Late to the Party, E-Filing Kicks Off at SCOTUS
Monday was a big day for the U.S. Supreme Court—the first day in the era of e-filing. And according to those who used the new system, it went off smoothly.
November 13, 2017 at 04:17 PM
5 minute read
The U.S. Supreme Court, avowedly slow at adapting new technology, got the hang of it Monday on its successful first day of electronic filing for practitioners.
Old hat at most other courts, allowing electronic filing was a big step for the high court, and gave the justices a rare chance to boast that they were enhancing transparency by allowing the public to view court documents without cost on the court's web site.
“The courts will always be prudent whenever it comes to embracing the 'next big thing,' Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. said in a 2014 report that predicted electronic filing would be available in 2016. Speaking from the bench on Monday, Roberts said, “Most documents on file at the court will be made available free of charge on the court's web site.”
Twitter was abuzz with commentary about the court's technological accomplishment, with some poking fun at the court's Luddite tendencies:
Live look at me checking out the new #SCOTUS e-filing system. #AppellateTwitter pic.twitter.com/kiZWguAv3l
— Rachel S. Landsman (@RSLands) November 13, 2017
By midday Monday, a dozen or so briefs had been filed and posted electronically. (The best way to find posted briefs cumulatively is to make a docket search for the words “Main Document” at the court's website.) Only members of the Supreme Court bar and lawyers appointed under the federal Criminal Justice Act can submit briefs.
“It went really smoothly,” said Kirkland & Ellis partner William Burgess, who filed an amicus brief in three Merit Systems Protection Board cases on behalf of the Federal Circuit Bar Association. He sent the briefs to the court just after 10 a.m., and after a scan for viruses that lasted three minutes, the briefs were posted without a hitch. He had done the same in lower courts for years, but was pleased that the high court joined the march of progress. “They took the time to get it right,” Burgess said.
U.S. Virgin Islands lawyer Andrew Simpson also submitted a brief in a granted case on Monday, and was pleased at how well it all went. “There were a few little quirks,” requiring him to submit the brief at the same time as the certificate of word count and proof of service, but “nothing bad.” He worked it out by phone with the court clerk's office. Hurricanes Irma and Maria left his office without power for weeks, but thanks to a generator, Simpson said he did not lose internet or the ability to file briefs electronically.
Even Wilson-Epes Printing, which has been printing Supreme Court briefs unelectronically and with care for 76 years, has embraced the new system. “No hiccups,” the company's Chris Dorsey said. He signed off on the word count of a brief for a client who submitted a court brief electronically on Monday, and he was anticipating several more briefs to be submitted by day's end.
You might think that a printer would loathe a move to electronic filing, but not Dorsey. “The court still wants printed versions,” Dorsey said.
And it wants them in a hurry. Some lower courts let printers submit printed versions a few days after electronic filing, Dorsey explained. But the Supreme Court wants them the same day, which has compelled Wilson-Epes to alter its workflow.
He's not complaining, though. After all, Chief Justice Roberts on Monday said unequivocally, “Paper will remain the official method of filing.”
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 AllSupreme Court Justices Have 'Variety of Views' on Ethics, Kagan Says
Can Congress Tax Unrealized Gains as Income? Supreme Court May Decide
This Judge, Who Grew up in Miami-Dade, Just Had a Street Named After Her
Court Overturns $185M Fee Award for Quinn Emanuel in ACA Litigation
Trending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
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