality by county to give more precise information.

AGENDA ITEM VI. Portal Progress Report A. Carolyn Weber discussed the Portal usage statistics. In September 2018, there were 1,271,834 submissions through the Portal, of which 1,269,504 were submissions to the trial courts; 645 were submissions to the Department of Corrections (DOC); 64 were submissions to the Second District Court of Appeal; 1,010 were submissions to the Florida Supreme Court; and 611 were submissions to the Bureau of Vital Statistics. A couple of records were set in September: 1,891,522 total individual documents were submitted through the Portal; 8,711 filings were submitted during the peak hour of 3:00-4:00; and 68,431 new cases were initiated. The Portal has over 211,000 registered users. The Portal received 1,139,449 scanned documents; 653,054 text-based PDF documents; 99,062 Word documents; and 35 WordPerfect documents. On average, it takes 1.5 days to docket a filing. Roughly, 1.83% of filings were returned to the correction queue. Attorneys, judges, process servers, and self-represented litigants were the top filer roles in the Portal. The number of self-represented litigants continues to grow. There are 115,438 registered self-represented litigant accounts. ABC Legal Services, Inc.; eFileMadeEasy; TSI Legal; Turbo Court; and Ironrock are third-party vendors actively filing through the Portal. Ms. Weber noted the following projects that the Florida Court Clerks & Comptrollers (FCCC) is working on: 1) providing technical support to third-party vendors to help them implement system-to-system e-filing; 2) working with the FCTC Portal Subcommittee to scope out the process for criminal case initiation; 3) completing 90 day proof of concept for tenant eviction interviews and reviewing small claims interviews; 4) working to clean up bad email addresses in the Portal; 5) working on Release 2018.02; and 6) working with DOC, pilot counties, and the local sheriffs to send Commitment Packets to the Reception Centers through the Portal. Judge Munyon asked about deactivating inactive self-represented litigant accounts. Ms. Weber said at the next FCTC meeting she will report on the active versus inactive self-represented litigant accounts to give a better breakdown of the number of accounts being used to file documents. Unfortunately, the accounts cannot be deleted because of the audit trail. Judge Munyon asked if any other state e-filing portal take in the volume of electronic files as the Portal in Florida does. Ms. Weber said not that she is aware of and there is not a portal that takes in all jurisdictions as the Portal in Florida does. Justice Polston asked Ms. Weber to address recent issues of the Portal not accepting filings. Ms. Weber said the FCCC worked with its vendors to get the Portal back to normal operations. Currently, the FCCC is working on a communication plan to get notifications out to filers quickly. Mr. Cox said the FCCC will provide an escalation and communication plan to the Authority Board at their December 6, 2018 meeting. B. Carolyn Weber gave an update on the Portal service desk. The service desk takes calls regarding customer service incidents along with technical and system support incidents. In September 2018, the service desk received 2,685 customer service incidents of which 2,331 were attorney incidents; 6 were judge incidents; and 348 were self-represented litigant incidents. On average it took 10 minutes to respond to a customer service incident and 36 minutes to resolve. The number of technical/system incidents increased in September. A total of 467 technical/system support incidents were received. On average it took 23 minutes to respond to a technical/support incident and 2 days and 2 minutes to resolve an incident. These types of issues are not always easily resolved and sometimes the resolution

Page 5 of 13

may have to be put in a release or a maintenance release. Ms. Weber showed the top 10 types of incidents the service desk received from attorneys, self-represented litigants and judges. The service desk continues to work on cleaning up pending filings and performing site visits to provide training and support. C. Ms. Weber explained the change in release dates with 2018.02. The original release date was set for October 27, 2018. With the issues surrounding the Portal, development time was lost, and an extension was granted to delay until December 1, 2018. This is a big release where the PDF/A format will be included as well as the multiple case filing path. Filers will be able to create a submission and file to multiple cases in one submission. The release notes will be available on the Portal by November 5, 2018.

AGENDA ITEM VII. E-Filing Authority Board Judge Munyon tabled this discussion until the February 8, 2019 FCTC meeting.

AGENDA ITEM VIII. Appellate Portal Interface Update John Tomasino gave a brief update on the Appellate Portal Interface. Clerk Tomasino said the appellate portal interface is on schedule to be in place by February 2019. The appellate courts will be moved over to the Portal in December and January. Related to this, testing continues with allowing the clerks of court to transmit large records on appeal through the Portal. The court has been successful in transmitting 100 MB files. It is anticipated the court will be able to receive records on appeal up to 500 MB through the Portal by February 2019.

AGENDA ITEM IX. CCIS 3.0 Update Melvin Cox discussed the metrics measuring CCIS use. Presently, there are 51,939 active users; 167 agencies are using CCIS; 199,972 case searches have been executed; 504,021 person searches have been executed; and 917,022 document image requests. Mr. Cox said about twelve counties were affected by Hurricane Michael, but the Portal and CCIS remained functional during the storm. Filers and governmental agencies were still able to file documents and access cases, dockets, and court events, etc. Mr. Cox said currently there are three CCIS initiatives in progress: 1) implementing AOSC18-16 Access Security Matrix; 2) SB1392 Adult Diversion Program; and 3) CCIS Reporting via Docket Mapping. Eventually, CCIS will provide access to all government user roles defined in the matrix. A lot of work has been done to add attorneys of record and registered users to CCIS. The next step is to develop a viewable on request (VOR) process in CCIS that will work with all CMS vendors. The CMS VOR notification web service is required to allow CCIS to push a notification to the CMS when a CCIS user has asked to see a VOR document. SB 1392, which is the Criminal Justice Data Collection and Transparency Bill, requires Clerks and the FCCC to collect and report to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) approximately 60 data elements for each criminal case beginning January 1, 2019. Also, to comply with the Adult Diversion Programs, clerks will be required to maintain personal identifying information as a confidential non-court record in a statewide data base, which must provide a single point of access. The participant’s information will be secure within CCIS and only accessible by clerks and law enforcement personnel. Additionally, the clerks are working on reporting through CCIS and trying to consolidate some of the reporting requirements. The FCCC is working with FDLE on Mental Competency (MECOM) reporting. MECOM is a database that

Page 6 of 13

receives and stores mental health court orders which disqualifies someone from purchasing firearms. The FCCC is continuingly putting processes in place to ensure data quality. Mr. Cox went on to discuss the CCIS business analytics project. The FCCC is working on beta testing the dashboard with some of the clerk’s offices. Paul Jones discussed the quality of data from two aspects, inquiry data and report data. The first phase is inquiry data which includes accuracy, timeliness, completeness, and consistency. Consistency will be a big part of phase two. Some of the accomplishments of phase one incudes: sustaining CCIS error and warning reduction, establishing a statewide support team, reporting validation, standardizing data, and documenting and training. Innovative Architects, a third-party vendor suggested looking at a data management framework. A Master Data Management (MDM) was implemented. This includes fixing problems with multiple versions of a judge’s name, designing a new CCIS audit website, and providing recommendations for sustaining improvements and for growing clerks’ MDM capabilities. The second phase is report data. This phase includes MDM technology advancement, change management, training and support, standardizing data definitions, and developing best practices and policies. Judge Munyon asked who has access to the business analytics dashboard. Mr. Cox said this will be available initially to clerk staff to help beta test and then super users of CCIS. Judge Munyon said the quality of the data in CCIS is dependent upon the quality of the data in the local CMS. Judge Munyon also inquired on standardization of data when a judge moves from divisions. When a judge moves to another division their name gets associated with all of the cases in the division they are rotating to as well as all cases that existed in the division. A judge could be associated with a case from when he/she was a lawyer. She wanted to know if there was any move to correct that situation to know when a judge had the case and at what stage. Mr. Cox said in CCIS there is a tab for judge history. This tab keeps track of when a judge is assigned to a case and the date. This tab also reflects how a clerk puts a judge on and off a case. Roosevelt Sawyer, Jr. asked who would be a superuser. Mr. Cox said superusers really have not been defined beyond clerk’s staff at this point. A superuser will be a subset of current CCIS users. Hetal Patel asked if there is a process to correct the source once an error is corrected in CCIS. Mr. Cox said the CMS is the data master. The error is first corrected in the local CMS and then those changes are reflected up to CCIS. Mr. Jones echoed because there are real-time updates, the changes are automatic once they are changed in the local CMS.

AGENDA ITEM X. Appellate Court Technology Commission (ACTC) Update Judge Northcutt deferred the ACTC update as there was nothing to report at this time.

AGENDA ITEM XI. Cybersecurity Subcommittee Update Judge Stephens said administrative staff met to discuss the goals of the Cybersecurity subcommittee. The subcommittee is tasked with recommending minimum security measure standards, and education and training protocols. The subcommittee will be formed and meet in the coming weeks. Judge Stephens will provide an update at the February 2019 FCTC meeting.

AGENDA ITEM XII. Criminal Case Initiation Workgroup Update

Page 7 of 13

Judge Bidwill said the workgroup was tasked with evaluating the viability of using the Portal to initiate criminal cases. The Data Element subgroup was established to compile potential data elements to provide a uniform set of criminal data elements for criminal case initiation. A draft list of data elements was broken down into required, optional, and conditional required if known. The subgroup is working on obtaining more input from law enforcement to ensure a uniform set of data elements works for all stakeholders.

AGENDA ITEM XIII. FDC Joint Workgroup Update Judge Bidwill said the FDC workgroup was re-established a year ago to discuss the feasibility of establishing a secure conduit for the DOC to submit proposed violation of probation (VOP) warrants and utilizing the Portal for the filing and service of prisoner post-conviction motions, orders, and appellate documents. Judge Perkins said he is getting DOC probation orders through the Portal to sign electronically. Carolyn Weber said the functionality is available in the Portal, but no one is using it. Judge Ficarrotta said the Judicial Automated Workflow System (JAWS) is filing VOP warrants electronically and they go directly to the clerk’s CMS. Judge Bidwill stated the FDC joint workgroup meeting in October was delayed due to Hurricane Michael and anticipates rescheduling the meeting after the first of the year. Judge Bidwill extended an invite to Judge Perkins to allow for his input regarding the CAPS and VOP orders process.

AGENDA ITEM XIV. Operational Procedure Review Workgroup Update Judge Gagliardi deferred discussion on the operational procedures and will provide an update at the February 2019 FCTC meeting.

AGENDA ITEM XV. Certification Subcommittee A. Judge Perkins recognized the Certification Subcommittee members and briefly went over the history and responsibilities of the subcommittee. The subcommittee is responsible for developing specifications for the CAPS, figuring out how to implement those specifications, providing guidance to vendors to develop a product, and auditing vendor’s compliance to those specifications through presentations. CAPS has fundamentally changed every process that is done daily within the courts. Judge Perkins said the changes that started all those years ago have implications that have benefited the court. For example, forms are being developed on a circuit-wide basis which makes it more convenient and efficient for judges to do their job. By use of those forms, the court can incorporate best practices. The more information the judge receives, the more informed decisions can be made and allow for an improved case management process. Unfortunately, some counties are being left out of the discussion. At some point in time, all court users will be trained on how to use technology and interact with court files digitally. Although a lot of work has been done by the subcommittee, presently there is not a mandate that each county implement a CAPS. The subcommittee would like to update the CAPS Functional Requirements to require a CAPS be made available to the trial courts. This will allow the courts to benefit from an efficient electronic system. Everything is going digital and counties with resource challenges should be afforded the same opportunity to work with electronic files. The subcommittee deliberately did not put a timeline on the mandate to have a CAPS in every county. The subcommittee also did not discuss resources that would need to be allocated. Judge Perkins thinks the same resources used for judicial e-filing could also be used for having CAPS

Page 8 of 13

statewide. Having this mandate will complete the subcommittee’s commitment that was started years ago to offer the technology and benefits to all counties.

First Reading: Motion to recommend the adoption of section 1.4 of the Functional Requirements Document for Court Application Processing System which states,

1.4 A CAPS shall be made available to the trial courts of this state, in every division, county and circuit. The CAPS shall accept and display case information from the clerk’s case maintenance (CMS) in form and function consistent with these functional requirements.

MOTION OFFERED: Judge Terence Perkins MOTION SECONDED: Mike Smith Judge Stephens asked what happens if the mandate is not obeyed. Judge Munyon said that would be a matter for the Supreme Court to decide. Judge Munyon asked if there was an interest in putting a timeframe on the mandate. Judge Perkins was fine with adding a timeframe, as there are only three counties who do not have a CAPS. There are several CAPS that have the capability for judicial e-filing; however, they have not implemented that functionality. Judge Perkins amended his motion and Mike Smith accepted the friendly amendment. First Reading: Amended motion to recommend the adoption of section 1.4. of the Functional Requirements Document for Court Application Processing System which states,

1.4. A CAPS shall be made available to the trial courts of this state, in every division, county and circuit. The CAPS shall accept and display case information from the clerk’s case maintenance (CMS) in form and function consistent with these functional requirements. All counties must have a CAPS implemented within twenty-four months of the Supreme Court’s adoption.

MOTION CARRIED UNANMIOUSLY B. Judge Perkins gave a brief update on the proposed changes to the CAPS functional requirements. He went over the new requirement regarding E-Notification of Data Issues to the Clerk. This requirement sends a notice to the clerk to review a certain case in question. This could include closing a case or issues with a case. Sandra Lonergan asked if there will be an area to describe the issue and Judge Perkins responded yes.

First Reading: Motion to approve the Court Application Processing System Functional Requirements document version 5.0.

MOTION OFFERED: Judge Terence Perkins MOTION SECONDED: Judge Josephine Gagliardi Kim Stenger from Polk County Clerk’s Office said dropdown areas should be included for the notification to the clerks. Judge Perkins said the request is to setup the notification and refrain from telling the vendor how to do it. Judge Stephens would like to amend requirement 8.1 Order Generation and Processing Required and 8.3 Portal Integration by removing the word “final”.

Page 9 of 13

8.1 Order Generation and Processing Required. The system shall have the capacity to generate court orders by merging information from the accessible databases and runtime user input into a bank of forms. It shall also have the ability to process proposed orders submitted as PDF or word processor documents by internal and external users. The CAPS shall permit editing of the proposed order and file the signed final order in PDF/A format. 8.3 Portal Integration. The CAPS shall permit proposed orders to be received through the Portal and shall permit final orders to be filed directly to the clerk’s CMS or the Portal and served through the Portal, CMS, or CAPS.

Judge Perkins and Judge Gagliardi accepted the friendly amendment. First Reading: Amended motion to approve the Court Application Processing System Functional Requirements document version 5.0 with the understanding that “final” will be deleted from 8.1. Order Generation and Processing Required and 8.3. Portal Integration requirements. The amended standards will now read:

8.1 Order Generation and Processing Required. The system shall have the capacity to generate court orders by merging information from the accessible databases and runtime user input into a bank of forms. It shall also have the ability to process proposed orders submitted as PDF or word processor documents by internal and external users. The CAPS shall permit editing of the proposed order and file the signed final order in PDF/A format. 8.3 Portal Integration. The CAPS shall permit proposed orders to be received through the Portal and shall permit final signed orders to be filed directly to the clerk’s CMS or the Portal and served through the Portal, CMS, or CAPS.

Sandra Lonergan said it would be easier if self-represented litigants could be required to receive service through the Portal. Judge Munyon said under the Rules of Judicial Administration, self-represented litigants cannot be required to receive service via email. Mike Smith said in the Duval County family law department some filers are putting in emails to serve the other party and the party did not opt-in to receive emails. Judge Munyon said at some point the RJA may want to address this issue. Judge Stephens said approximately nineteen months ago the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee (RJAC) addressed this issue and packaged a proposed set of rules that would explicitly address the status of people who were not represented. The package was approved in final form to go to the Supreme Court, but he is unsure as to why the issue has not moved forward. Tom Hall addressed this under Agenda Item XIX. RJA Update. MOTION CARRIED

Page 10 of 13

AGENDA ITEM XVI. Clerk’s Case Maintenance System (CMS) Functional Standards Subcommittee Judge Gagliardi said the task for the CMS functional standards subcommittee is a complex initiative. The subcommittee has had several telephone meetings and reviewed documents that were previously submitted by Clerk Karen Rushing. The subcommittee anticipates meeting in-person in the coming months. Judge Gagliardi will provide an update at the February 2019 FCTC meeting.

AGENDA ITEM XVII. Access Governance Board Update A. Judge Hilliard discussed the Agency Supplemental Request Form. This form allows for an agency to assign multiple gatekeepers. Additionally, Judge Hilliard said with the proposal to allow an agency to have multiple gatekeepers, the gatekeeper language in the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records would need to be updated as well. Judge Hilliard offered two motions on this issue. First Reading: Motion to approve the Agency Supplemental Request Form. First Reading: Motion to update the gatekeeper language in the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records to read:

In an effort to effectively manage access and ensure security, an agency may utilize a one or more gatekeepers 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.

MOTION OFFERED: Judge Robert Hilliard MOTION SECONDED: Judge Terence Perkins Justice Polston questioned having more than one gatekeeper and inquired if it would be problematic. Judge Hilliard said some counties allow multiple gatekeepers and have not reported any issues. Judge Munyon asked if this change was contemplated for large agencies that might need more than one person to update information. Judge Hilliard said yes as well as for people leaving for a little while and unable to fulfill their duties while out. Sandra Lonergan asked about having a designee instead of a gatekeeper. Judge Munyon asked the clerks if agencies have too many gatekeepers can they still be defined as a gatekeeper. Laurie Reaves from Miami-Dade County Clerk’s Office said they have a primary gatekeeper who can designate other gatekeepers to ensure the appropriate level of access is granted throughout the agency. They have not experienced any issues with multiple gatekeepers. Ms. Lonergan asked if someone in the agency has the ultimate responsibility for access that is granted for their users and Ms. Reaves said yes. Judge Munyon asked if each designee signs a separate gatekeeper agreement. Ms. Reaves said in Miami-Dade, the agency head delegates the primary gatekeeper and the primary gatekeeper is responsible for all security across the organization. Miami-Dade has an audit trail of all access granted and the level of access that is granted. The onerous of granting access should be on the agency. Judge Munyon asked if it would be better to use the term designee. Judge Hilliard said the

Page 11 of 13

Board will present the language for first reading but consider the FCTC’s comments and bring a revision for second reading at the February 2019 FCTC meeting. MOTION CARRIED B. Judge Hilliard said although this issue is not on the FCTC’s agenda, at the Board’s November 1, 2018 meeting, it was brought to the Board’s attention that the there was a discrepancy in the standards relating to sworn notarized agreements. To rectify the situation, the Board would like to update the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records.

First Reading: Motion to update user role 5 Public in Clerks’ offices and registered users in the User Security Requirements column in the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records to read:

Secure access through username and password by written notarized agreement or in public at Clerk’s offices.

MOTION OFFERED: Judge Robert Hilliard MOTION SECONDED: Mike Smith MOTION CARRIED

i. Judge Hilliard discussed a request received from the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) to update the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records and the Access Security Matrix. The GAL articulated the challenges they face in obtaining electronic access to confidential court records. GAL’s are appointed differently on dissimilar time schedules and have different reporting requirements. The statewide GAL program submitted a proposal to the Board to update the standards and matrix to allow access to confidential court records pertaining to juvenile dependency cases. After a great deal of effort on this issue the Board is ready to submit its proposal to the FCTC for consideration.

First Reading: Motion to add Guardian ad Litem to user role 9 on the Access Security Matrix and update user role 9 in the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records.

User role 9 on the matrix will read 9. Florida Attorney General's Office, and the Florida Department of Children and Families, and Guardian ad Litem

Matrix User Role column in the standards will read User Role 9 Florida Attorney General’s Office, and the Florida Department of Children and Families, and Guardian ad Litem. Access Permitted column will read Access for guardian ad litem appointed under Chapter 39 as permitted by ss. 39.0132 and 39.822, F.S.

MOTION OFFERED: Judge Robert Hilliard MOTION SECONDED: Judge Terence Perkins MOTION CARRIED

Page 12 of 13

Clerk Ellspermann requested to waive a second reading and move forward with updating the standards and matrix for the protection of children.

Motion requesting the FCTC to expedite the approval of the changes to the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records and the Access Security Matrix and waive the requirement of a second reading. MOTION OFFERED: Clerk David Ellspermann MOTION SECONDED: Judge Martin Bidwill Judge Munyon said the FCTC tries to limit the number of times the matrix is sent to the Supreme Court for amendments in any given year. Clerk Ellspermann said the issue of concern provides judicial protection to children and is important for the Commission to consider expediting. Judge Hilliard said the Board has looked at this issue for months, certainly not without controversy. The Board reviewed and scrutinized a great deal of documentation before granting the access requested by GAL. Justice Polston would like the packet that will be submitted to the Supreme Court amending the standards and matrix to include the pros and cons of granting GAL the requested access. MOTION CARRIED Before moving on to the next agenda item, Judge Hilliard asked Deborah Lacombe, special counsel for the Guardian ad Litem Program to give background information on GAL’s request. Ms. Lacombe said GAL is a small state agency, but they represent every kid that comes into dependency court that is abused and neglected. Although parts of the statute grant the GAL program access to confidential information, this access has not been applied uniformly across the state. This will be a consequential improvement to the advocacy the GAL can provide for children and the information they can make available to judges as part of GAL’s statutory responsibility to have an independent investigation and make recommendations throughout the dependency proceedings. Ms. Lacombe expressed her sincere appreciation to the Board and the FCTC for recognizing the necessity for GAL’s to have this access. Clerk Ellspermann stated at the Board’s November 1, 2018 meeting, the Board discussed at length to recognize the appointment of the GAL. There are cases where GAL would be involved in, but they would not have access unless they are appointed by the court. The GAL would be required to have policies in place to ensure that unauthorized users do not access information improperly and disciplinary actions for accessing information improperly.

ii. Judge Hilliard said the Board has more work to do on Legal Aid Services’ request to update the standards and matrix. He requested this issue be tabled until the February 2019 FCTC meeting.

Page 13 of 13

AGENDA ITEM XVIII. Technical Standards Subcommittee Update a. Mike Smith said the Technical Standards Subcommittee developed standards for Backup of Electronic Records, Document Filing, and Document Storage which were approved for second reading at the August 3, 2018 FCTC meeting. Roosevelt Sawyer said OSCA is reviewing a packet that will be submitted to the Supreme Court for adoption of the standards through an administrative order.

AGENDA ITEM XIX. Rules of Judicial Administration Update Tom Hall said the rules package dealing with electronic filing and service was passed, but there was one rule pertaining to signing documents that did not get passed. The RJAC chair decided to hold off on sending a packet to the Supreme Court until the electronic signature rule is passed; therefore, allowing the Supreme Court to receive one packet of proposed rule changes. Additionally, the chair wanted to wait for proposed rule changes from other committees as well. Mr. Hall went on to say if the RJAC passes the electronic signature rule in January 2019, there are other rules committees who have some electronic rule changes. The RJAC will put a packet together and file all the proposed rules out of cycle. Judge Munyon inquired if any rules have recently been passed that deals with what the FCTC does. Mr. Hall said the five-day rule for electronic service was passed and removes the five extra days allowed for service by regular U.S. mail. Judge Munyon asked if the RJA discussed how to deal with documents that are filed after normal working hours. Mr. Hall said there is discussion in the appellate rules about redefining rendition. Rendition used to be the filing of the signed written order with the clerk of court. Although, no rule to reference, there was case law that said that date was the date stamp. Now judges issue orders electronically after close of business, so the question is when does the clock start to run. The clerk’s office does not look at the orders until the next business day. There is ongoing discussion on how to rewrite that rule. The rule that did pass dealt with documents filed after hours on a Friday, in terms of calculation, the weekend will not be included in the number of days until the next document is due. Judge Munyon said the issue eventually needs to be addressed because the courts nor the clerk’s offices conduct business on a 24-hour basis.

AGENDA ITEM XX. Other Items/Wrap Up Justice Polston expressed his appreciation for the work of the FCTC and Judge Munyon’s leadership. He mentioned Justice Pariente’s great contribution to technology and the groundwork she laid for technology issues that the FCTC is currently working on. Judge Munyon advised everyone the next FCTC meeting is scheduled for February 7-8, 2019 in Destin. There being no further business, Judge Munyon asked for a motion to adjourn the FCTC meeting. Motion to adjourn the FCTC meeting MOTION OFFERED: Judge Josephine Gagliardi MOTION SECOND: Judge Terence Perkins MOTION CARRIED UNANMIOUSLY

Agenda Item III a.

Acceptance of November Action

Summary

Page 1 of 2

FCTC

Action Summary

November 2018

• FCTC approved the following motions from the Certification Subcommittee for first readingpertaining to the Functional Requirements for Court Application Processing System:

o Motion to recommend the adoption of section 1.4 of the Functional RequirementsDocument for Court Application Processing System which states,

1.4. A CAPS shall be made available to the trial courts of this state, in every division, county and circuit. The CAPS shall accept and display case information from the clerk’s case maintenance (CMS) in form and function consistent with these functional requirements. All counties must have a CAPS implemented within twenty-four months of the Supreme Court’s adoption.

o Motion to update 8.1. Order Generation and Processing Required requirement to read, “Thesystem shall have the capacity to generate court orders by merging information from theaccessible databases and runtime user input into a bank of forms. It shall also have the ability toprocess proposed orders submitted as PDF or word processor documents by internal andexternal users. The CAPS shall permit editing of the proposed order and file the signed final order in PDF/A format.”

o Motion to update 8.3. Portal Integration requirement to read, “The CAPS shall permitproposed orders to be received through the Portal and shall permit final signed ordersto be filed directly to the clerk’s CMS or the Portal and serviced through the Portal, CMS,or CAPS.

o Motion to recommend the approval of the Court Application Processing SystemFunctional Requirements document version 5.0 with the understanding that “final” willbe deleted from 8.1. Order Generation and processing Required and 8.3. PortalIntegration requirements.

• FCTC approved the following motions from the Access Governance Board for first reading:o Motion to approve the Agency Supplemental Request Form.

Page 2 of 2

o Motion to update the gatekeeper language in the Standards for Access to ElectronicCourt Records to read, “In an effort to effectively manage access and ensure security, anagency may utilize a one or more gatekeepers authorized by an agency head or anauthorized gatekeeper, who shall be an employee of that agency, for the purpose ofadding, updating, and deleting user or agency information.

o Motion to update user role 5 Public in Clerks’ offices and registered users in the UserSecurity Requirements column in the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records toread, “Secure access through username and password by written notarized agreementor in public at Clerk’s offices.

o Motion to add Guardian ad Litem to user role 9 on the Access Security Matrix andupdate user role 9 in the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records.

▪ User Role 9 on the Access Security Matrix will read, 9. Florida Attorney General’sOffice, and the Florida Department of Children and Families, and Guardian adLitem

▪ Matrix User Role column in the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Recordswill read, User Role 9 Florida Attorney General’s Office, and the FloridaDepartment of Children and Families, and Guardian ad Litem. Access Permittedcolumn will read, Access for guardian ad litem appointed under Chapter 39 aspermitted by ss. 39.0132 and 39.822, F.S.

o Motion to expedite the approval of the changes to the Standards for Access to ElectronicCourt Records and the Access Security Matrix and waive the requirement for a secondreading.

Agenda Item III. a.

CAPS Progress Report

Prepared by OSCA-OIT staff Page 1 of 1

CAPS PROGRESS REPORT– OCTOBER 2018

DEPLOYED SYSTEMS

Sixty-three (63) counties have deployed CAPS in either one or both the civil and criminal divisions. Total CAPS Certification Version: *Taylor County civil/criminal divisions have different CAPS

SCHEDULED - *NO CHANGE SINCE LAST QUARTER • Three (3) counties report having their CAPS deployments pending: * No change since last quarter

County Division Anticipated

Status on non-deployed CAPS:

Clay Both Dec 2019

ICMS programming has started and currently seeing data. Pasco Both Jan 2019 Syncing Clericus calendars with JAWS and correcting data views.

Monroe Both July 2019 Working with CJSU to set up ICMS by July 2019.

• Two (2) divisions report having their CAPS deployments pending:

Miami-Dade Criminal TBD Delayed for a new CJIS platform which supports use of images.

Pinellas Criminal TBD Currently working on direct filing for Criminal and UFC.

NON-PORTAL FILING SYSTEMS

For specific county functionality, please view the report provided by the Court Technology Officers and published at: CAPS Functional Smartsheet Report.

FUNCTIONALITY - *NO CHANGE SINCE LAST QUARTER Proposed Orders Received via CAPS:

Fourteen (14) counties report deploying CAPS ability to electronically receive proposed orders directly via CAPS and route to a judge for editing and approval.

Judicial Orders e-filed via CAPS: Fifty-three (53) counties report deploying CAPS ability for orders to be signed and electronically filed (either to the Portal or directly to the local Clerk CMS).

Proposed Orders Received via CAPS Judicial Orders e-Filed via CAPS

County CAPS County CAPS Circuit/County CAPS Circuit CAPS Escambia Mentis Sarasota Pioneer 1st Circuit Mentis 10th Circuit ICMS Okaloosa Mentis Hillsborough JAWS 2nd Circuit Mentis 11th (Civil) Mentis Santa Rosa Mentis Palm Beach JVS 3rd Circuit* Mentis 12th Circuit Mentis/Pioneer

Walton Mentis Broward CMS Nassau ICMS 13th Circuit JAWS Pinellas JAWS Seminole In-House 5th Circuit Mentis 15th Circuit JVS Flagler Pioneer 6th Circuit JAWS 17th Circuit CMS St. Johns Pioneer 7th Circuit* Pioneer 18th Circuit ICMS/In-house

Volusia Pioneer 8th Circuit ICMS 19th Circuit Mentis Putnam Pioneer 9th Circuit Mentis Charlotte Mentis

*Taylor (civil), and Putnam County do not have this functionality*

CAPS 2.0 CAPS 3.0 CAPS 4.0 1.5* 43.5* 18

https://app.smartsheet.com/b/publish?EQBCT=7d69116b9d9b474da9ea4687aee68f9a

Agenda Item III. b.

CAPS Certified Functionality Map

https://www.flcourts.org/content/download/219008/1979994/court-application-processing-system-functional-requirements-june2016v4clean.pdf

https://app.smartsheet.com/b/publish?EQBCT=7d69116b9d9b474da9ea4687aee68f9a

https://app.smartsheet.com/b/publish?EQBCT=3351058c9b774a24ade2e32898aef678

Agenda Item VI.

Portal Progress Report

Florida Courts E-Filing Authority Board

Portal Progress Report

December 2018

Carolyn Weber, Portal Program Manager

Recipients Number

Submissions to Trial Court 1,194,062

Submissions to Department of Corrections 589

Submissions to Second District Court Appeal 1,320

Submissions to Florida Supreme Court 1,196

Submissions to Bureau of Vital Statistics 686

Total E-Filing Submissions 1,197,853

Total Individual Documents SubmittedTotal Number of Pages

1,802,4757,938,600

December E-Filing Stats

December Stats Continued

Category NumberAverage Submissions per Weekday 61,076

Highest Volume Day: December 18, 2018 74,020

Peak # of filings in 1 hour: 3 pm 7,746

New Case Initiation 72,016

Portal Accounts 222,754

October 2018 had the highest number of submission in any given month to date at 1,521,610July 2018 had the highest average submissions per weekday at 71,878May 31, 2017 had the highest volume day at 74,102 submissionsSeptember 2018 had the most submissions during the 3:00 P.M. hour at 8,711May 2018 had the most new cases filed during a given month at 85,736

2018 at a Glance

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18 Apr-18 May-18 Jun-18 Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18

Submissions Documents

December Average # ofFilings Per Hour

78263 248

41 32 64 159

559

2,204

4,817

6,375

7,020

5,198

5,555

7,108

7,746

7,183

3,202

1,654

609372 276 183 130

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

12am 1am 2am 3am 4am 5am 6am 7am 8am 9am 10am 11am 12pm 1pm 2pm 3pm 4pm 5pm 6pm 7pm 8pm 9pm 10pm 11pm

Document Formats

Format Number Percent

WordPerfect 26 0.001%

Word 90,991 5%

Text Based PDF 646,100 36%

Scanned PDF 1,066,255 59%

Scanned PDF Text Based PDF Word Doc. WordPerfect Doc.

Average # Days toDocket in December

For more detailed information please contact Marleni Bruner ([email protected]) or Leonard Carper ([email protected]) at 850-386-2223

1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3

1.6

1.41.5

1.3

1.5

1.3

1.5 1.5

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8


Days toDocket

1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.5

mailto:[email protected]


% Submissions Returned toCorrection Queue in Dec.

Nov-17 Dec-17 Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18 Apr-18 May-18 Jun-18 Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18

Percent of Submissions 1.74% 1.82% 1.76% 1.80% 1.78% 1.82% 1.85% 1.89% 1.97% 1.81% 1.83% 1.94% 1.82%

1.74%

1.82%

1.76%

1.80%

1.78%

1.82%

1.85%

1.89%

1.97%

1.81%

1.83%

1.94%

1.82%

1.60%

1.65%

1.70%

1.75%

1.80%

1.85%

1.90%

1.95%

2.00%

Portal Activity byFiler Role in December

Filer Role # of Accounts # of Submissions % of Submissions

Attorneys 82,296 1,022,965 85.4%

Judicial 1,313 102,971 8.6%

Process Servers 1,353 31,839 2.7%

Self-Represented Litigants

124,503 8,754 0.7%

Self-Represented Litigant Accounts and Submissions for December

91,52994,270

97,198100,180

103,155106,095

109,238112,557

115,438118,747

121,789124,503

9,018 8,582 8,991 9,127 9,920 9,034 9,330 10,379 8,965 10,038 8,985 8,754

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000


Accounts Submissions

Self-Represented LitigantAccount Status

Account Status Number of Accounts

Inactive 1,113

Pending Activation 10,690

Locked 685

Active 112,015

TOTAL 124,503

TPV December Submissions

Organization # Submissions # Documents

ABC Legal Services, Inc. 8,340 8,344

eFileMadeEasy 36,215 53,399

TSI Legal 0 0

Turbo Court 20 97

Ironrock 12,454 12,455

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

ABC Legal Services, Inc. eFileMadeEasy TSI Legal Turbo Court Ironrock

Submissions Documents

2018 E-Filing Stats

Recipients Number

Total Submissions to Trial Court 14,446,702

Total Submissions to Dept. of Corrections 7,788

Total Submissions to FSC and 2nd DCA 16,660

Total Submissions to Bureau of Vital Statistics 7,283

Total E-Filing Submissions 16,478,433

Total Individual Documents SubmittedTotal Number of Pages

24,408,961112,228,013

2018 E-Filing Stats Continued

Portal Team Projects

Project Status

System-to-System E-Filing [TPV]

Providing technical support to TPVs with system-to-system e-filing. 14 Vendors Certified, working with existing vendors to expand certification to the other filing paths and divisions

DIY Documents Tenant Eviction interview in Production; Small Claims under review, 104 additional interviews in the process

Criminal Case Initiation Working with FCTC Portal Sub-Committee to scope out the process and prepare a draft document

Release 2018.02MR February 2019 – Removal of Silverlight on Review side

Bounce Backs There are a large number of Portal accounts that receive multiple bounce back notifications. Working to clean up bad email addresses in the Portal

Change Advisory Board Meets as necessary to discuss Portal enhancement requests and make recommendations to the EFAB. Next meeting January 8, 2019

Commitment Packets to Reception Centers

Working with the pilot counties and local sheriffs to send the Commitment Packets to the Reception Centers through the Portal

Agenda Item VI. b.

Service Desk Report

Florida Courts E-Filing Authority Board

Service Desk Report

December 2018

Customer Service IncidentsDecember 2018

Status October 2018 November 2018 December 2018Incidents Received 3,779 2,632 2,376Incidents Worked 3,770 2,615 2,372Carry Over 17 15 8# of Filings 1,511,178 1,285,545 1,188,700# of Documents 2,237,770 1,902,645 1,792,412

Average Acknowledgement/Resolution TimesAcknowledge Time

.06 Days30 Minutes

.02 Days13 Minutes

.02 Days11 Minutes

Resolution Time

.19 Days 1 Hour 41 Minutes

.07 Days 37 Minutes

.06 Days32 Minutes

Stakeholders: Case Managers, Court Reporters, Creditors, Domestic Violence Case Initiators, Law Enforcement, Local Agents, Media, Mediators, Mental Health, Process Servers , Professionals, and State Agents.

Judge IncidentsDecember 2018

Status October 2018 November 2018 December 2018Incidents Received 5 8 16Incidents Worked 5 8 16Carry Over 0 0 0# of Filings 127,209 105,653 101,015# of Documents 135,120 112,210 107,351

Average Acknowledgement/Resolution Times

Acknowledge Time.04 Days

22 Minutes.00 Days

2 Minutes.01 Days

5 Minutes

Resolution Time.10 Days

53 Minutes.03 Days

15 Minutes.10 Days

53 Minutes

Stakeholders: Judges, Judicial Assistants, General Magistrates, and Hearing Officers

Pro Se IncidentsDecember 2018

Status October 2018 November 2018 December 2018Incidents Received 480 396 422Incidents Worked 478 392 420Carry Over 3 4 2# of Filings 10,041 8,985 8,754

# of Documents 17,924 16,000 15,142



26 Minutes.02 Days

11 Minutes.01 Days

7 Minutes


1 Hour 26 Minutes.06 Days

31 Minutes.04 Days

21 MinutesStakeholders: Pro Se filers and Agent for Pro Se Filer

Attorney IncidentsDecember 2018

Status October 2018 November 2018 December 2018Incidents Received 3,294 2,228 1,938Incidents Worked 3,287 2,215 1,936Carry Over 14 11 6# of Filings 1,309,357 1,111,412 1,022,893# of Documents 2,005,887 1,701,778 1,600,499



30 Minutes.02 Days

13 Minutes.02 Days

12 Minutes


1 Hour 44 Minutes.07 Days

38 Minutes.06 Days

34 Minutes

Stakeholders: Attorneys and their representatives

Technical/System IncidentsDecember 2018

Status October 2018 November 2018 December 2018Incidents Received 457 377 266Incidents Worked 434 358 261Carry Over 10 104 34# of Filings 10,431 9,577 9,110# of Documents 12,545 11,714 11,066


Acknowledge Time

.05 Days26 Minutes

.04 Days23 Minutes

.04 Days19 Minutes

Resolution Time

1.0 Days 9 Hours 0 Minutes

.84 Days7 Hours 31 Minutes

.63 Days5 Hours 39 Minutes

Stakeholders: Clerks of Court and their staff

Top Types of Incidents

Attorneys

Account Set-up Create New Filing E-mail Issues

E-Service Issues General Question Login Issues

Password Reset Payment Assistance Pending Registration

Referred to County

Self-Represented Litigant/Pro Se

Account Set-up Case Look-Up Create New Filing

De-Activate Account Docket Question E-Service Issues

General Question Login Issue Password Reset

Referred To County

Password Reset Pending Registration

E-Portal Service Desk InitiativesPending Filing Clean-Up

Month/Year Count

November 2015 78,000

November 2016 1,783

November 2017 2,218

Site Visits

County Month

Dixie County February 2017

Escambia County May 2017

Dixie County May 2017

If you’d like to schedule an onsite visit or have questions, please feel free to contact the Service Center at (850) 414-2210.

or contact me direct at: Gia Howell (850) 577-4578 email: [email protected]


At-A-Glance Statistics

The following slides breakdown E-Portal Service Desk Calls, Filings, and Documents by year and month for Customer Service and Technical.

County Account Comparison

Mon Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2014 1,035 904 1,051 836 537 663 768 601 613 698 435 488

2015 374 369 494 499 606 583 537 482 541 497 480 455

2016 542 433 575 359 324 468 426 463 437 323


2016 30 30 49 47 42 61 33 51 36 39 29 26

2017 48 46 69 57 66 35 42 41 34 52 32 352018 47 40 49 45 57 61 54 67 58 66 57 61

*Highest # of County Accounts 6/15: 126

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

County Accounts

2016 2017 Series5

County Call Comparison


2014 1,035 904 1,051 836 537 663 768 601 613 698 435 488

2015 374 369 494 499 606 583 537 482 541 497 480 455

2016 542 433 575 359 324 468 426 463 437 323


2016 542 433 575 359 324 468 426 463 437 323 389 329

2017 536 383 433 576 548 360 331 344 272 341 273 2592018 311 288 345 361 455 337 455 344 467 457 377 266

*Highest # of County Calls 3/14: 1,051

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700


County Calls

2016 2017 2018

County Filing Comparison


2014 1,035 904 1,051 836 537 663 768 601 613 698 435 488

2015 374 369 494 499 606 583 537 482 541 497 480 455

2016 542 433 575 359 324 468 426 463 437 323


2016 6,050 6,436 6,909 6,575 6,777 7,097 6,909 7,124 6,432 6,440 6,337 6,238

2017 6,761 6,781 7,745 7,149 8,513 8,987 8,036 9,338 7,073 10,006 7,932 6,5092018 7,546 6,774 7,879 7,736 8,265 8,746 8,855 10,077 8,428 10,431 9,577 9,110

*Highest # of County Filings 10/18

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000


County Filings

2016 2017 2018

County Doc Comparison


2014 1,035 904 1,051 836 537 663 768 601 613 698 435 488

2015 374 369 494 499 606 583 537 482 541 497 480 455

2016 542 433 575 359 324 468 426 463 437 323


2016 6,926 7,457 7,952 7,724 7,945 8,283 7,955 8,525 7,666 7,723 7,551 7,462

2017 8,069 7,780 8,944 8,258 10,055 10,768 9,489 11,225 8,270 11,731 9,549 8,1512018 9,277 8,533 9,843 9,759 10,470 11,026 10,822 12,388 10,317 12,545 11,714 11,066

*Highest # of County Documents 10/18

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000


County Docs

2016 2017 2018

Customer Service Account Comparison


2014 1,035 904 1,051 836 537 663 768 601 613 698 435 488

2015 374 369 494 499 606 583 537 482 541 497 480 455

2016 542 433 575 359 324 468 426 463 437 323


2016 2,243 2,376 2,666 2,687 2,874 2,973 2,709 3,287 3,191 3,181 2,915 2,778

2017 3,122 2,900 3,244 3,286 3,897 3,677 3,596 3,673 2,801 3,606 3,119 2,8872018 3,356 3,346 3,570 3,578 3,611 3,428 3,635 3,933 3,421 4,054 3,609 3,236

*Highest # of CS Accounts 10/18

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500


Customer Service Accounts

2016 2017 2018

Customer Service Call Comparison


2014 1,035 904 1,051 836 537 663 768 601 613 698 435 488

2015 374 369 494 499 606 583 537 482 541 497 480 455

2016 542 433 575 359 324 468 426 463 437 323


2016 2,852 2,712 3,081 2,671 2,669 2,922 2,456 2,773 2,452 2,385 2,302 2,136

2017 3,301 2,662 2,886 3,278 3,897 2,889 2,349 2,825 2,042 2,771 2,440 2,2552018 2,916 2,735 3,215 3,081 3,253 3,088 3,362 3,157 2,685 3,779 2,632 2,376

*Highest # of CS Call 10/14: 4,436

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500


Customer Service Calls

2016 2017 2018

Customer Service Filing Comparison


2014 1,035 904 1,051 836 537 663 768 601 613 698 435 488

2015 374 369 494 499 606 583 537 482 541 497 480 455

2016 542 433 575 359 324 468 426 463 437 323


2016 1,067,747 1,140,458 1,236,627 1,136,218 1,135,684 1,201,808 1,236,631 1,236,758 1,147,920 1,079,158 1,138,754 1,112,009

2017 1,216,780 1,200,505 1,391,103 1,189,562 1,342,424 1,363,757 1,207,665 1,413,512 984,383 1,325,797 1,204,772 1,116,576

2018 1,359,942 1,257,942 1,402,172 1,363,732 1,435,900 1,395,289 1,405,049 1,509,926 1,263,367 1,511,178 1,285,545 1,197,810

*Highest # of CS Filings 10/18

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000


Customer Service Filings

2016 2017 2018

Customer Service Doc Comparison


2014 1,035 904 1,051 836 537 663 768 601 613 698 435 488

2015 374 369 494 499 606 583 537 482 541 497 480 455

2016 542 433 575 359 324 468 426 463 437 323


2016 1,067,747 1,140,458 1,236,627 1,136,218 1,135,684 1,201,808 1,236,631 1,236,758 1,147,920 1,079,158 1,138,754 1,112,009

2017 1,216,780 1,200,505 1,391,103 1,189,562 1,342,424 1,363,757 1,207,665 1,413,512 984,383 1,325,797 1,204,772 1,116,576

2018 1,984,219 1,836,173 2,072,675 2,009,401 2,130,678 2,058,654 2,076,534 2,173,444 1,881,521 2,237,770 1,902,645 1,803,478

*Highest # of CS Docs 10/18

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000


Customer Service Docs

2016 2017 2018

Judge Account Comparison


2014 1,035 904 1,051 836 537 663 768 601 613 698 435 488

2015 374 369 494 499 606 583 537 482 541 497 480 455

2016 542 433 575 359 324 468 426 463 437 323


2016 29 12 20 23 15 87 23 38 30 93 11 12

2017 64 25 20 12 7 4 3 10 2 5 16 12018 12 51 7 10 3 14 8 2 3 12 8 14

*Highest # of Judge Accounts 3/15: 129

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Judge Accounts

2016 2017 2018

Judge Call Comparison


2014 1,035 904 1,051 836 537 663 768 601 613 698 435 488

2015 374 369 494 499 606 583 537 482 541 497 480 455

2016 542 433 575 359 324 468 426 463 437 323


2016 9 9 12 7 9 37 3 5 7 60 14 8

2017 59 14 16 6 8 5 5 11 5 8 17 02018 11 53 11 12 7 15 15 13 6 5 8 16

*Highest # of Judge Call 10/16: 60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Judge Calls

2016 2017 2018

Judge Filing Comparison


2016 23,632 26,312 33,590 33,443 36,062 44,448 33,590 53,640 53,133 51,170 55,942 52,603

2017 63,514 66,084 79,403 71,118 83,013 87,540 78,092 100,277 71,783 101,071 88,778 81,2292018 104,868 101,141 108,706 111,988 113,615 116,763 113,503 127,283 102,915 127,209 105,653 101,015

*Highest # of Judge Filings 10/18

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000


Judge Filings

2016 2017 2018

Judge Doc Comparison


2014 1,035 904 1,051 836 537 663 768 601 613 698 435 488

2015 374 369 494 499 606 583 537 482 541 497 480 455

2016 542 433 575 359 324 468 426 463 437 323


2016 26,256 28,859 36,639 36,417 36,062 45,032 36,639 57,357 56,598 54,607 59,853 56,071

2017 67,219 70,275 85,358 76,352 88,879 93,785 83,361 106,658 75,412 107,193 94,258 86,8302018 111,589 107,456 115,240 118,835 120,295 123,668 120,263 135,568 109,203 135,120 112,210 107,351

*Highest # of Judge Docs 8/18

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000


Judge Docs

2016 2017 2018

Pro Se Account Comparison


2014 1,035 904 1,051 836 537 663 768 601 613 698 435 488

2015 374 369 494 499 606 583 537 482 541 497 480 455

2016 542 433 575 359 324 468 426 463 437 323


2016 1,686 1,803 2,074 2,054 2,166 2,300 2,176 2,689 2,547 2,346 2,345 2,304

2017 2,454 2,350 2,839 2,701 3,230 3,060 3,017 3,102 2,404 2,838 2,587 2,3952018 2,814 2,738 2,926 2,979 2,995 2,922 3,141 3,316 2,883 3,308 3,044 2,713

*Highest # of Pro Se Accounts 8/18

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500


Pro Se Accounts

2016 2017 2018

Pro Se Call Comparison


2014 1,035 904 1,051 836 537 663 768 601 613 698 435 488

2015 374 369 494 499 606 583 537 482 541 497 480 455

2016 542 433 575 359 324 468 426 463 437 323


2016 274 406 499 409 459 481 435 517 423 393 399 403

2017 588 504 522 605 679 637 524 608 313 411 392 3922018 455 332 430 357 348 420 389 464 348 480 396 422

*Highest # of Pro Se Calls 5/17: 679

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800


Pro Se Calls

2016 2017 2018

Pro Se Filing Comparison


2014 1,035 904 1,051 836 537 663 768 601 613 698 435 488

2015 374 369 494 499 606 583 537 482 541 497 480 455

2016 542 433 575 359 324 468 426 463 437 323


2016 4,820 4,991 5,819 5,722 5,798 6,556 5,808 6,368 5,994 6,356 6,227 6,585

2017 7,419 7,183 8,248 7,177 8,545 8,629 8,101 9,224 6,832 8,701 8,001 7,5432018 9,018 8,582 8,991 9,127 9,920 9,034 9,330 10,379 8,965 10,041 8,985 8,754

*Highest # of Pro Se Filings 8/18

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000


Pro Se Filings

2016 2017 2018

Pro Se Doc Comparison


2014 1,035 904 1,051 836 537 663 768 601 613 698 435 488

2015 374 369 494 499 606 583 537 482 541 497 480 455

2016 542 433 575 359 324 468 426 463 437 323


2016 8,625 9,146 10,706 10,772 10,135 11,980 10,695 11,479 10,867 11,219 10,822 11,240

2017 13,218 12,575 14,140 12,017 14,151 14,327 13,792 15,897 10,801 14,899 13,896 13,1302018 16,040 14,209 15,689 15,303 16,981 15,754 16,639 18,257 15,411 17,924 16,000 15,142

*Highest # of Pro Se Docs 8/18

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000


Pro Se Docs

2016 2017 2018

Attorney Account Comparison


2014 1,035 904 1,051 836 537 663 768 601 613 698 435 488

2015 374 369 494 499 606 583 537 482 541 497 480 455

2016 542 433 575 359 324 468 426 463 437 323


2016 390 457 435 459 479 430 367 417 401 556 425 327

2017 431 382 385 414 443 425 375 399 259 581 396 3692018 376 420 476 403 449 358 354 394 284 567 391 353

*Highest # of Attorney Accounts 4/14: 1,379

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700


Attorney Accounts

2016 2017 2018

Attorney Call Comparison


2014 1,035 904 1,051 836 537 663 768 601 613 698 435 488

2015 374 369 494 499 606 583 537 482 541 497 480 455

2016 542 433 575 359 324 468 426 463 437 323


2016 2,569 2,297 2,570 2,255 2,201 2,404 2,018 2,251 2,022 1,932 1,889 1,725

2017 2,642 2,144 2,348 2,667 3,210 2,247 1,820 2,206 1,724 2,352 2,031 1,8632018 2,450 2,321 2,774 2,724 2,898 2,653 2,958 2,680 2,331 3,294 2,228 1,938

*Highest # of Attorney Calls 10/14: 4,237

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500


Attorney Calls

2016 2017 2018

Attorney Filing Comparison


2014 1,035 904 1,051 836 537 663 768 601 613 698 435 488

2015 374 369 494 499 606 583 537 482 541 497 480 455

2016 542 433 575 359 324 468 426 463 437 323


2016 1,039,295 1,109,155 1,197,218 1,097,053 1,093,824 1,150,804 1,197,233 1,176,750 1,088,793 1,021,632 1,020,903 997,361

2017 1,083,285 1,068,192 1,233,923 1,048,147 1,181,822 1,197,600 1,065,247 1,241,750 862,559 1,165,854 1,059,208 980,410

2018 1,186,889 1,094,562 1,226,145 1,183,066 1,249,112 1,203,781 1,215,842 1,299,672 1,092,537 1,309,357 1,111,412 1,022,893

*Highest # of Attorney Filings 10/18

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000


Attorney Filings

2016 2017 2018

Attorney Doc Comparison


2014 1,035 904 1,051 836 537 663 768 601 613 698 435 488

2015 374 369 494 499 606 583 537 482 541 497 480 455

2016 542 433 575 359 324 468 426 463 437 323


2016 1,559,807 1,676,775 1,818,431 1,652,473 1,660,899 1,741,987 1,818,524 1,781,116 1,639,454 1,534,350 1,503,008 1,502,212

2017 1,632,796 1,603,031 1,869,100 1,589,549 1,790,827 1,815,925 1,600,944 1,876,031 1,269,531 1,736,631 1,587,812 1,484,653

2018 1,784,005 1,648,627 1,869,365 1,801,545 1,916,525 1,838,678 1,858,087 2,018,550 1,684,638 2,005,887 1,701,778 1,600,499

*Highest # of Attorney Docs 8/18

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000


Attorney Docs

2016 2017 2018

Agenda Item VI. d.

Change Advisory Board Report -Draft

Portal Change Advisory Board Report Recommendations to the Florida Court E-

Filing Portal Authority Board

This document contains a list and supporting documentation of requested Portal

modifications that has been reviewed by the Portal Change Advisory Board [CAB]. Each

request contains a recommended priority made in collaboration with the E-Filing Portal

Team.

1/9/2019

Page 1 of 1

Spreadsheet contents

Column Heading Description

HEAT Ticket # The reference number for each Portal/CCIS change request. Click The HEAT # to jump to the supporting documentation by ticket number to see a more detailed description of the enhancement request. This number is also used in subsequent release notes when the software is implemented.

Ticket Description A short description of the Portal/CCIS change request

Complexity Describes the level of difficulty to implement the modification. The complexity reflects the number of systems involved or coordination involved by multiple parties to complete the modification. Low – Changes isolated to the portal in a narrow functional area

Medium – Changes isolated to the portal in multiple functional areas

High – Changes require adapter modifications, clerk configurations, and/or modifications with the clerks’ CMS

Submitted by Entity that has submitted the enhancement request

CAB Input The assessment assigned to each ticket for recommendation to the Authority Board. 1 - Schedule for Release

2 – Important

3 - Medium Importance

4 - Low/Awaiting guidance

5 – Bug

6 – Seek Guidance

7 – Research Needed

8 – No Action to be Taken

Release Schedule for 2019

Month Activity

02/07/19 – 03/08/19 FCTC - Destin

02/26/2019 EFAB Meeting at Winter Conf.

05/18/19 2019.01 Portal Release

06/25/19 – 06/27/19 FCCC Summer Conference

07/20/19 2019.01 Maintenance Release

08/22/19 – 08/23/19 FCTC

10/26/19 2019.02 Portal Release

11/14/19 – 11/15/19 FCTC

01/04/20 2019.02 Maintenance Release

Agenda Item VI. e.

Release 2019.01

HEAT # Ticket Description

953081 Additional fields on the Associated Participate Roles tab for last 4 digits of social security #

988098

1124967Additional Fee Options (prompt codes)

1124909 Driver School Certificates - work with DHSMV on bulk filing [TPV] process

1151182 Create additional person information screen for Dept. of Ag. filing path and add to Clerk Review queue

1193953 Allow the Search For Filings report to list DOR submissions filing status as well as Portal submissions

1193955 Add confirmation number to the audit trail for DOR submissions

This Release List has not been approved by the E-Filing Authority Board as of this meeting.

It will be presented at the 02/26/2019 meeting for approval. The Release date is 05/18/2019

Agenda Item VI. f.

E-Service List Request

Agenda item: VI. f.

Page 1 of 1

E- Service List Request:

An enhancement request from an attorney to be discussed at the Portal Subcommittee meeting:

The request is to have the E-service list tab in the Portal default to all recipients being selected. This would be putting it back to the way it was initially. This change previously caused confliction that I believe we need the subcommittee and ultimately the FCTC to provide guidance to us on this request.

It has been before our Change Advisory Board [CAB] on January 8 and their recommendation was to ‘seek guidance’ and I believe that this guidance should come from this subcommittee and the FCTC.

This is the HEAT ticket information on this request:

“We respectfully request that the e-portal revert back to the “Select All” feature as the default on the Service List tab. Otherwise, through sheer neglect a filer can remove another party from being served, even though service on that party is required by law. There are rare circumstances when the entire service list is not required to be served when a document or pleading is filed with the Court so it makes sense to default to serve the entire service list unless a specific party is intentionally deselected.”

Agenda Item VII.

Judicial Signature Concerns

Agenda Item: VII

Memo:

To: Tim Smith, Chair of the E-Portal Authority for the state of Florida. From: Tonya Rainwater, Chief Judge, 18th Judicial Circuit

I am concerned about the security of the “judicial review” portion of the e-portal. Currently, a judge who takes over another judge’s division and work queue in the portal will end up signing orders using the prior judge’s signature.

In September, I took over the probate division from Judge Harris, who left the 18th Circuit on August 31 upon his appointment to the 5th DCA. When I took over his caseload, the pending orders in the portal were transferred to my queue, which I began reviewing and signing. It immediately became clear that when I reviewed and “signed” the orders, the actual orders would get filed with the signature of Judge Harris. (We are still trying to correct some of these orders.)

Because of this “glitch”, I stopped signing orders for about 10 days while the staff “fixed” the problem. Apparently, this was a manual “one-time” fix, as it is now clear that the problem has been repeated.

We had some division changes in Brevard County on January 1; we now have other judges reviewing and signing orders in the portal while logged in under their own names, but the orders show up with my signature. Likewise, I have reviewed orders previously submitted to another judge, and when I “sign” the order while logged in to the portal under my name, it processes the prior judge’s signature onto the order.

This is unacceptable and renders the use of the portal to sign and submit orders by judges to be unacceptable. It is crucial that when a judge enters the portal using his or her own login information, that the output from the judge ONLY have orders with that judge’s OWN signature attached. In a circumstance where a judge is filling in for another judge, the substitute judge should be able to access orders and input his or her own signature on the order, regardless of to which judge’s name the order was submitted.

Please correct this problem as soon as possible. Please let me know if you need further information on this subject.

Tonya B. Rainwater

Chief Judge 18th Judicial Circuit, Florida 2825 Judge Fran Jamieson Way Viera, FL 32940 321-617-7283

This email may contain confidential information that is protected under Florida Law and/or HIPAA and not subject to public records. Use or disclosure of this information may be restricted. If you believe you have received this information in error please contact the sender.

Agenda Item VIII.

Portal Service Interruption Plan - Draft

Service Disruption Communications Policy 12/6/2018

This policy is to be used in the event there is a service disruption to the Florida Courts E-Filing

Portal (“Portal”) which impacts Portal users. This policy shall be implemented in addition to the

existing Civitek Emergency Downtime Plan.

Definitions

“Service Disruption” means a change, update, maintenance, downtime, or service interruption

that has an impact on any of the users of the Portal. The term “user” includes both filers and

those who receive and process filings.

Identified Systems/Areas and Responsible Party

The following systems/areas have been identified as having an impact to the overall uptime of

the Portal:

System/Area Internal/External Designated Responsible Party

Clerk’s Office internet provider

External Clerk’s Office

FCCC/CiviTek internet provider

External FCCC/CiviTek CAB Librarian

CiviTek Systems* Internal FCCC/CiviTek CAB Librarian

E-Portal Software Update

(includes Portal subcontractors, such as Granicus, Cybersource,

Microsoft, Cisco)

External CiviTek Portal Program Manager

*Civitek Systems can include the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal, Portal review, MyFLCounty, FCCC

Network, FCCC email, and payment processing systems.

User Impact

Service Disruptions can have a serious impact on Portal users, in particular those who rely on 24-hour service:

Clerks of Court, which includes Trial Court Clerks, the Supreme Court Clerk and theAppellate Court Clerks

Courts Judicial Staff Court Technology Officers

Attorneys Pro Se Filers E-commerce and online transaction processing systems

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_informatics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-commerce

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_transaction_processing

State Agencies

A Service Disruption can affect each user type differently and each type can be sensitive to particular aspects of the disruption. Some users are more affected by the length of a disruption; to that user type, it matters how much time it takes to recover from a problem. Other user

types are sensitive to the timing of a disruption. For example, outages during peak hours affect certain users more than at other times.

Scope of Disruption

Once a Service Disruption has been identified, the scope of the disruption shall be provided by

the designated responsible party for the System/Area.

1) Description – what is the identified issue that is causing the disruption

2) Impact – identify who is impacted by the disruption

3) Urgency – identify the urgency of fixing the disruption

4) Cause – identify what the cause of the disruption is, if known

5) Corrective Action – what corrective actions are being done to fix the disruption

6) ETA – what is the estimated time to fix the disruption

Reporting A Service Disruption

In the event that any CiviTek staff, FCCC staff, or any other user is made aware that there is a

Service Disruption, it must be immediately reported to the E-Portal Service Desk at 850-577-

4609 or email [email protected] so that the disruption can be tracked by the E-

Portal Service Desk.

In the event the E-Filing Portal Service Desk Supervisor (“Supervisor”) is aware of a higher than

usual call volume delineating the same issue within the first 2 (two) hours of initial escalation,

the Supervisor shall notify the FCCC E-Filing Authority Administrator.

If the Portal is down, the existing Civitek Emergency Downtime Plan procedures shall be

implemented.

Follow-up Reporting

If the Service Disruption is not resolved within 4 (four) hours of initial escalation, the designated

responsible party shall provide as much information as can be identified in the scope of

disruption to the Supervisor or designee.

The designated responsible party shall continue to provide updated information every hour on

the hour until the Service Disruption is resolved. The Supervisor shall send the scope of the

Service Disruption information to the Portal Program Manager and the FCCC E-Filing Authority

Administrator.


If the Service Disruption continues after 5 p.m. Eastern Time, notifications shall be suspended

until the following business day and then the reporting protocol will resume.

Board Escalation Process

The FCCC E-Filing Authority Administrator shall consult and meet with the FCCC Director of

Information Technology, or designee, and the Chairman of the Florida Courts E-Filing Authority

to review any Service Disruption issue that extends beyond four(4) hours. Additionally, they will

decide if and when to send emails to the E-Filing Authority Board, post a news feed item,

and/or communicate with the E-Filing Authority Board, Clerks of the various Court, Courts,

Court Technology Officers, Filers, State Agencies and any other effected parties.

The FCCC E-Filing Authority Administrator shall coordinate the written content of any external

message regarding a Service Disruption with the FCCC Director of Administrative and Member

Services, the Director of Legislative and Communications, the FCCC Director of Information

Technology, the Executive Director, General Counsel and the Chairman of the E-Filing Authority.

Protocol for Sending External Messages

The following list is in order of those who will receive emails about Portal issues.

E-Filing Authority Board of Directors

All Clerks of Court, including Trial Court Clerks, the Supreme Court Clerk and the

Appellate Court Clerks as members of the Authority

Clerk’s staff

Florida Courts Technology Commission Chairman

The State Courts Administrator

Chief Information Officer, Office of the State Courts Administrator

Court Technology Officers

All registered filers, if necessary

Newsfeed text posted, if necessary

Agenda Item XI.

CCIS 3.0 Update

CCIS 3.0 Progress Report

February 8, 2019

December 2018 Stats

Metrics Measuring CCIS Use Stats

CCIS Active Users 53,313

Agencies – Federal, State, Circuit & Local 169

Case Search Executed 175,401

Person Search Executed 461,719

Docket Image Request 832,416

Court Users by CircuitDecember

Circuit Active Users1ST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 132

2ND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 116

3RD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 72

4TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 65
















1ST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 37

2ND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 50

4TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 27

5TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 19

CCIS Initiatives Completed

SB1392: Adult Diversion Program

Deployed December 2018

CCIS Initiatives Completed

CCIS Data Audit Site

Deployed December 2018

Improves tracking and analysis of errors and warnings

Provides Data Profiling options

CCIS Initiatives In Progress

Implementation of AOSC18-16 Access Security

Matrix and Viewable on Request (VOR) Process

CCIS Reporting via Docket Mapping

Daily MECOM Report sent to FDLE

Baker Act reporting to the University of South

Florida (USF)

Indigency reporting

CCIS Data Quality Management

Judge Name Normalization

Provides for single, consistent name for every judge

Eliminates data reporting issues

Data Standardization

Workgroup targeting data definitions to improve standardization

Standardize the Clerks’ processes for determining/assigning the status of a court case based on the Trial Court Case-Event Definition Framework

Judicial Case Status Table

CCIS Data Quality Management

CCIS / CCOC Reporting

CCOC State level reports targeted for migration to CCIS

Florida Article V Collection Rate Report

Florida Article V Timeliness Report

Florida CCOC Monthly Outputs and Sub Case Type Report

Agenda Item XVII.

Changes to CAPS Requirements

Changes to CAPS Functional Requirements from Version 4.0 to 5.0 Page 1 of 4

Changes to the Functional Requirements Document for Court 1

Application Processing System from Version 4.0 to 5.0 2

As of February 2019 3

The Certification Subcommittees thoroughly reviewed the CAPS standards and made the 4

following changes. Recommended changes are marked in legislative style. Underlined text 5

indicates additions while strikethrough text denotes deletions. 6

§1 APPLICABILITY 7

1.2. CAPS Definition. CAPS is defined as a computer application designed for in-court and in-8

chambers use by trial judges, or their staff and Court Administration personnel to access and 9

use electronic case files and other data sources in the course of managing cases, scheduling 10

and conducting hearings, adjudicating disputed issues, and recording and reporting judicial 11

activity. 12

1.4 A CAPS shall be made available to the trial courts of this state, in every division, county 13

and circuit. The CAPS shall accept and display case information from the clerk’s case 14

maintenance system (CMS) in form and function consistent with these functional 15

requirements. 16

§3 SYSTEM DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 17

3.2. Robustness. The system must be engineered so that it does not break down upon 18

foreseeable peaks of usage, user error, data corruption, or other stress. The system’s design must 19

provide redundancy to eliminate a single point of hardware failure from interrupting CAPS 20

availability to the Court users. 21

3.5.(d) Electronic Signatures. The system must ensure that encrypted electronic signatures may 22

be applied to orders only by the authenticated user. 23

24

3.6. External Data Access. The system must employ read-only allow access to the database(s) 25

of the clerk(s) in the circuit to avoid any unnecessary re-keying of data by court personnel. It 26

must be able to retrieve basic case information, any scheduling or calendaring information the 27

clerk may maintain, the clerk’s progress docket, and the set of electronic documents that 28

constitute the official court file. 29

3.11. Automated Data Reporting. The system shall electronically report to the Office of the 30

State Courts Administrator, and to the Chief Judge of the relevant Circuit, the information 31

pertaining to each case or case event using protocols and methods as specified in the Integration 32

and Interoperability document Section 3.3 Requirements for Interoperability and Data Exchange 33

Standards. 34

35


§4 CALENDARING FUNCTION STANDARDS 36

4.1. Calendaring System Required. A system must include a planning and calendaring function 37

that permits the court to allocate blocks of future time for specific purposes, that permits the 38

court or authorized other persons to book specific hearings or other events into allocated time, 39

and that displays or prints the schedule for a day, week, or month with appropriate level of detail. 40

Each schedulable block and event must also be able to be canceled by an authorized person as 41

determined by the presiding judge/magistrate. 42

4.7. Automatic Notation and Notification. The system shall, as directed by the judge, create 43

immediate automatic e-mail alerts to parties, or paper copies and envelopes to parties without an 44

email address, attorneys, clerks, case managers, court staff, whenever a calendared event is 45

changed on a calendar by a judge, judicial assistant, or case manager. It shall also place a brief 46

entry in the case docket describing the action taken. 47

§5 SEARCH AND DISPLAY FUNCTION STANDARDS 48

5.5. Clerk’s Progress Docket. The clerk’s progress docket is a list of the documents in the 49

official court file for the case. It is the most common entry point for display of the contents of 50

the court file. The court application must display the docket sequence number for each docket 51

entry in the progress docket in a useful, user-friendly way. 52

(a) Each electronically filed document listed on the progress docket must have a link or button 53

that immediately opens the document for viewing. It must be able to retrieve and display the 54

documents and associated sequence number without unnecessary delay. 55

5.6.(a) The viewer CAPS must be capable of displaying up to three document viewing 56

workspaces side-by-side. The purpose of having up to three open workspaces is to allow the 57

user to view either three different documents or three pages of the same document at the same 58

time. The first viewing workspace will be referred to as the initial workspace, the second and the 59

third viewing areas will be called the second and the third viewing workspace respectively. The 60

initial viewing workspace shall open first, and the second and third workspace viewing areas 61

shall open as the second and third documents are loaded for display. Each workspace must 62

contain a control for paging the document forward or back. 63

§6 CASE MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING STANDARDS 64

6.1.(d) Pending Orders list, containing cases having matters held under advisement by the judge, 65

with the number of days since being placed in a work queue, see §7.3 8.4 below. 66

6.1(f) Performance Measures. The system shall have the ability to report clearance rate of cases; 67

age of pending cases; and time to disposition of cases. 68

(i) Clearance Rate – This statistic measures the ratio of dispositions to new case filings 69

and assess whether the court is keeping pace with incoming caseload. 70


(ii) Age of Pending Cases – This statistic measures the age of the active cases that are 71

pending before the court. 72

(iii) Time to Disposition – This statistic measures the length of time between filing and 73

disposition within established time frames. 74

(iv) Percentage of Disposition – This statistic is presented as a percentage of cases that 75

have been resolved within established time frames. 76

§7 E-NOTIFICATION OF DATA ISSUES TO THE CLERK 77

7.1. CAPS shall provide the user a button that, when clicked, creates a communication to the 78

Clerk’s office for review of that case in question. 79

(a) The communication should auto-include the case number in question. 80

(b) The communication should provide an editable text field in which the user can describe the 81

issue. 82

(c) The CAPS shall maintain a record of communications generated and conveyed to the clerk 83

for review. 84

(d) An email generated automatically from within the CAPS is an acceptable solution. 85

(e) Each communication should include: 86

(i) the user reporting the issue; 87

(ii) the case number in question; 88

(iii) the issue to be reviewed (e.g. a case is pending in error); and 89

(iv) a date and time stamp memorializing the time of the transmission. 90

(f) Communications should be able to be easily aggregated for periodic transmission (e.g. a flat 91

file). 92

93

§78 ORDER GENERATION AND PROCESSING FUNCTIONAL STANDARDS 94

Standards were renumbered from 7.1 thru 7.5 to 8.1 thru 8.6 95

8.1. Order Generation and Processing Required. The system shall have the capacity to generate 96

court orders by merging information from the accessible databases and runtime user input into a 97

bank of forms. It shall also have the ability to process proposed orders submitted as PDF or 98

word processor documents by internal and external users The CAPS shall permit editing of the 99

proposed order, and file the signed order in PDF/A format. 100

8.3. Portal Integration. The CAPS shall permit proposed orders to be received through the 101

Portal and shall permit signed orders to be filed directly to the clerk’s CMS or Portal and served 102

through the Portal, CMS or CAPS. 103

8.5. Generic Order Templates. The order generation function shall afford permit the court an 104

option to generate a generic orders from templates which merge, merging only the case style, 105


case data, signature lines, and distribution list data, and leaving the title and body to be entered as 106

free text with the template. 107

8.6. Electronic Signatures. The order generation function must support the electronic signing of 108

PDF documents, whether that results in a signed PDF document from either an internally 109

generated or submitted as proposed orders by external users. 110

§89 CASE NOTES FUNCTIONS STANDARDS 111

112

§910 HELP FUNCTION STANDARDS 113

114

Agenda Item XVII.

Functional Requirements for CAPS - 2nd Reading

CAPS Functional Requirements Version 45.0, June2016February 2019 Page 1

The Florida Courts Technology Commission 1

Trial Court Integrated Management Solution Committee 2

3

Functional Requirements Document 4

For Court Application Processing System 5

6

The Florida Courts Technology Commission (“FCTC”), upon motion of its 7

Trial Court Integrated Management Solution (“TIMS”) Committee, adopts 8

this Functional Requirements Document (‘FRD’) to provide specifications 9

for Court Application Processing Systems (“CAPS”) to coordinate the use of 10

information technology and electronic case files, in court and in chambers, 11

by trial court judges and staff. In addition to the functional requirements set 12

forth in this document, systems must comply with applicable Rules of 13

Judicial Administration, and other technical and functional standards 14

established by the Court that may apply to CAPS. 15

16

§1. APPLICABILITY 17

1.1. Certification Required. Any system meeting the definition of 18

CAPS in this section must be certified under section 2 below 19

before being deployed, renewed, or substantially modified. 20

Each circuit determines which certified system best meets its 21

needs. The chief judge’s approval shall be required prior to the 22

purchasing or upgrading of any system. 23

(a) Certification may only be granted when a product or combination 24

of products meets or exceeds the functional standards specified in 25

this document, unless excluded. 26


(b) The system shall meet the general criteria of §3 and perform each 27

of the following functions, as specified in the sections cited and 28

be accessible in a seamless program via a single log on: 29

(i) Calendar (§5); 30

(ii) Search (§6); 31

(iii) Case Management and Reporting (§7); 32

(iv) Orders (§8); 33

(v) Case Notes (§9); and 34

(vi) Help (§10). 35

1.2. CAPS Definition. CAPS is defined as a computer application 36

designed for in-court and in-chambers use by trial judges, or 37

their staff and Court Administration personnel to access and 38

use electronic case files and other data sources in the course of 39

managing cases, scheduling and conducting hearings, 40

adjudicating disputed issues, and recording and reporting 41

judicial activity. 42

1.3. Exclusion for Clerk’s Responsibilities. The FCTC recognizes 43

that existing law establishes the clerks as the official 44

custodians of court records. Systems built and maintained by 45

clerks of court and limited to their historical functions are 46

excluded from this definition. Specifically, general purpose 47

files, indexes, or document viewers made available by the clerk 48

to users other than the judiciary and in-court participants are 49

not subject to the functional requirements of this document, 50

although they remain subject to all other FCTC policies and 51

requirements, including but not limited to the Integration and 52

Operability standards and all other requirements set forth by 53

the Supreme Court. This standard does require the clerks of 54

court to make their official court files available to the CAPS in 55


read-only fashion in real time or from a replication delayed no 56

more than five minutes from real time. 57

1.3. 1.4. A CAPS shall be made available to the trial courts of this 58

state, in every division, county and circuit. The CAPS shall 59

accept and display case information from the clerk’s case 60

maintenance system (CMS) in form and function consistent 61

with these functional requirements. 62

63

§2. CERTIFICATION 64

2.1. Vendor Product Certification. A product offered by a single 65

commercial vendor must be certified by the FCTC under this 66

section before the vendor may sell or otherwise deploy a new 67

installation, or renew a contract for an existing installation, as 68

meeting the §1.2 definition of CAPS above. When a vendor 69

obtains certification for a product, the State Courts 70

Administrator is authorized to enter into such agreements as 71

she deems advisable to facilitate transactions between such 72

vendor and any trial court unit that chooses to purchase the 73

certified product. 74

2.2. General System Certification. Any CAPS product or system 75

that is not subject to the vendor product certification section 76

requires general system certification before a new installation 77

or deployment. General system certification can be granted for: 78

(a) Internally developed systems that comply with the functional 79

requirements of this document; or 80

(b) Aggregated systems, consisting of components which individually 81

may not meet the functional requirements but taken together do 82

satisfy the requirements. 83


2.3. Provisional Certification. Provisional certification is for six 84

months and may be renewed at the discretion of the FCTC. It 85

may be granted for: 86

(a) Partial systems or subsystems that meet only a part of the 87

standards when a plan for attaining certification within a 88

reasonable time has been approved by the FCTC; 89

(b) Systems that lack specific data reporting requirements because the 90

local clerk’s office does not maintain that data and it is not 91

otherwise reasonably available from machine-readable sources; 92

or 93

(c) Any other partially compliant subsystem. Approval will be on a 94

case by case basis pursuant to the procedures set forth in §2.5. 95

2.4. Existing Installations. An existing system requires 96

certification upon the earliest of the following events: 97

(a) Substantial modification of the system; or 98

(b) Expiration of the contracts under which any vendor provides the 99

system or a subsystem. 100

2.5. Certification Process. The certifying entity is the Florida 101

Courts Technology Commission. The FCTC delegates its 102

authority to make initial certification determinations to the 103

State Courts Administrator. 104

(a) Application. An entity seeking certification shall file an 105

application with the Office of State Courts Administrator in such 106

form and location as the Administrator may require. 107

(b) Administrative Decision. The State Courts Administrator shall 108

issue certification, or a notice that certification has been denied, 109

within a reasonable time. Unless an interested party files a written 110

application for review within thirty days of the Administrator’s 111


decision, that decision will constitute the final decision of the 112

FCTC. 113

(c) Review and Final Action. Review of any disputed certification 114

decision by the administrator is conducted by a subcommittee of 115

the FCTC appointed by its Chair for that purpose. The 116

subcommittee’s decision shall constitute final action unless, 117

within 30 days of its rendition, the FCTC adopts a resolution 118

accepting review of the certification decision. 119

120

§3. SYSTEM DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 121

3.1. Performance. The system must meet or exceed the 122

efficiencies delivered by conventional paper systems or 123

previous electronic systems. 124

3.2. Robustness. The system must be engineered so that it does not 125

break down upon foreseeable peaks of usage, user error, data 126

corruption, or other stress. The system’s design must provide 127

redundancy to eliminate a single point of hardware failure from 128

interrupting CAPS availability to the Court users. 129

3.3. Compatibility. The system must be adaptable at reasonable 130

cost to be compatible and interoperable with any of the clerk’s 131

systems being used in the state. It must use, to the extent 132

feasible, industry standard document formats and transmission 133

protocols, and avoid all use of proprietary formats, data 134

structures, or protocols. 135

3.4. Adaptability. The system must be designed in a way that 136

anticipates obsolescence of hardware and software, and is 137

upgradeable and modifiable as new technologies become 138

available or statutes, rules, or court procedures change. In 139

particular, the system must be able to accommodate, at 140


reasonable expense, additional data elements for specific 141

divisions of court as adopted by the FCTC. 142

3.5. Accessibility and Security. The system must prevent access 143

by unauthorized persons and facilitate access by authorized 144

persons according to a defined set of user permission levels. 145

The system must be usable by judges, and also by judicial 146

assistants, clerks, and case managers as the judge may direct. 147

(a) Security. The system must comply with industry standard security 148

methods, including encryption and authentication protocols, in 149

order to protect access to the application and associated data. 150

(b) User Permission Levels. 151

(i) System-assigned User Permission Levels. The system shall 152

provide the system administrator with the ability to configure 153

user permissions to restrict access to the application, sub-154

applications (functions), and case data (as needed to comply 155

with statutory restrictions on access to case data). 156

(ii) The system shall provide a means for a judge to manage 157

which other authenticated individual users or judge-defined 158

user groups may view or change case-related information he 159

originates, such as notes, document annotations, contents of 160

work folders, case management information, and personal 161

and system calendar entries. 162

163

(c) Password Protection. The system must authenticate users and 164

their permission levels based on username and password, 165

providing access to all functional modules using the same 166

credentials. 167

(d) Electronic Signatures. The system must ensure that encrypted 168

electronic signatures may be applied to orders only by the 169

authenticated user. 170


(e) Remote Access. The system must be accessible remotely via web 171

by judges and other personnel having appropriate permission 172

levels. 173

(f) Persons With Disabilities. The system must comply with Section 174

508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (as amended), which lists 175

standards necessary to make electronic and information 176

technology accessible to persons with disabilities. 177

3.6. External Data Access. The system must employ read-178

onlyallow access to the database(s) of the clerk(s) in the circuit 179

to avoid any unnecessary re-keying of data by court personnel. 180

It must be able to retrieve basic case information, any 181

scheduling or calendaring information the clerk may maintain, 182

the clerk’s progress docket, and the set of electronic documents 183

that constitute the official court file. 184

3.7. Global Navigation. Each top-level module of §1.1(b) shall be 185

accessible from any non-modal screen in the application by 186

clicking once on a global navigation menu. 187

3.8. Hardware Independence. The system must be reasonably 188

hardware independent, and must work with touch screen, 189

mouse or other pointing device, or keyboard entry. 190

3.9. Printer-Friendliness. All displays of case data or document 191

images shall be printable, using either a screen print function 192

or a developed printer-friendly routine. When a document is 193

being displayed, the court shall have the option to print one or 194

more pages at once. 195

3.10. Disaster Prevention and Recovery Strategy. The system 196

must use reasonable measures to prevent service interruption 197

and have a plan for continuation of operations if interruption 198

occurs. It must be designed to minimize risk of data loss, 199


including but not limited to secure, regular, and redundant data 200

backup. 201

3.11. Automated Data Reporting. The system shall electronically 202

report to the Office of the State Courts Administrator, and to 203

the Chief Judge of the relevant Circuit, the information 204

pertaining to each case or case event using protocols and 205

methods as specified in the Integration and Interoperability 206

document Section 3.3 Requirements for Interoperability and 207

Data Exchange Standards. 208

209

§4. CALENDARING FUNCTION STANDARDS 210

4.1. Calendaring System Required. A system must include a 211

planning and calendaring function that permits the court to 212

allocate blocks of future time for specific purposes, that 213

permits the court or authorized other persons to book specific 214

hearings or other events into allocated time, and that displays 215

or prints the schedule for a day, week, or month with 216

appropriate level of detail. Each schedulable block and event 217

must also be able to be canceled by an authorized person as 218

determined by the presiding judge/magistrate. 219

4.2. Planning Flexibility. The system must accommodate docket 220

planning using either time-certain or multiple-case-docket 221

approaches, or such other approach as the court may specify. 222

It must permit the court to specify the capacity of any multiple 223

case docket and displays must be able to show the portion of 224

capacity remaining. 225

4.3. Calendar Control. The calendaring system must prevent a user 226

from inadvertent double booking a hearing for the same time 227

slot that is not a mass docket or intentionally double booked. It 228


must also prevent booking a multiple case docket in excess of 229

its capacity unless the user deliberately overrides the capacity. 230

4.4. Replication. The system must permit the court to allocate 231

blocks of time on a recurrent basis (e. g. every other Thursday 232

or every fifth Friday) with minimum data entry. It must also 233

be able to call up a list of cases based on defined criteria and 234

schedule or reschedule all of the cases simultaneously into a 235

new time block. 236

4.5. External User Access. The system must be capable of 237

displaying allocated time blocks to external users such as 238

attorneys or parties as the judge may direct, and must also 239

provide a means by which the external users can either request 240

to book a hearing into an allocated time block, or automatically 241

and directly book a hearing into an allocated time block, as the 242

judge may direct. 243

4.6. Direct Access to Calendar Management. The calendar display 244

screens must provide direct access to functions by which a 245

judge, judicial assistant, or case manager can directly and 246

immediately manage the court’s calendar with minimal click 247

count, including: set, re-set, continue, or cancel hearings or 248

trials; and add a case to or remove a case from a docket. 249

4.7. Automatic Notation and Notification. The system shall, as 250

directed by the judge, create immediate automatic e-mail alerts 251

to parties, or paper copies and envelopes to parties without an 252

email address, attorneys, clerks, case managers, court staff, 253

whenever a calendared event is changed on a calendar by a 254

judge, judicial assistant, or case manager. It shall also place a 255

brief entry in the case docket describing the action taken. 256

4.8. Calendar Display (Internal). The calendaring system shall 257

contain a general purpose calendar viewing function for 258

internal users that displays allocated time blocks, any 259


appointments scheduled within those blocks, and any 260

unallocated time as the user may select. 261

(a) The displayable fields shall be at least: hearing type; case type; 262

case name; case number; date; time; judge; parties; attorneys; 263

location (court and hearing rooms) and case age. 264

(b) The fields displayed shall be limited appropriately by the user’s 265

permission level. The display must have the ability to sort and 266

filter by any displayed field. 267

(c) When a specific appointment is listed on the display, clicking on 268

the time and date portion shall call a function that permits editing, 269

canceling, or rescheduling the event without retyping identifying 270

information. Clicking on the case name will bring up a case 271

calendar display (§4.9). There shall also be a control that opens 272

the progress docket (§5.5). 273

(d) When an allocated but still available time block, or any portion of 274

unallocated time, is listed on the display, clicking on it shall call a 275

function that permits entry of a new matter into that time block. 276

4.9. Case Calendar Display. The system shall have the ability to 277

list all events (past and future) scheduled in a specific case. 278

4.10. Daily Event or Reminder. The calendaring function must 279

support the daily reminder function of the case management 280

module (§6.4) by accepting items posted to a specific date 281

without a specified time, for use as a reminder or tickler 282

system. 283

4.11. Calendar Export. The system must be able to export 284

calendaring information in industry standard formats (e.g., 285

iCalendar and Outlook). 286

287

§5. SEARCH AND DISPLAY FUNCTION STANDARDS 288


5.1. Case Search and Display. The system must be able to retrieve 289

and display basic case information from the clerk’s database 290

and from any internal database it maintains. Basic case 291

information includes at a minimum: Case style (parties names, 292

case number, and division of court); type of case; date opened; 293

current status; identities, roles, and contact information of 294

parties and attorneys. 295

5.2. Case Search Keywords. The system must be able to search for 296

cases by: Case Number, Party Name, Party Role, Case Filing 297

Date or Date Range, Case Type, or a combination of these 298

fields. 299

5.3. Lookup Return. The result of a lookup function must return 300

either a list of cases meeting the search criteria, a Basic Case 301

Information display screen if only one match was found, or a 302

notification that no cases were found. 303

5.4. A Case Information display must contain at least 304

(a) Basic Case Information and appropriate subsets of the events 305

scheduled in the case and of the clerk’s progress docket. 306

(b) Controls that call: 307

(i) the full progress docket; 308

(ii) display of detailed information including search for 309

related cases on party, attorney, witness, or other participant; 310

(iii) an email window pre-addressed to all the parties or 311

attorneys in the case; 312

(iv) a button that opens the scheduling function (and 313

remembers the current case); 314

(v) a control that opens the list of orders that the system can 315

generate; and 316


(vi) a search window permitting single word and multiple 317

word searches of the searchable electronically filed 318

documents in the case, returning a subset of the progress 319

docket containing the search terms. 320

(c) Detailed information of a party or other participant consists of: 321

name, aliases, date of birth, role in case, dates when role 322

commenced or ended, charges (for criminal cases), causes of 323

action (for non-criminal cases), other cases, attorney (or for 324

attorney records, client), contact information. 325

5.5. Clerk’s Progress Docket. The clerk’s progress docket is a list 326

of the documents in the official court file for the case. It is the 327

most common entry point for display of the contents of the 328

court file. The court application must display the docket 329

sequence number for each docket entry in the progress 330

docketin a useful, user-friendly way. 331

(a) Each electronically filed document listed on the progress docket 332

must have a link or button that immediately opens the document 333

for viewing. It must be able to retrieve and display the documents 334

and associated sequence number without unnecessary delay. 335

(b) The progress docket must list the documents filed in the case in 336

such a way as to readily distinguish, via icons or color-coding, 337

electronically filed documents from those which have been filed 338

in paper form and not converted. 339

(c) Orders must similarly be distinguished from motions and from 340

other filings. 341

(d) There must be a word search function for the progress docket. 342

5.6. Document Image Display standards. The system must display 343

multiple documents from the clerk’s official court files 344

consistent with time standards adopted by the FCTC. 345


(a) The viewer CAPS must be capable of displaying up to three 346

document viewing workspaces side-by-side. The purpose of 347

having up to three open workspaces is to allow the user to view 348

either three different documents or three pages of the same 349

document at the same time. The first viewing workspace will be 350

referred to as the initial workspace, the second and the third 351

viewing areas will be called the second and the third viewing 352

workspace respectively. The initial viewing workspace shall 353

open first, and the second and third workspace viewing areas 354

shall open as the second and third documents are loaded for 355

display. Each workspace must contain a control for paging the 356

document forward or back. 357

(b) A document being opened for viewing must open in the next 358

available workspace to the right of the last viewing workspace 359

opened. If all workspaces are in use displaying a document, the 360

document shall open as a tab in the initial workspace, or via a 361

horizontal scrolling in the same viewing area. 362

(c) The workspace viewing area must contain controls that zoom, 363

shrink, rotate, or flip the document they contain. 364

(d) The display must afford the user an option to specify user settings 365

that identify the documents that can automatically be pre-loaded 366

by default into three display workspaces when a case is opened 367

for viewing. 368

(e) The system must automatically adjust page workspace viewing 369

area sizes to fit the monitors on which the documents are 370

displayed. For example, smaller monitors would only need to be 371

able to automatically display two workspace viewing areas rather 372

than three. 373

(f) Variances from these display standards are permitted for tablets 374

and mobile devices to allow for effective use of their smaller 375

displays. 376


5.7. Word Search. The system must be able to search the contents 377

of the documents in the official court files of a single case or 378

multiple cases selected according to limiting criteria, including 379

division of court, date range, related cases of a party, attorney 380

or other participant, charges or causes of action, and document 381

type. 382

5.8. Accessing External Data. The system must make reasonable 383

use of available sources of machine-readable data, organized 384

into a display format useful to the court. It must contain a 385

direct means for accessing legal research providers including 386

but not limited to Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis. 387

388

§6. CASE MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING STANDARDS 389

6.1. Reporting. The system must have a comprehensive reporting 390

function for case management data, and must be flexible to 391

meet the reporting needs of individual circuits or counties. At a 392

minimum it must provide: 393

(a) Active Case List, including title, type, age, attorneys or firms, 394

next scheduled event date, and time since last activity with the 395

ability to sort and filter on any field. 396

(b) Critical Case List. Listing of cases by type which are near or have 397

exceeded Supreme Court time standards for such cases. 398

(c) Inactive Case List. List of cases with no activity for 180 days; 399

with motions filed but not set for hearing; with no service of 400

process after 120 days; 401

(d) Pending Orders list, containing cases having matters held under 402

advisement by the judge, with the number of days since being 403

placed in a work queue, see §7.38.4 below. 404


(e) List of cases on appeal, if the data is retrievable from the clerk’s 405

database. 406

(f) Performance Measures. The system shall have the ability to report 407

clearance rate of cases; age of pending cases; and time to 408

disposition of cases. 409

(i) Clearance Rate – This statistic measures the ratio of 410

dispositions to new case filings and assesses whether the 411

court is keeping pace with incoming caseload. 412

(ii) Age of Pending Cases – This statistic measures the age of 413

the active cases that are pending before the court. 414

(iii) Time to Disposition – This statistic measures the length 415

of time between filing and disposition within established 416

time frames. 417

(iv) Percentage of Disposition – This statistic is presented as 418

a percentage of cases that have been resolved within 419

established time frames. 420

6.2. Workflow management. The workflow management system 421

shall contain a work queue for each internal user and a due date 422

monitoring system. 423

6.3. Work Queue. The system shall have a function for tracking 424

the court’s work queue. 425

(a) The judge, when viewing a document or a progress docket, shall 426

have the ability to place a reference to the document directly into 427

the work queue for subsequent action, with the ability to over-ride 428

default due date, or such other due date the judge may select. 429

(b) The work queue shall also accept other manually entered items. 430

(c) The judge shall be able to route the work queue item to other 431

court personnel by moving it to the other person’s work queue. 432


(d) Each work queue must be able to accommodate classification of 433

work queue items into separate item types, such as “proposed 434

orders,” “internally generated orders,” requests for Domestic 435

Violence Injunctions, Warrants, emergency motions, and other 436

user-specified types. 437

6.4. Daily Reminder (tickler). The system shall have a function for 438

tracking due dates of specified tasks. 439

6.5. Alerts. The system must afford each user the ability to specify 440

(and edit) a watch list of cases, sending an alert (electronic 441

notification) advising that there has been a new filing or entry 442

posted within the last twenty-four hours to the progress docket 443

of any case on the user’s watch list. 444

6.6. Automated Task for Case Management. The system must be 445

able to run automated tasks that provide case management 446

functions for the court, enabling the court to perform a SQL 447

like query of any of the available data elements and populate 448

form orders for each returned result. 449

450

§7. E-NOTIFICATION OF DATA ISSUES TO THE CLERK 451

7.1. CAPS shall provide the user a button that, when clicked, 452

creates a communication to the Clerk’s office for review of that 453

case in question. 454

(a) The communication should auto-include the case number in 455

question. 456

(b) The communication should provide an editable text field in which 457

the user can describe the issue. 458

(c) The CAPS shall maintain a record of communications generated 459

and conveyed to the clerk for review. 460

(d) An email generated automatically from within the CAPS is an 461

acceptable solution. 462

(e) Each communication should include: 463


(i) the user reporting the issue; 464

(ii) the case number in question; 465

(iii) the issue to be reviewed (e.g. a case is pending in error); 466

and 467

(iv) a date and time stamp memorializing the time of the 468

transmission. 469

(f) Communications should be able to be easily aggregated for 470

periodic transmission (e.g. a flat file). 471

472

§7.§8. ORDER GENERATION AND PROCESSING FUNCTIONAL 473

STANDARDS 474

7.1. 8.1. Order Generation and Processing Required. The system 475

shall have the capacity to generate court orders by merging 476

information from the accessible databases and runtime user 477

input into a bank of forms. It The CAPS shall permit editing of 478

the proposed order, and file the signed final order in PDF/A 479

formathave the ability to process proposed orders submitted as 480

PDF or word processor documents by internal and external 481

users. 482

7.2. 8.2. Recallable Entries. The order generation subsystem shall 483

be able to recall previous entries by the same user to avoid the 484

necessity of re-keying content. 485

8.3. Portal Integration. The CAPS shall permit proposed orders to 486

be received through the Portal and shall permit final signed 487

orders to be filed directly to the clerk’s CMS or Portal and 488

served through the Portal, CMS or CAPS. 489

7.3. 8.4. Document Models. The document model for the order 490

generation function must not be proprietary. Neither the court 491

nor any county may be prevented from building or customizing 492

their own form banks. 493


7.4. 8.5. Generic OrderTemplates. The order generation function 494

shall afford permit the court an option to generate a generic 495

orders from templates which merge , merging only the case 496

style, case data, signature lines, and distribution list data, and 497

leaving the title and body to be entered as free text with the 498

template. 499

7.5. 8.6. Electronic Signatures. The order generation function 500

must support the electronic signing of PDF documents, 501

whether that results in a signed PDF document from either an 502

internally generated or submitted as proposed orders by 503

external users. 504

(a) Unless a document is signed when generated, it shall be placed in 505

the judge’s work queue. 506

(b) The court must have the option of electronically signing some, all, 507

or none of the documents in the work queue at the same time. 508

(c) The subsystem must have a means for rejecting proposed orders 509

submitted for signature with an explanation of the reason for 510

rejection. 511

(d) An electronic signature of a judge shall be accompanied by a date, 512

time stamp, and case number. The date, time stamp, and case 513

number shall appear as a watermark through the signature to 514

prevent copying the signature to another document. The date, 515

time stamp, and case number shall also appear below the 516

signature and not be obscured by the signature. 517

7.6. 8.7. Electronic Filing and Service. The system shall effectuate 518

electronic filing and service of orders according to the Florida 519

Rules of Judicial Administration. 520

521

§8.§9. CASE NOTES FUNCTION STANDARDS 522


8.1. 9.1. The system shall have a case note function which accepts 523

input from internal users and may be viewed only by 524

authorized personnel. 525

8.2. 9.2. The subsystem shall accept note entries through text entry 526

and insofar as feasible shall be compatible with speech-to-text 527

utilities. 528

8.3. 9.3. The subsystem shall be capable of accepting and storing 529

documents or scanned images as part of the case notes. 530

8.4. 9.4. When a case note is originally entered from a document 531

viewing screen, the case note must be able to recall the same 532

document when the note is later viewed. 533

8.5. 9.5. The system shall automatically document the following 534

in an audit log: scheduling events, changes to scheduled 535

events, orders and judgments sent from the system, and the 536

name of the user who initiated the entry or generated the order 537

or judgment. 538

539

§9.§10. HELP FUNCTION STANDARDS 540

9.1. 10.1. The system must have a help system that adequately 541

provides tutorial and documentation for users. 542

9.2. 10.2. There must be a control on every screen other than a 543

modal window which can access the help menu. 544

9.3. 10.3. The help menu must provide a description of how to use 545

each component of the system. 546

9.4. 10.4. The help menu must contain a feedback channel for 547

alerting system administrators of any performance issues or 548

other problems. 549

550

Agenda Item XVIII.

CMS Technical and Functional Standards

DRAFT rev. 2019-1-29# Action/Event: Relevant Frameworks and Systems

1 Non-criminal case initialized; petition, complaint UCR (Uniform Case Reporting)

1a Each parcel in Eminent Domain

2

Inactive: Bankruptcy/Abatement/Appeal/DOJ §,

Maybe: issued and unexecuted capias, warrant, VOP Case Events: Open, Closed, Reopened, Reclosed

3 Inactive: Local practice, court order § Case Status: Active, Inactive, Closed, Reopened Active, Reopened Inactive, Reclosed

4 Judicial decision, order resolving case, vol. dismissal Additional Events: Closure Vacated, Reclosure Vacated, Delete Case, Delete All Reopen

5

Post-closure pleading for court action, case not in reopen

status

6 Closure Vacated † (set aside final order) AOSC 14-20 Trial Court Case Event C

7 Post-reopen order resolving case*** Case Events: Open, Closed, Reopened, Reclosed

8 Reclosure Vacated ‡ (set aside reclose order) Case Status: Active, Inactive, Closed, Reopened Active, Reopened Inactive, Reclosed

9SA Petition, arrest report; notice to appear; citation if served?

10 Judgment/sentence; nolle pros; dismissalfn

, alt. courts *¥ SRS - refers to the AOSC14-20 Trial Court Case Event Definitional Framework

11 Crim reopen, 3.850, 3.800, VOP, removal fm alt. courts etc**

12 Reactivate: Court order

Case Type: UCN Notes regarding case typeCircuit Civil 1,6,12 2,3 4 5,8,12 2,3 7 CA

Mortgage Foreclosure 1,6,12 2,3 4 5,8,12 2,3 7 CA

Eminent Domain 1a,6,12 2,3 4 5,8,12 2,3 7 CA

Jimmy Ryce Act 1,6,12 2,3 4 5,8,12 2,3 7 CA Bankruptcy does not make case inactive

County Civil 1,6,12 2,3 4 5,8,12 2,3 7 CC

Small Claims 1,6,12 2,3 4 5,8,12 2,3 7 SC

Civil Traffic 9,6,13 2,3 4 5,8,12 2,3 7 TR Bankruptcy does not make case inactive

Civil Infractions 9,6,13 2,3 4 5,8,12 2,3 7 IN Bankruptcy does not make case inactive

Circuit Family 1,6,12 2,3 4 5,8,12 2,3 7 DR Reopens: Modify/Supplemental DR01, Compel/Enforce DR02, Other DR03

Probate 1,6,12 2,3 4 5,8,12 2,3 7 CP

Guardianship 1,6,12 2,3 4 5,8,12 2,3 7 GA/CP Bankruptcy does not make case inactive

Mental Health 1,6,12 2,3 4 5,8,12 2,3 7 MH Bankruptcy does not make case inactive

Risk Protection Orders 1,6,12 2,3 4 5,8,12 2,3 7 MH/RP Bankruptcy does not make case inactive (No official UCN yet)

Juvenile Dependency € 1,6,12 2,3 4 5,8,12 2,3 7 DP

Juvenile Delinquency € 9,6,12 2,3 4 5,8,11,12 2,3 7 CJ

Felony (Circuit Criminal) € 9,6,12 2,3 10 5,8,11,12 2,3 7 CF Bankruptcy does not make case inactive

Misdemeanor (County Criminal) € 9,6,12 2,3 10 5,8,11,12 2,3 7 MM Bankruptcy does not make case inactive

Criminal Traffic € 9,6,12 2,3 10 5,8,11,12 2,3 7 CT Bankruptcy does not make case inactive

County,Municipal Ordinance € 9,6,12 2,3 10 5,8,11,12 2,3 7 CO/MO Bankruptcy does not make case inactive

County Appeal € 1,12 2,3 4 5,8,12 2,3 7 AP

§ See inactive reasons on InactiveCodes Tab

† Moves case back to open status

***Clerk does not know what order recloses case

‡ Moves case back to reopen status

*Blanket dismissals, >5 yrs no activity, 2-5

¥ Incl. deferred pros, drug court, etc

**Incl. removal from deferred pros, drug ct etc

fn. Dismissals may be verbal = "recordable action"

This is being used to re-activate an open and reopened case

€ Materials do not address these case types


Ac

tiv

e (

Op

en

)

Ina

cti

ve

(O

pe

n)

Clo

se

d

Re

op

en

ed

Ac

tiv

e

Re

op

en

In

ac

tiv

e

Re

clo

se

d

# Action/Event: Relevant Frameworks and Systems

1

Case initialized; petition, complaint, when they fall into different

case typesUCR (Uniform Case Reporting)

1a Each parcel in Eminent Domain

2 Inactive: Bankruptcy/Abatement/Appeal/DOJ § Case Events: Open, Closed, Reopened, Reclosed

3 Inactive: Local practice, court order § Case Status: Active, Inactive, Closed, Reopened Active, Reopened Inactive, Reclosed

4 Judicial decision, order resolving case, vol. dismissal Additional Events: Closure Vacated, Reclosure Vacated, Delete Case, Delete All Reopen

5 Post-closure pleading for court action, case not in reopen status

6 Closure Vacated † (set aside final order) AOSC 14-20 Trial Court Case Event C

7 Post-reopen order resolving case*** Case Events: Open, Closed, Reopened, Reclosed

8 Reclosure Vacated ‡ (set aside reclose order) Case Status: Active, Inactive, Closed, Reopened Active, Reopened Inactive, Reclosed

9

10 SRS - refers to the AOSC14-20 Trial Court Case Event Definitional Framework

11 Judgment/sentence; nolle pros; dismissal fn

, alt. courts *¥

12 Crim reopen, 3.850, 3.800, VOP, removal fm alt. courts etc**

13 Reactivate: Court order

Case Type: UCN Notes regarding case type


Arrest report; notice to appear; citation

Re

clo

se

d

Ac

tiv

e (

Op

en

)

Ina

cti

ve

(O

pe

n)

Clo

se

d

Re

op

en

ed

Ac

tiv

e

Re

op

en

In

ac

tiv

e

Example (Revised for Clerk Review Purposes)

A motion to modify child support is filed on June 15, putting the case in reopen active status and starting a case reopen event block. On June 20, the other former spouse files a motion to modify time sharing, which should be

tracked separately (like counts?), but is part of the existing case reopen event block. On June 23, an order is entered, however, the clerk does not know whether it disposes the 1st motion, the 2nd motion or both motions. If it

disposes all pending motions, the case goes to reclosed status. However, if the order only disposes of one of the motions, then the case remains in a reopened active status because one motion is still pending, though tracking

which motion might not be possible. If a second order resolves the remaining motion (it might not), then the case goes into reclosed status. Though there were two post-judgment motions, they constitntue only one case reopen

block. If 3rd motion is filed after the case was reclosed, the case goes back to reopened active status and starts a second case reopen block.

Example (from UCR Documents)

A motion to reopen a case previously disposed is filed on June 15. The case is placed in a reopened active status and a case reopen event block begins. On June 20, a second motion for modification is filed. This post-

judgment action while tracked separately, is part of the existing case reopen event block. On June 23, the first motion is disposed. The case remains in a reopened active status because the second motion has not been

resolved. On July 3, the second motion is resolved and the case is placed in a reclosed status. Although there are two post-judgment actions, there is only one case reopen block. If third motion is filed subsequent to July 3, say

on July 15, the case would then be returned to reopened active status, pending resolution of that reopen event and a second case reopen block would begin.

Agenda Item XIX. a.

Agency Supplemental Request Form

Statewide Agency Supplemental Request Form version 1.0 November 2018 Page 1 of 2

AGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FORM

This form should not be used to request online access toelectronic court records. To view records electronically, pleasecomplete the Registered User Agreement to View RecordsOnline.

This form should only be completed by an agency headrequesting to update gatekeeper and/or agency information.

The agency head completing this form should be the sameperson who completed the Agency Registration Agreement toView Records Online.

Please allow at least two business days for processing yourcompleted agreements after they have been submitted back tous.

Statewide Agency Supplemental Request Form version 1.0 November 2018 Page 2 of 2

AGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FORM COUNTY CLERK OF COURT

1. This request is for

Updating agency’s contact information

Replacing an agency gatekeeper

Adding an additional agency gatekeeper

CONTACT INFORMATION UPDATE

*Agency/Firm/Company Name

*Agency Head Name

*Agency Head Title

*Agency Head E-mail Address

*Agency Head Address

*City/State/Zip

*Agency Head Phone Alt. Phone

*Required if updating contact information.

2. The undersigned appoints the following as gatekeeper

*Gatekeeper Name

*Gatekeeper Head E-mail Address

*Gatekeeper Address

*City/State/Zip

*Gatekeeper Phone Alt. Phone

*Required if appointing new gatekeeper.

3. The undersigned affirms the contact and other information on this Agency Supplemental Request Form is correct and upon submission to the Clerk is incorporated in the original Agency Registration Agreement to View Records Online.

Date:

Agency Head Signature

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 a 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.

Agenda Item XIX. b.

Updating the Access Security Matrix &

Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records

Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records April 2018 Page 1

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 by

written notarized

agreement or in person at

Clerks’ offices.

***VOR Statute List (F.S.):787, 794, 796, 800, 825, 827, 847, 921VOR is at the case level

A = All but expunged, or sealed under Ch. 943

B = All but expunged, or sealed under Ch. 943 or sealed under

rule 2.420

C = All but expunged, or sealed under Ch. 943 and sealed under

rule 2.420; or confidential

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

H = No access

See Access Details

Case - Charge/Filing Description PRIVACY UCN Applicable rules and statutes

County Criminal Appeals P A B B C D C D B C C D B AP Rule 2.420(d) & (f)

County Criminal Appeals Sexual Abuse VOR A B B D D D D B D D D B AP Rule 2.420(d) & (f); §119.071(2)(h), F.S.; Chs. 794, 796, 800, 827, & 847, F.S.

County Civil Appeals P A B B B D C D B C C D C AP Rule 2.420(d)

Circuit Civil P A B B B D C D B C C D C CA Rule 2.420(d) & Rule 1.210

Jimmy Ryce Act VOR A B B D D D D B D D D B CA Rule 2.420(d); Chapter 119, F.S.; § 394.921(1)&(2), F.S.

Mortgage Foreclosure P A B B B D C D B C C D C CA Rule 2.420(d) & Rule 1.210

Circuit Civil Private (Sexual Abuse & Medical Malpractice VOR A B B D D D D B D D D D CA Rule 2.420(d)(1)(B)(xiii); §119.071(2)(h), F.S.; §119.0714(1)(h), F.S. & §28.2221(5)(a), F.S.

Circuit Civil - Trusts (Pre 2010) P A B B B D C E B C C E C CA Rule 2.420(d)(1)(B); Chapter 119, F.S. & §28.2221(5)(a), F.S.

County Civil P A B B B D C D B C C D C CC Rule 2.420(d) & Rule 1.210

County Foreclosure P A B B B D C D B C C D C CC Rule 2.420(d) & Rule 1.210

Felony P A B B C D C D B C C D B CF Rule 2.420(d) & Chapter 119, F.S.

Felony - sexual cases VOR A B B C D D D B D D D B CF Rule 2.420(d)(1) & §119.071(2)(h)1.b or c, F.S., Chs. 794, 796, 800, 827, & 847, F.S.

Juvenile Delinquency P A B B B G G G B G G G B CJ §985.04(1) & (2), F.S.; §985.045(2), F.S.; §985.036(1), F.S. & §985.11(3), F.S.

County Ordinance Infractions P A B B B D C D B C C D C CO Rule 2.420

County Ordinance - Arrests P A B B C D C D B C C D B CO Rule 2.420

Probate P A D D D D D E D D D E D CP Rule 2.410; §28.2221(5)(a), F.S.

Probate Miscellaneous P A D D D D D E D D D E D CP Rule 2.410; §28.2221(5)(a), F.S.

Criminal Traffic P A B B C D C D B C C D B CT Rule 2.420(d) & (f)

Juvenile Dependency P A B B C G G G B B G G G DP Rule 2.420(d); §39.0132(3)&(4)(a), F.S.

Juvenile Truancy P A B B B G G G B B B G G DP §984.06(3), F.S.

Domestic Relations P A B B B D C E B C C E C DRRule 2.420(d); Chapter 119, F.S., & ss. §28.2221(5)(a), F.S. §61.043(1), §68.07, §382.025(1),

§382.0195(1), §409.2563(2)(d) & §742.011, F.S.

Domestic Relations Adoption (FINAL) P A G D D G G G G G G G G DR §63.162(1)(2), F.S. & §63.022(4)(i), F.S.

DR Adoption (while open and pending) P A G B D G G G G G G G G DR §63.162(1)(2), F.S. & §63.022(4)(i), F.S.

Domestic Relations - Paternity P A B B B D C E B C C E C DR Rule 2.420(d); §742.011, F.S. & §28.2221(5)(a), F.S.

Domestic Relations - Paternity -sealed P A F F F F F F F F F F F DR §742.011, F.S.; §742.091, F.S.; §742.16(9), F.S.; §742.031(1), F.S. & §28.2221(5)(a), F.S.

Delayed Birth Certificate P A B B B D C E B C C E C DR Rule 2.420(d)(1)(B)(vi); §382.025(1), F.S.; §382.0195(1), F.S.& §28.2221(5)(a), F.S.

Name Change P A B B B D C E B C C E C DR §68.07, F.S. & §28.2221(5)(a), F.S.

Dissolution P A B B B D C E B C C E C DR Rule 2.420(d); §28.2221(5)(a), F.S.& §61.043(1), F.S.

Repeat Violence P A B B D D C E B C C E B DR Rule 2.420(d)(1)(B)(xii); §741.30(8)(c)5b, F.S. & §28.2221(5)(a), F.S.

Administrative Support Proceeding P A B B B D C E B C C E C DR §409.2563(2)(d), F.S. & §28.2221(5)(a), F.S.

Parental Notice of Abortion VOR A G B B G G G G G G G G DR Rule 8.805(b); Rule 8.835; Rule 2.420(d)(1)(B)(vii); §390.01114(4)(e) & §390.01116

Sexual Violence VOR A B B D D D E B D D E C DR Rule 2.420(d) & (f), Chapter 119.071(2)(h)1 (b) or (c), F.S. & §784.046(4), F.S.

Termination of Parental Rights P A B B G G G G B B G G G DR §39.814(3) & (4), F.S.

URESA/UIFSA P A B B B D C E B C C E C DR Rule 2.420(d) & §28.2221(5)(a), F.S.

Extradition VOR A B B C D D D B D D D C CF Rule 2.420(d) & (f)

Guardianship/Guardian Advocate (Developmental Disabilities) P A B B B D C E C C C E C GA §744.1076, F.S. & §744.3701, F.S.; & 393.12, F.S.

Guardianship Miscellaneous/Professional Guardian P A B B C D C E C C C E C GA §744.1076, F.S.; §744.3701, F.S. & §744.2003, F.S.

Non-Criminal Infractions P A B B B D C D B C C D C IN Rule 2.420(d)

Juvenile Miscellaneous P A B B G G G G G G G G G DP §985.04(1) & (2), F.S. & 985.045(2), F.S.

Financial Miscellaneous [Deactivated] P G B G G G G G G G G G G MM Rule 2.420(d) & Chapter 119, F.S.

***Viewable on Request (VOR) - to ensure that information is properly removed prior to public

access, some case types and document types have a special electronic security called viewable

on request. Selecting an image of a court document in cases or documents coded viewable on

request will not allow the user to view the record at that point. Instead, a request is generated to a

clerk, who performs a second examination of the document to remove personal identification

information and information about the victims of sexual or child abuse crimes. After the clerk has

completed, the requestor then receives a notice that the document is available for viewing. Once

a document has been requested and reviewed, it is available for all future access without

requiring a request/review.

6.

Gen

era

l G

ov't

an

d C

on

st

Off

icers

7.

Gen

era

l p

ub

lic (

wit

ho

ut

reg

istr

ati

on

ag

reem

en

t)

8.

Cert

ifie

d l

aw

en

forc

em

en

t o

ffic

ers

of

fed

era

l an

d

Flo

rid

a s

tate

an

d l

ocal

law

en

forc

em

en

t ag

en

cie

s,

Flo

rid

a D

ep

art

men

t o

f C

orr

ecti

on

s,

an

d t

heir

au

tho

rized

users

9.

Flo

rid

a A

tto

rney G

en

era

l's O

ffic

e a

nd

th

e F

lori

da

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hil

dre

n a

nd

Fam

ilie

s

10.

Flo

rid

a S

ch

oo

l D

istr

icts

(T

ruan

cy)

11.

Co

mm

erc

ial

pu

rch

asers

of

bu

lk r

eco

rds

Access Security Matrix(April 2018 version 8February 2019 v9)

Key to access codes

1.

Ju

dg

es a

nd

au

tho

rized

co

urt

an

d c

lerk

's o

ffic

e

pers

on

nel

(In

tern

al

access b

y a

uth

ori

zati

on

)

2.

Flo

rid

a S

tate

Att

orn

ey's

Off

ices

3.

Att

orn

eys o

f R

eco

rd

4.

Part

ies

5.

Pu

bli

c i

n C

lerk

s' o

ffic

es a

nd

reg

iste

red

users

12.

Flo

rid

a P

ub

lic D

efe

nd

er'

s O

ffic

es

(in

sti

tuti

on

al

access o

nly

)

User Role (Subscribers)

***VOR Statute List (F.S.):787, 794, 796, 800, 825, 827, 847, 921VOR is at the case level

A = All but expunged, or sealed under Ch. 943

B = All but expunged, or sealed under Ch. 943 or sealed under

rule 2.420

C = All but expunged, or sealed under Ch. 943 and sealed under

rule 2.420; or confidential

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

H = No access

See Access Details

Case - Charge/Filing Description PRIVACY UCN Applicable rules and statutes

***Viewable on Request (VOR) - to ensure that information is properly removed prior to public

access, some case types and document types have a special electronic security called viewable

on request. Selecting an image of a court document in cases or documents coded viewable on

request will not allow the user to view the record at that point. Instead, a request is generated to a

clerk, who performs a second examination of the document to remove personal identification

information and information about the victims of sexual or child abuse crimes. After the clerk has

completed, the requestor then receives a notice that the document is available for viewing. Once

a document has been requested and reviewed, it is available for all future access without

requiring a request/review.

6.

Gen

era

l G

ov't

an

d C

on

st

Off

icers

7.

Gen

era

l p

ub

lic (

wit

ho

ut

reg

istr

ati

on

ag

reem

en

t)

8.

Cert

ifie

d l

aw

en

forc

em

en

t o

ffic

ers

of

fed

era

l an

d

Flo

rid

a s

tate

an

d l

ocal

law

en

forc

em

en

t ag

en

cie

s,

Flo

rid

a D

ep

art

men

t o

f C

orr

ecti

on

s,

an

d t

heir

au

tho

rized

users

9.

Flo

rid

a A

tto

rney G

en

era

l's O

ffic

e a

nd

th

e F

lori

da

Dep

art

men

t o

f C

hil

dre

n a

nd

Fam

ilie

s

10.

Flo

rid

a S

ch

oo

l D

istr

icts

(T

ruan

cy)

11.

Co

mm

erc

ial

pu

rch

asers

of

bu

lk r

eco

rds

Access Security Matrix(April 2018 version 8February 2019 v9)

Key to access codes

1.

Ju

dg

es a

nd

au

tho

rized

co

urt

an

d c

lerk

's o

ffic

e

pers

on

nel

(In

tern

al

access b

y a

uth

ori

zati

on

)

2.

Flo

rid

a S

tate

Att

orn

ey's

Off

ices

3.

Att

orn

eys o

f R

eco

rd

4.

Part

ies

5.

Pu

bli

c i

n C

lerk

s' o

ffic

es a

nd

reg

iste

red

users

12.

Flo

rid

a P

ub

lic D

efe

nd

er'

s O

ffic

es

(in

sti

tuti

on

al

access o

nly

)

User Role (Subscribers)

Miscellaneous Firearms P A B B B D C D B C C D B MM Rule 2.420(d); Chapter 119, F.S. & §790.065(4), F.S.

Baker Act and Mental Health Miscellaneous P A B B B D D E C D D E B MHRule 5.900; §394.4615, F.S.; §393.11, F.S.; §765.105, F.S.; §916.107(3)(a), §415.1051, F.S. &

§394.459(8)

Substance Abuse - Assessment/Treatment P A B B B G G G B B G G G MH Rule 2.420(d); §397.501(7), F.S. & §397.6760, F.S.

Tuberculosis/STD Treatment/Other Confidential P A B B B G G G B B G G G MH §392.55, F.S. & §384.27, F.S.

Substance Abuse cases filed pre 10-1-2010 disabled [Deactivated] P A B B D G G G G G G G G MH §397.501, F.S.

Incapacity P A B B B D C E C C C E C MH Rule 2.420(d) & §744.3701, F.S.

Misdemeanor P A B B D D C D B C C D B MM Rule 2.420(d)

Misdemeanor - sexual cases VOR A B B D D D D B D D D B MM Rule 2.420(d) & §119.071(2)(h), F.S.

Municipal Ordinance Infraction P A B B B D C D B C C D C MO Rule 2.420(d)

Municipal Ordinance Arrest P A B B B D C D B C C D B MO Rule 2.420(d)

Misdemeanor-Misc VOR A B B B D D D B D D D B MM Rule 2.420(d)

Parking P A B B B D C D B C C D B CO Rule 2.420(d)

Small Claims P A B B B D D D D D D D C SC Rule 2.420(d)

Traffic Infractions P A B B B D C D B C C D B TR Rule 2.420(d)

Any case marked sealed S A G G G G G G G G G G G Any case that has a SEALED Privacy at the case level

Any expunged case E H H H H H H H H H H H H Any case that has an EXPUNGED Privacy at the case level

Sealed Family Law Case S A G B B G G G G G G G G Case by case basis giving Party/Attorney access