The Future of Hard Copy Court Records and E-Filing
In his New York Practice column, Thomas F. Gleason writes: In this second half of the second decade of this millennium, consider the implications of two CPLR proposals awaiting action on the governor's desk. The first would broadly expand electronic filing of court papers, and the second would allow hard copy service of interlocutory papers by mail from other states within the United States.
July 17, 2015 at 04:54 PM
8 minute read
In this second half of the second decade of this millennium, consider the implications of two CPLR proposals awaiting action on the governor's desk. The first1 would enact a new CPLR Article 21-A and broadly expand electronic filing of court papers, and the second2 would amend CPLR 2103, so that hard copy service of interlocutory papers can be made by mail from other states within the United States.
These amendments constitute a minor tweak for interlocutory service of hard-copy papers, and a major overhaul of the e-filing system. Both types of media (paper and electronic) remain essential to New York practice, but the scope of the e-filing initiative is the clearest sign in years that the hard copy age is nearly over.
The 16-Year Experiment
New York's long experiment with e-filing (since 1999)3 reflected the Legislature's concern that not all practitioners (or pro se parties) had the capacity to use an Internet filing system, and that the sheer breadth and complexity of New York court business made any precipitous push for e-filing risky.
The initial program introduced the now well-established “written consent” of all parties requirement, and the Legislature even included a sunset clause that caused the initiative to “expire July 1, 2002.”4 The evolution of the e-filing rules, which for the program in its present form are contained in Uniform Rules 202.5-b and 202.5-bb, also reflect this conservatism. A limited mandatory e-filing program in a few counties for limited types of cases was not authorized until 2009.
The Proposed Expansion
The 2015 e-filing bill is broad, affecting not only civil cases, but also criminal, family court and surrogate's court proceedings. Insofar as relevant to CPLR practice, the pending bill allows the chief administrator (chief administrative judge) to significantly expand mandatory civil case e-filing, and to promulgate rules that will “eliminate the requirement of consent” in the current statutes and rules.
This content has been archived.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 AllEstablishing New Test for Cost-Shifting, Court Allocates Costs for Data Security in Discovery
9 minute readClone Discovery Must Meet Relevance, Proportionality, Particularity Requirements
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-68
- 2Friday Newspaper
- 3Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 4Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 5NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
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