Don't Forget the Exhibits: Get to Know New Rule 5.3
Should you try a case in the Southern District of Florida anytime soon, you will undoubtedly focus on your opening statement, direct and cross examinations, and closing argument.
March 12, 2018 at 10:43 AM
5 minute read
Should you try a case in the Southern District of Florida anytime soon, you will undoubtedly focus on your opening statement, direct and cross examinations, and closing argument. These things will help you win your case, but you'll also want to keep your judge and law clerks happy by being familiar with the amendments to the local rules addressing handling of exhibits.
You'll find your roadmap to handling exhibits in recently amended local Rule 5.3. For starters, the rule provides that a copy of all exhibits should be provided to the clerk of court, so be sure to have an extra copy of your exhibits at trial. One of the judicial staff members, such as a law clerk, will likely be in charge of collecting copies of exhibits as they are introduced and providing them to the clerk of court.
As to certain physical exhibits, the rule says “narcotics, cash, counterfeit notes, weapons, precious stones, or other [physical] items, which, … require special handling” are to be introduced with a photograph of the item and directs the lawyer to keep the original. Be mindful of the length of time that the original exhibits should be retained as indicated in the rule.
The rule leaves discretion for the court on the handling of physical exhibits that do not require special handling. Many judges will allow you to introduce the physical item but direct you take the item with you at the conclusion of trial. In that case, you'll want to have a photograph of the item, which you can leave with the law clerk or judicial staff member if requested. You may also be directed to sign a form stating that you took the original with you.
Be aware of how the court expects you to handle the timing of providing exhibits to the law clerk or other judicial staff member. If you know the exhibits are limited in number, the court may expect you to provide each exhibit to the law clerk or judicial staff member at the time it is introduced. But if you are introducing copious numbers of exhibits, the court may direct you to provide copies of all your exhibits after your case is presented. Be flexible and feel free to ask the court for guidance.
During trial, you, or someone else on your staff should keep a running list of all exhibits that are introduced by both you and your opponent. If an exhibit was offered but not admitted, note the reason it was not admitted. After the trial is concluded, it is a good idea to reconcile your list of admitted exhibits with the list kept by your opponent and the court. This will shortcut any disputes over what was admitted and what wasn't.
Once you're back at your office after trial, you'll need to comply with local Rule 5.3(b)(2). This rule directs parties to file an electronic version of each documentary exhibit that was introduced at trial and a photograph of each physical exhibit. Be sure you've made appropriate redactions of all confidential information before filing these documents in accordance with the rule.
Local Rule 5.3(b)(3) also provides exemptions to the electronic filing requirement for certain types of exhibits, including sealed and ex parte exhibits in criminal cases, contraband images, audio recordings, and video recordings, and exhibits containing voluminous amounts of confidential information that is subject to privacy protection. These items should be delivered directly to the clerk of court or conventionally filed in the case of sealed and ex parte exhibits in criminal cases. Once the exhibits are electronically filed, or delivered to the clerk of court in the case of exempted exhibits, you'll need to electronically file a certificate of compliance with the rule pursuant to local Rule 5.3(4).
Finally, if there are original exhibits that were left with the court or delivered to the clerk of court, local Rule 5.3(c) directs the parties to retrieve those exhibits. The rule further provides time periods for how long these original exhibits must be retained once retrieved, which varies depending on the type of case.
Here's a summary of helpful tips:
- At trial, have an extra set of paper copies of all exhibits to be provided to the court, which should include a set of photographs of all physical exhibits.
- Feel free to ask your judge whether he prefers all exhibits to be provided to the clerk as they are admitted or at the conclusion of your case or trial.
- Keep a running list of all exhibits offered at trial and note the reason any exhibits were not admitted. Attempt to reconcile your list of admitted exhibits with the opposing party and the court at the conclusion of trial.
- After trial, file an electronic copy of all exhibits that were introduced and include pictures of physical exhibits.
- When electronically filing your exhibits after trial, be sure to comply with the rules pertaining to confidentiality and the exemptions for electronic filing certain types of exhibits.
- Once your exhibits are filed, file a certificate of compliance stating that you filed all exhibits as required.
- Make arrangements to retrieve original exhibits being held by the clerk of court and be sure to retain them for the period of time required by local Rule 5.3(c).
By following these tips and spending a few minutes becoming familiar with local Rule 5.3 before trial or an evidentiary hearing, you'll be in a good position to keep things running smoothly with your exhibits during and after trial.
Nathaniel Edenfield is an associate at Richman Greer in Miami. He focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Preparing for a Data Breach
- 2The New Jersey Data Privacy Act: New Obligations on Businesses Dealing With New Jersey Residents
- 3Opportunity Knocks: Modern Trends With Business Email Compromise in a Changing Cyber World
- 4Cyber Insurance Update: Recent Decisions Addressing Coverage for Cyber Losses
- 5Less Is More: The Risks of Excessive Data Collection from Mobile Devices
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250