Miami-Dade Circuit Chief Judge Issues New Rules for Remote Proceedings
Miami-Dade Circuit Chief Judge Bertila Soto issued new emergency procedures on the use of electronic devices while in a remote courtroom.
April 07, 2020 at 02:28 PM
4 minute read
It is a new world, with remote telephonic hearings now the norm.
And Miami-Dade Circuit Chief Judge Bertila Soto issued new emergency procedures on the use of electronic devices while in a remote courtroom. Lawyers and others who do not comply could face punishment by the court.
Administrative Order No. 20-07 specifies that in remote court cases connected by communication equipment, lawyers, the press and the public cannot use electronic devices without the approval of the presiding judge in the case. The devices include smartphones, cameras, computers, laptops and digital voice recorders. The limitation on the use of these devices applies to using them to make photography, videography and audio recordings.
The order provides that lawyers, the public and the press can use electronic devices, such as cellphones, for sending and receiving written information, like emails and text messages. However, these devices must be either be silent, in vibrate mode, or turned off. Also, while laptops or tablets with regular keyboards are allowed, they must not make noise. In fact, if the electronic device becomes disruptive, the presiding judge can revoke the privilege of the person using it.
"Since we are operating under social distancing requirements issued by the CDC to reduce the likelihood of transmitting COVID-19 among persons, our members of the press can no longer just walk into a courtroom to cover an in-person public court proceeding," Soto said. "In the virtual world, a little more planning is needed."
Soto said the new administrative order is meant to ensure that lawyers, the public and the press can continue accessing virtual court proceedings. It gives clear instructions on how to request access.
That includes news gathers who do not meet the definition of professional journalists, and members of the public who want to access remote hearings. They must contact the court to access a remote hearing at least one business day in advance of the hearing.
The new order by Soto also updates Administrative Order No. 14-02, which took effect in January 2014 and laid out the governing use of electronic devices in court proceedings.
These rules come as the court prefers that "mission critical court matters" and nonessential hearings take place remotely through communication equipment, unless the judge on the case says an in-person court hearing is necessary.
Previously, there was a suspension of having nonessential hearings occur through the use of communication equipment. This changed March 31 with Administrative Order 20-05, as the Miami-Dade courts by necessity became more proficient using Zoom video conferencing technology.
Chief judge offers 3 tips for lawyers
Soto advises lawyers who will go before any Miami Dade Circuit judge to check the website of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida and its social media, @miamidadecourts, for updates on the use of communications equipment and participation in remote hearings.
Second, the court advises lawyers and litigants to be patient.
"We will be with them," Soto said. "All of us are moving as quickly as possible to learn new technology and get it ready to roll out for regular use in our busy circuit in the near future."
Soto said the court is committed to provide justice to the community while protecting the health of the public, judges and court staff.
Third, lawyers should continue to check the presiding judge's web page.
Soto said in an email, "Depending on the division, there may be specific instructions for remote court proceedings."
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 All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Trending Stories
- 1Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 2Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 3Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 4Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
- 5Husch Blackwell, Foley Among Law Firms Opening Southeast Offices This Year
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