The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those with disabilities and should be used for no other purpose. These are not legal documents, and may not be used as legal authority. This transcript is not an official document of the Florida Supreme Court.
In re Amendments to Rule of Judicial Administration 2.430
SC06-2040
> ALL RISE.
HEAR YE HEAR YE HEAR YE.
THE SUPREME COURT OF NA IS NOW
IN SESSION, ALL THOSE HAVING
BUSINESS BEFORE THE COURT, DRAW
NIGH, GIVE ATTENTION AND YOU
SHALL BE HEARD.
GOD SAVE THE UNITED STATES,
GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA AND THIS
HONORABLE COURT.
>> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN,
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT, PLEASE
BE SEATED.
>> GOOD MORNING, FRIENDS AND
WELCOME TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME
COURT.
ON THE ORAL ARGUMENT CALENDAR
FOR TUESDAY, MAY 8th.
2007.
JUDGE -- I'M ROBERT ROUSE JRSES
AND I'M APPEARING HERE IN -- AS
THE CHAIR OF THE WORK GROUP
WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED BY THIS
COURT, THE JUDICIAL BRANCH
RECORDS, THE MANAGEMENT WORK
GROUP.
THIS COURT CLARIFIED BY ITS
DECISION AND ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENTS IN 1234ING 2002 TO
RULE 2.4020, THE PUBLIC ACCESS
TO JUDICIAL BRANCH RECORDS AND
ALSO, ITS CHANGES TO RULE
2.440.
THE RETENTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
RECORDS.
THIS COURT CLARIFIED THAT THE
JUDICIAL BRANCH WILL BE IN
CONTROL OF AND RESPONSIBLE FOR
ALL OF ITS RECORDS.
AND THERE ARE TWO TYPES AND TWO
TYPES ONLY OF JUDICIAL BRANCH
RECORDS AND THOSE ARE COURT
RECORDS WHICH RELATE TO ONES IN
THE COURT FILE KEPT BY THE
CLERK AND ADMINISTRATIVE
RECORDS WHICH WERE ALL OTHER
RECORDS OF THE JUDICIARY WHICH
WERE MADE IN CONNECTION WITH
JUDICIAL BUSINESS.
SO THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF
RECORDS AND SINCE 2000 AND
CERTAINLY 2002 THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH NO LONGER OVERSEES THE
JUDICIAL BRANCH RECORDS.
IT USED TO DO THAT.
THROUGH THE DIVISION OF LIBRARY
AND INFORMATION SERVICE AND
PEOPLE COULD CALL THEM WITH
QUESTIONS ABOUT RETENTION OF
RECORDS AND THOSE KINDS OF
THINGS BECAUSE THEY DID THAT
FOR THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
BUT, THIS COURT MADE IT PLAIN
THAT WE WEREN'T GOING TO DO
THAT ANYMORE AND STATUTORY
CHANGES ALSO OCCURRED AND SO
THEY DON'T S FULFILL THAT
FUNCTION FOR US.
QUESTIONS HOWEVER APPARENTLY
CONTINUE TO BE ASKED AND ISSUES
RAISE AND THIS COURT FELT THAT
IT WAS ADVISABLE TO ESTABLISH A
WORK GROUP TO LOOK INTO THESE
ISSUES.
>> ONLY ADDS -- AS TO
ADMINISTRATIVE OR
ADMINISTRATIVE AND COURT
RECORDS.
>> THAT -- THIS, OUR CHARGE,
RAL, WAS TO -- TO GO BACK TO
THE CHARGE, TO ADDRESS AND
RESOLVE QUESTIONS FROM TRIAL
AND APPELLATE CLERKS AND OTHER
PERSONNEL CONCERNING RETENTION
AND DESTRUCTION OF JUDICIAL
BRANCH RECORDS --
>> SO THIS IS BROADER --
>> WE TOOK IT TO BE BROADER
THAN JUST COURT RECORDS
ALTHOUGH I THINK IT WAS COURT
RECORDS THAT CAUSED MOST OF THE
CONCERNS AT THAT TIME.
>> -- DIVISION OF --
[INAUDIBLE] NO LONGER HAS -- IS
THIS APPLICABLE TO --
[INAUDIBLE].
>> A GOOD QUESTION BUT THE
CLERKS HANDLE THEM OBVIOUSLY
BUT AS FAR AS JUDICIAL BRANCH
RECORDS, OUR WORK GROUP AND I
BELIEVE THERE IS REALLY NO
QUESTION ABOUT IT THAT THE
COURT IS RESPONSIBLE AND MUST
CONTROL ITS OWN RECORDS --
>> AND.
>> THIS REALLY ISN'T TALKING
ABOUT PHYSICAL LOCATION OF
THEM.
BUT, WHO WILL CONTROL HOW LONG
THEY ARE KEPT AND WHICH RECORDS
GO INTO WHICH RETENTION
SCHEDULE.
BACK BEFORE 2002, MAYBE 2000,
ALL OF THIS -- THE -- MOST
SCHEDULES WERE IN THE RULES OF
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION.
THAT IS, THE -- ACTUALLY ONLY
THE COURT RECORDS WERE.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS OF
RETENTION SCHEDULE, THERE
WASN'T ONE FOR COURT RECORDS
AND WE USED THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH.
BUT, BACK IN THE EARLIER WORK
GROUP, THE SUPREME COURT WORK
GROUP ON PUBLIC RECORDS AND I
WAS A MEMBER OF THE WORK GROUP,
WE RECOMMENDED AND YOU CHOSE TO
ADOPT MOST OF THOSE
RECOMMENDATIONS, THAT WE'D BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR OWN RECORDS
AND AT THAT TIME YOU STRIPPED
-- CREATED A SEPARATE RETENTION
SCHEDULE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
RECORDS AND DID NOT PUT IT INTO
THE RULES OF JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION.
AND AS FAR AS I CAN RECALL
THERE WAS NO OBJECTION FROM THE
RULES OF ADD -- JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE SAYING,
NO, IT OUGHT TO BE PART OF THE
RULES.
>> WHAT IS THIS BIG ISSUE
TODAY?
BECAUSE I GEESE YOU CAN SEE WE
ARE REAL FOCUSED ON -- WHAT WE
ARE SUPPOSED TO DECIDE.
WHAT THIS IS POLICY ISSUE THAT
IS -- HAS BROUGHT EVERYBODY
HERE TODAY?
>> WELL, OUR WORK GROUP HAS
RECOMMENDED BASICALLY A ONE-STOP
SHOP FOR THE CONTROL OF THE
RETENTION OF JUDICIAL RECORDS,
BOTH COURT RECORDS AND
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS.
AND IT IS A -- WE HAVE
RECOMMENDED A COMMITTEE, MUCH
AS I GENERALLY DISLIKE
COMMITTEES -- BUT A COMMITTEE
TO MODEL ALONG THE LINES --
MODELED ALONG THE LINES OF THE
JUDICIAL ETHICS ADVISORY
COMMITTEE WHICH THIS COURT
CREATED FOR JUDGES TO INQUIRE
ABOUT ETHICAL ISSUES.
AND WE FOUND THE RESPONSE FROM
THAT COMMITTEE IS VERY QUICK TO
JUDGES AND IS VERY HELPFUL TO
JUDGES ON MATTERS OF ETHICS.
WE THOUGHT THE SAME MODEL COULD
BE USED GETTING A MIX OF PEOPLE
ALL -- ALL THE PEOPLE AFFECTED
BY RETENTION OF RECORD --
>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE
COMMITTEE WOULD DO, ONCE YOU
ESTABLISH A RETENTION SCHEDULE,
CERTAIN RECORDS, LIKE THE RULE
NOW, 60 DAYS, 2 YEARS, 5 YEARS,
TEN YEARS, NEVER, ONCE YOU HAVE
DONE THAT, WHY CAN'T THE RULES
OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
COMMITTEE AND -- HANDLE ANY
ISSUES THAT MAY COME UP OVER
THE YEARS.
>> WELL, THAT IS THEIR
POSITION.
BEEF THIS COURT.
AND THEY FILED COMMENTS MAKING
THAT CASE.
>> IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WILL
COME UP ON A FREQUENT BASIS
WITH REFERENCE TO THE SCHEDULE.
>> THEY CLAIM IT HAS, JUSTICE
CANTERO AND WELL MAY -- I'M NOT
SAYING THEY ARE WRONG ABOUT
THAT FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW.
>> I THOUGHT YOU SAID WHEN WE
HAD THE DIVISION OF LIBRARY
PEOPLE HA QUESTIONS.
IS THIS --
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
>> THIS TYPE OF RECORD, DO I
GET TO THROW IT OUT OR KEEP IT.
>> 2000 --
>> IS THAT -- BUT NOW, I GUESS
THE QUESTION IS, IF THOSE
QUESTIONS REALLY AREN'T BEING
ASKED, THEN WE DON'T WANT TO
CREATE A GROUP THAT IS NOT
GOING TO -- WELL --
BASICALLY HAD NOTHING TO DO,
BUT IF THERE IS A GAP AND DID
YOU -- THAT IS WHAT I THINK I'D
LIKE --
>> WE APPRECIATE THAT THERE WAS
AND WE BELIEVE THAT JUSTICE
ANSTEAD ACTED -- OR WHOEVER
STWAS IT WAS, IN FORMULATING
THIS WORK GROUP, APPARENTLY
FELT THERE WERE ISSUES AND
QUESTIONS AND DURING THE ONE
YEAR THAT WE WERE ACTIVE AND
CHARGED WITH ANSWERING
QUESTIONS DURING THAT TIME, WE
GOT QUESTIONS -- QUESTION AFTER
QUESTION AND THEN THE QUESTION
-- FOR INSTANCE HERE'S ONE,
WHAT ABOUT FOREIGN DEPOSITIONS?
NOT IN THE RETENTION SCHEDULE.
WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT THOSE.
WHAT ABOUT CITATIONS FOR
JUVENILES UNDER 18?
NOT IN THE RETENTION SCHEDULES.
AND MR. COLE, WHO HAS MADE A
COMMENT AND IS -- AND IS HERE
TODAY IS CONCERNED ABOUT
PROBATE RECORDS AND APPARENTLY
WASN'T SURE WHERE TO GO TO
SUGGEST THAT MAYBE THERE NEED
TO BE CHANGES FOR PROBATE
RECORDS.
>> THIS IS REALLY A WORKING
GROUP THAT WOULD HAVE AUTHORITY
TO AT LEAST ANSWER SOME OF
THESE QUESTIONS FOR THE -- WHO
WOULD BE THE KIND OF INDIVIDUAL
OR GROUP THAT -- WHETHER CLERKS
OF COURT --
>> AT LEAST FOR THE CLERKS TO
GO, THE TRIAL COURT
ADMINISTRATORS, ANYONE IN THE
BRANCH TO GO AND ASK QUESTIONS
AND GET THOSE ANSWERED AND IF
THEY ACTED IN COMPLIANCE WE'D
FEEL THEY DID IT IN GOOD FAITH.
ALSO, JUSTICE PARIENTE, THE
QUESTION WAS RAISED BY THE
COURT, WHAT ABOUT TRAINING?
DO WE WANT TO HAVE SOME
UNIFORMITY STATEWIDE IN HOW
RECORDS ARE KEPT MAINTAINED AND
TRAINING FOR THAT AND IT WAS
THOUGHT THIS MIGHT BE A GOOD
GROUP TO DO THAT.
>> TO ME, THAT IS ONE OF THE
CRITICAL ISSUES, IS THIS ISSUE
OF PERMANENTLY RECORDED.
IN THE RULES IT HAD SAID, AS
THAT IS DEFINED BY THE DIVISION
OF LIBRARY.
NOW WE HAVE NO -- WE'D HAVE NO
DEFINITION.
HOW ARE WE GOING TO COME UP
WITH A DEFINITION OF PEMLY
RECORDED AND HOW DOES THE
CONSTANT CHANGE IN ELECTRONIC
TECHNOLOGY AFFECT THE
DEFINITION OF PERMANENTLY
RECORDED.
>> THOSE ARE GOOD QUESTIONS AND
I THINK THAT THIS IS A GROUP
THAT COULD ANSWER THOSE KINDS
OF QUESTIONS.
>> ISN'T THAT -- I MEAN,
PERMANENTLY RECORDED SEEMS TO
ME TO HAVE A -- A DEFINITION
THAT THE COURT WOULD NEED TO
APPROVE AS OPPOSED TO SOME
FLOATING DEFINITION.
>> WELL, THAT IS CORRECT AND
CERTAIN QUESTIONS MIGHT NOT BE
ABLE TO BE ANSWERED BY THE
COMMITTEE AND MAY HAVE TO SAY
IT IS UNCLEAR.
SO IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE
COMMITTEE -- NOT TALK ABOUT THE
COMMITTEE YOU IS YOUR
OPINIONING THE POWER OF THIS
COURT OR CHANGING THE RULES.
BUT WHAT WE SUGGESTED IS JUST
LIKE THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS,
RETENTION SCHEDULE, THEY --
TAKEN OUT OF THE RULE --
>> BUT [INAUDIBLE] S.
>> I'M SORRY.
>> YOU SAY THE COMMITTEE --
[INAUDIBLE] AS I UNDERSTAND
YOUR PROPOSAL YOU WANT THE
COMMITTEE TO BE ABLE TO
RECOMMEND CHANGES TO THE
RETENTION SCHEDULE AND IF THE
COURT HASN'T ACTED --
[INAUDIBLE].
>> YES.
THAT WAS OUR MIDDLE GROUND.
THERE WERE THREE WAYS TO GO
WITH THAT.
EACH TIME YOU WANTED TO MAKE --
>> WHY THAT MIDDLE GROUND --
WHY THAT AUTOMATIC --
>> IN SPEAKING AGAIN WE HAD
CLERKS ON OUR COMMITTEE AND WE
HAD INPUT FROM MANY SOURCES AND
IT WAS JUST FELT THAT WE DIDN'T
WANT THE COMMITTEE TO BE ABLE
TO MAKE CHANGES, EVEN THOUGH
MOST OF THEM WILL BE SMALL AND
WOULDN'T BE OF ANY GREAT
CONSEQUENCE, PROBABLY.
>> I GUESS THE AUTOMATIC --
[INAUDIBLE].
>> WELL, THERE WAS ONE
ALTERNATIVE THEY COULD CHANGE
THEM AND WE SAID, NO, WE DIDN'T
WANT THAT AND THOUGHT THERE
SHOULD BE NOTICE AND IF THE
COURT HAD QUESTION ABOUT IT, WE
COULD IMMEDIATELY STOP IT NO IF
THAT IS AN ISSUE AND COULD HAVE
A LIAISON JUSTICE AND SEEMS TO
ME, THE RULE -- LIKE THE
JUDICIAL ETHICS ADVISORY
COMMISSION AND THE COURT
DOESN'T HAVE MUCH OF A ROLE IN
WHO IS APPOINTED TO THAT
COMMISSION AND DOESN'T OPERATE
AS I UNDERSTAND IT UNDER THE
DIRECT AUTHORITY OF THE COURT.
WE HAVE WORK GROUPS, SAY, FOR
FORMS AND FAMILY LAW FORMS AND
THAT WORKS QUITE WELL.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS
ENVISIONED THAT THAT WOULD WORK
IN A SIMILAR MANNER TO THAT.
>> I SUPPOSE IT IS SIMILAR ONLY
IN THE ROY IT IS SET UP BUT IN
THE APPOINTMENT OF IT THE CHIEF
JUSTICE WOULD APPOINT THE HEAD
OF THE WORK GROUP, ALSO A
MEMBER AT LARGE, IF YOU WILL,
THE CHIEF JUSTICE COULD PICK
ANY PERSON ANYWHERE IN THE
STATE AND THEN WE HAVE DEFINED
CERTAIN OTHER PEOPLE WHO WOULD
BE MEMBERS.
THIS IS OUR SUGGESTIONS, A
CIRCUIT JUDGE, COUNTY JUDGE, A
CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT AND COUNTY
COURT, A CLERK OF THE DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS, A
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FLORIDA
BAR, A TRIAL COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DIVISION OF LIBRARY AND
INFORMATION SERVICES, BECAUSE
THEY HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE
WITH THESE RETENTION SCHEDULES.
AND WHENING WE ADOPTED THE
ADMINISTRATIVE RETENTION
SCHEDULES WE BASICALLY COPIED
IN 2002 THEIR RETENTION
SCHEDULES AND FROM THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND MADE
CHANGES TO ACCOMMODATE JUDICIAL
RECORDS AND SAID, OKAY HERE IS
OUR RETENTION SCHEDULE AND AT
LEAST THIS IS A GOOD START.
IF IT NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED OR
CHANGED LATER IT CAN BE.
BUT THE QUESTION IS, WHO IS
GOING TO LOOK AFTER THAT
DAY-TO-DAY, WEEK-TO-WEEK, WHO
WILL FIELD THE QUESTION AND WHO
WILL ADVISE THE COURT AND
JUSTICE QUINCE, IF THE COURT
THINKS IT -- THINKS IT IS NOT
ENOUGH OVERSIGHT TO GIVE THE
COURT CHANGE FROM 3 TO 5 YEARS
FOR RETENTION, FOR EXAMPLE THE
COURT COULD REQUIRE NOTHING
HAPPENS UNTIL THE COURT
ACTUALLY TAKES AFFIRMATIVE
STEPS TO APPROVE IT.
>> THIS IS GOING TO BE STAFF --
>> THAT IS ANOTHER QUESTION,
JUSTICE WELLS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T
WANT TO CREATE A BIG
BUREAUCRACY THAT WOULD REQUIRE
A LOT OF MONEY AND STAFFING, SO
WE FELT THAT YES, IT WOULD
REQUIRE PROBABLY ONE PERSON
FROM OSCO WHO COULD ALSO SERVE
AS THE RECORDS MANAGEMENT
OFFICER FOR THE STATE AND
ADVISE THE COURT AND THE COURT
CLERK HERE AT THE SUPREME COURT
AND ALSO SIT ON THIS COMMITTEE,
NOT AS CHAIR OF IT BUT SIT ON
IT AND BE A LIAISON.
>> YOUR GROUP HAS BEEN -- THE
PRESENT FORMATIVE GROUP HAS
BEEN STAFFED BY --
>> THAT'S CORRECT THOUGH WE
HAVEN'T MET FOR OVER A YEAR.
>> WHO ISFIELDING QUESTIONS
NOW?
>> GOOD QUESTION.
>> GOOD QUESTION?
>> I THINK PEOPLE DON'T REALLY
KNOW WHERE TO GO.
WE DIDN'T REALLY PUBLICIZE THAT
WE EXISTED.
WE DIDN'T GO OUT AND ASK FOR
QUESTIONS AND WE STILL GOT IN
ONE YEAR, 10 TO 15 QUESTIONS.
>> WE HAVE A REAL GAP HERE, IT
SEEMS, AND TO SOLVE THE GAP --
>> WE THOUGHT SO AND, AGAIN THE
RULES OF JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE, ONE
OF THEIR CONCERNS IS IF IT AND
IT BROKE, DON'T FIX IT BUT I'M
NOT SAYING IT IS BYRON BUT I
THINK WE DO NEED -- THE
COMMITTEE, OUR WORK GROUP FELT
I SHOULD SAY WE DO NEED SOMEONE
THAT LOOKS AT RECORDS.
>> YOU NEED UNIFORMITY AS MUCH
AS POSSIBLE AND THAT IS WHAT MY
CONCERN IS, IS THAT, YOU KNOW,
WE HAD STANDARDS, WHETHER THERE
WERE EXECUTIVE BRANCH STANDARDS,
THEY WERE AT LEAST
ASCERTAINABLE STANDARDS.
SO...
>> THERE WAS SOMEPLACE TO GO TO
GET AN ANSWER.
>> AND THIS COURT REMOVES THAT,
IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE TELLING
ME.
>> AND THIS COURT WAS CLEAR,
THIS COURT WANTED -- DID NOT
WANT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO BE
CONTROLLING AND RESPONSIBLE FOR
OUR RECORDS.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT I GUESS IN TERMS OF
STANDARDS, IT WOULD BE AT LEAST
THAT IS THE -- BUT YOU ARE
SAYING IT BECAME THE DEFAULT
BECAUSE WE ADOPTED, POTENTIALLY,
WHATEVER RETENTION SCHEDULE
THEY RECOMMENDED.
>> AND FOR A TIME THAT WILL
CARRY US FORWARD BECAUSE MOST
OF THE RETENTION SCHEDULES ARE
THE SAME THAT WE HAVE BEEN
WORKING WITH FOR 20 YEARS, JUST
--
>> [INAUDIBLE] GOOD QUESTION MY
OWN TRIAL COURT ODD STRAERT HAD
QUESTIONS AND DIDN'T KNOW WHO
TO TAKE THEM TO IN THE LAST
YEAR OR TO AND I ASKED HIM
ABOUT IT BECAUSE I WAS
INTERESTED IN HIS PER SPECHLT
AND HE SAID, WE HAVE QUESTIONS
THAT COME UP ALL THE TIME.
COURT RECORDS OR ADMINISTRATIVE
RECORDS OF A DRUG LAB AND END
UP IN A COURT FILE, WHICH
SCHEDULE DO WE USE AND WHO DO
WE GO TO TO ASK ABOUT THAT AND
THESE ISSUES COME UP AND HE
DIDN'T KNOW WHERE TO GO TO --
>> DID YOU CATALOGUE THE
RECORDS WHICH ARE PRESENTLY
COVERED BY RULE OF COURT AS TO
RETENTION?
GO THROUGH -- FOR INSTANCE,
JUSTICE QUINCE BROUGHT UP THE
CAPITAL CASE RECORDS AND IN THE
CAPITAL CASE RULE, ON RECORDS,
THERE IS A PROVISION THAT SAYS
-- AS TO HOW LONG THOSE RECORDS
HAVE TO BE KEPT AND AFTER THE
EXPIRATION OF 60 DAYS,
SECRETARY OF STATE MAY THEN
DESTROY THEM.
COPIES OF THE RECORDS, HELD BY
THE RECORDS REPOSITORY.
AND --
>> WE DID NOT ADDRESS THAT
SPECIFIC PROVISION BUT PROBABLY
THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AND
LOOKED AT AND CHANGED BECAUSE I
THINK WE SHOULD NOT LOOK TO THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO DESTROY OR
--
>> THAT COMES DOWN TO THE
QUESTION OF WHERE THEY ARE
ACTUALLY LOCATED, CORRECT?
AS WE GO BACK TO OUR ARCHIVES,
THAT IS WHERE THE FILES ARE
LOCATED, NOT REALLY IN A,
QUOTED, CLERK'S OFFICE.
>> THAT IS A GOOD POINT,
JUSTICE LEWIS, IF IT IS A
QUESTION OF WHO PHYSICALLY HAS
THEM AND DESTROYS THEM I GUESS
IT WOULD BE FINE FOR THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH --
>> ANY OTHERS LIKE THAT, THAT
YOU ARE AWARE OF, THAT ARE
OUTSIDE THE --
>> NOT THAT I AM AWARE OF BUT
DOESN'T MEAN THEY DON'T EXIST.
>> AND WE HAVE A HYBRID THAT
COMES TO MIND IN THESE RECORDS
BECAUSE THESE RECORDS ARE
ACTUALLY COLLECTED LARGELY FROM
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH FUNCTIONS.
SHERIFFS OFFICES, LAW
ENFORCEMENT.
AND COME UNDER THE -- IN THIS
RULE BY REASON OF OUR POST
CONVICTION, I WONDER IF ANYONE
HAS GONE BACK AND LOOKED TO SEE
IF THERE ARE OTHER RULES THAT
WE HAVE THAT PERTAIN TO
RECORDS.
>> I COULD BE WRONG BUT I DON'T
RECALL --
>> I KNOW PROBATE DOES, HAS
RAISED THE QUESTION ABOUT --
>> ARE WILLING TO YOUR REBUTTAL
IF YOU WANT TO SAVE A FEW
MINUTES FOR THAT.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, JUDGE.
>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU, I'M
KATHERINE PECRO AND APPEARING
ON BEHALF OF THE RULES OF THE
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
COMMITTEE.
THE FIRST RESPONSE TO JUDGE
PARIENTE'S QUESTIONS AND OTHER
QUESTIONS BY JUSTICE CANTERO
AND SO FORTH.
THE RULES OF JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE DOES
NOT DISAGREE WITH THE RECORD
THAT WAS ISSUED BY THE WORK
GROUP.
EXCEPT IN ONE RESPECT AND THAT
IS, KEEPING THE RETENTION
SCHEDULE, THE COURT RECORDS,
RETENTION SCHEDULE IN THE RULE.
WE AGREE THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE
A COMMITTEE OR SOME BODY OF
EXPERTS OR PEOPLE APPOINTED BY
THE COURT TO DEAL WITH THE
DAY-TO-DAY ADMINISTRATION OF
COURT RECORDS.
BUT THE RULES OF JUDICIAL
COMMITTEE, JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
FIRMLY BELIEVES THE RETENTION
SCHEDULE OF COURT RECORDS WHICH
ARE INTEGRAL TO THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE,
NEEDS TO REMAIN WITH IN THE
RULES OF JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION.
>> DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU ARE
SAYING IS THAT THE WORK GROUP
TO ANSWER QUESTION AND DO THOSE
KINDS OF THINGS BUT IF IT CAME
TO A POINT WHERE THERE WILL BE
A CHANGE IN THE SCHEDULE IT
SHOULD COME THROUGH YOUR
COMMITTEE?
>> YES.
EXACTLY, JUSTICE LEWIS AND --
>> INSTEAD OF A SEPARATE WORK
GROUP, WHY COULDN'T IT BE A
SUBSET OF THE RULES OF JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE?
>> AS THE RULES OF JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
CURRENTLY IS EMBODIED, I DON'T
KNOW THAT THERE IS A GROUP
WITHIN THAT COMMITTEE THAT
WOULD BE AVAILABLE ON A DAILY
BASIS TO HANDLE PHONE CALLS AND
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER A
CERTAIN RECORD SHOULD BE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD OR SHOULD
BE CONSIDERED A COURT RECORD.
>> PEOPLE THAT ARE ON THE
COMMITTEE I ASSUME ARE THE SAME
KINDS OF PEOPLE THAT ARE ON THE
WORK GROUP OR MAYBE I'M WRONG.
ISN'T THAT -- JUDGES THAT ARE
ON THIS WORK GROUP AND THE SAME
-- I MEAN, ALSO JUDGES ON THE
RULES ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
AND THE WORK -- HOW WOULD THE
WORK GROUP HAVE ANY MORE TIME
THAN THE COMMITTEE DOES.
>> THAT IS A GOOD POINT, AND IF
IT IS THE COURT'S POSITION THAT
THAT IS WHAT STANDS IN THE --
THE WAY IT SHOULD GO UNDER THE
RULES OF JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION I BELIEVE THAT
COMMITTEE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE
EITHER -- EITHER FORM A NEW
SUBCOMMITTEE OR DO SOMETHING TO
ACCOMMODATE WHATEVER THE
COURT'S OPINION IS ON THAT.
>> I WONDER -- I MEAN, THE
ISSUE OF IT BEING IN THE RULES
IS REALLY FOR NOTICE FOR
EVERYBODY, SO THAT IT IS OUT
THERE.
I WOULD ASSUME.
>> ABSOLUTELY, JUSTICE PARIENTE
AND THE OTHER ASPECT OF IT IS,
NOT ONLY IN THE RETENTION
SCHEDULE, THE TIMEFRAME, IF
SOMEBODY THINKS SOMETHING NEEDS
TO BE MADE LONGER OR SHORTER,
BUT AS THE WORK GROUP BROUGHT
UP, JUDGE ROUSE, IF THERE IS A
CATEGORY OR RECORD THAT IS NOT
IN THERE, BRING IT TO THE RULES
COMMITTEE, WE CAN STUDY IT, AND
GO THROUGH THE PROCESSES THAT
WE DO, AND THAT HAVE BEEN
ESTABLISHED FOR A LONG TIME,
AND WE CAN GADE AND MAKE THE
RECOMMENDATIONS.
IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT COMES
UP ON AN EMERGENCY BASIS AS YOU
KNOW, THERE ARE RULES IN THE
RULES OF JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION THAT THIS COURT
CAN TAKE THESE ISSUES UP ON --
>> IS ALWAYS, IS INTERESTING,
AS WE DECIDE WHAT IS THE BEST
WAY TO GO, THIS COURT IS REALLY
INUNDATED WITH RULES CHANGES
AND, YOU KNOW, EMERGENCY
PETITIONS AND I GUESS I WOULD
THINK MAYBE THERE IS SOME HAPPY
MEDIUM BECAUSE IT SEEMS IF YOU
ARE A ADDING A CATEGORY OF
RECORDS, MAYBE THAT NEEDS ONE
TREATMENT BUT IF YOU SAY THIS
IS A -- AN ISSUE OF CHANGING
SOMETHING TO -- SOME SLIGHT
ADJUSTMENT, IT MAY NOT NEED THE
SAME AIRING AND WAS ANY
CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO SEEING
IF THERE COULD BE A COMPROMISE,
OF THAT, WHICH THINGS WOULD GO
THROUGH RULES CHANGES AND WHICH
WOULD BE ABLE TO BE HANDLED BY
THE WORK GROUP.
SORT OF WHAT WE DID WITH THE
FAMILY LAW FORMS, TRY TO TAKE
THINGS THAT WERE REALLY NOT
THAT CONTROVERSIAL, AND NEED
QUICK RESPONSES, AND HAVE THOSE
HAND ONE WAY AND STILL ALL GOT
PUBLISHED AND EVERYBODY STILL
KNOWS WHAT IS OUT THERE.
BUT WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION
GIVEN TO THAT TYPE OF
COMPROMISE SO THAT IT IS NOT
CONSTANTLY A RULE-CHANGE
SITUATION.
>> RESPECTFULLY, NO, THERE WAS
NOT.
ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO THAT.
I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THE
RETENTION SCHEDULE IN THAT PART
OF THE RULE HAS BEEN IN THE
RULE SINCE 1981 AND OTHER
THANNED THATTING A RETENTION
SCHEDULE FOR THE DISTRICT
COURTS OF APPEAL, DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEAL, THERE HAS BEEN
NO CHANGES TO THAT RULE, SO I
THINK IN A WAY A LOT OF THE
PROBLEMS THAT HAVE BEEN
GENERATED THROUGH THE CONFUSION
AND QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER
SOMETHING IS A COURT ORDER,
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD, WHETHER
A CATEGORY OR NOT A CATEGORY,
PERHAPS PEOPLE DIDN'T KNOW
WHERE TO GO.
MY UNDERSTANDING -- AND THIS IS
NOT PART OF A RECORD OR
ANYTHING, IS, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE
ARE CALLING CLERKS, CLERKS ARE
CALLING THE COURT ADMINISTRATORXX""$$
ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE, AND
PEOPLE ARE CALLING AROUND AND
ASKING FOR OPINIONS.
SO, MAYBE PART OF THIS NEEDS TO
BE A COMMUNICATION TO -- IF THE
COURT DECIDES TO FORMULATE THE
WORK GROUP, YOU KNOW, TO SAY
CERTAIN ISSUES THE WORK GROUP
DEALS WITH.
IF YOU NEED A RULE CHANGE YOU
GO TO THE RJA.
PART OF IT MAY BE A NEED FOR
COMMUNICATION.
SO PEOPLE KNOW WHERE TO GO.
>> HAS THE COMMITTEE CONSIDERED
IN ORDER TO ANSWER MANY
QUESTIONS THE -- TO DEVELOP A
CATCH-ALL PROVISION IN THE RULE
TO SAY THAT ANY RECORD THAT IS
NOT INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE SHALL
BE RETAINED FOR X NUMBER OF
YEARS, TEN YEARS, 15 YEARS
RATHER THAN HAVING PEOPLE COME
UP WITH THESE VERY SPECIFIC
KINDS OF THINGS, HAVE A\\$$
CATCH-ALL PROVISION?
>> THE COMMITTEE HAS NOT
SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED THAT
ISSUE.
BUT I THINK WE WILL.
BASED UPON YOUR CONSIDERATION.
YOUR QUESTION --
>> EVERY QUESTION YOU GET, BUT
MAYBE 75% OF THEM.
>> IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO
HAVE A CATCH-ALL PROVISION SUCH
AS THAT.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE -- DOES THE
COMMITTEE FEEL THAT THEY SHOULD
BE THE ONES TO DEVELOP THE
DEFINITION OF PERMANENTLY
RECORDED?
>> RIGHT NOW THERE -- I THINK
THERE IS NO DEFINITION IN THE
RULES.
OR WITH REFERENCE TO -- IT
REFERENCES PERMANENTLY RECORDED
AS SET FORTH IN THE DIVISION OF
LIBRARY.
YOU KNOW, THE STANDARDS.
>> RIGHT.
THE COMMITTEE AS FAR AS I KNOW
HAS NOT ADDRESSED THAT.
THEY DO PROVIDE IN THE RULE
WHAT IS CONSIDERED TO BE
PERMANENT RECORDS.
BUT NOT WHAT IS CONSIDERED TO
BE PERMANENTLY RECORDED.
AND OF COURSE THAT IS PROBABLY
IN THE -- IN A STATE OF FLUX
WITH ALL OF THE DIFFERENT
TECHNOLOGIES NOW THAT HAVE COME
ABOUT EVEN IN THE LAST TEN
YEARS AND WILL CONTINUE TO COME
ABOUT.
IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE
COMMITTEE NEEDS TO CONSIDER, WE
CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT.
BASED ON THE COMMENT THAT WAS
FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RULES OF
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
COMMITTEE, WOE JUST
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE
RETENTION SCHEDULE REMAIN WITH
IN THE RULE OF 2.430 AND THEY
SAY FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.
>> THANK YOU, MR. BAGGETT
COMING UP NEXT.
>> MR. CHIEF JUSTICE, MEMBERS
OF THE COURT, MY NAME IS FRED
BAGGETT WITH GREENBERG, AND I
REPRESENT THE TALLAHASSEE
ASSOCIATION OF CORE CLERKS AND
WHEN WE FIRST RESPONDED WITH
COMMENTS FROM THE CLERKS, OUR
COMMENTS WERE DIRECTED TO
SPECIFIC SUGGESTED RULE CHANGES
AND I UNDERSTAND HERE TODAY
THAT THE FOCUS OF THE
CONSIDERATION IS UPON THE WORK
GROUPS PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
CREATE A SEPARATE BODY.
THE CLERKS REALLY HAVE NO
CHOICE OR PREFERENCE AS TO
WHETHER THE STANDARDS ARE BY
RULE OR BY THE ENTITY THAT IS
BEING SUGGESTED HERE.
WHAT THE CLERKS NEED AND DESIRE
AND APPRECIATE FROM THE WORKING
WITH THE COURT, PARTICULARLY
THE LAST YEAR OR TWO WITH THE
RULES, IS CLARITY, CERTAINTY,
AND UNIFORMITY OF APPLICATION
THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
>> DOES THE PROPOSED COSTUME
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WORK GROUP,
DO YOU HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS
FURTHER ON THAT, IS ONE MEMBER
FROM THE CLERK'S GROUP
SUFFICIENT?
DO WE NEED MORE?
BECAUSE THE CLERKS ALSO
CERTAINLY ARE DESIGNATED TO
CARRY THE WEIGHT OF TAKING CARE
OF ALL OF THESE RECORDS AND
HAVE WE ACCOMMODATED THAT
SUFFICIENTLY?
GIVE US YOUR THOUGHTS WITH
REGARD TO THAT.
>> I WOULD SUGGEST AS WE HAVE
FOUND IN OTHER INSTANCES, THAT
THE WAY A CLERK'S OFFICE IN
BRADFORD COUNTY OPERATES IS
CONSIDERABLY DIFFERENT,
ALTHOUGH THE FUNCTIONS ARE THE
SAME, THE OPERATIONS CAN BE
CONSIDERABLY DIFFERENT THAN IN
DADE COUNTY.
OUR SUGGESTION WOULD BE THAT
THERE BE REPRESENTATION OF A
CLERK FROM A SMALL COUNTY,
POSSIBLY A MEDIUM AND A LARGE,
AT LEAST TO GIVE YOU THE
DIFFERENCE IN OPERATION OF A
CLERK'S OFFICE THAT HAS SIX
EMPLOYEES, VERSUS 600 EMPLOYEES
AND HOW THOSE -- THE RECORDS
MIGHT BE --
>> SOUNDS LIKE, THOUGH, YOU YOU
SAY THERE IS NO PREFERENCE
BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT IN A
WORK GROUP WE CAN BE MORE
FLEXIBLE AS TO WHO THE MEMBERS
ARE AND REALLY GET MEMBERS THAT
ARE REALLY KNOWLEDGEABLE.
>> YES.
>> IN THIS, NOT TO SAY JUDGES
AREN'T KNOWLEDGEABLE BUT THEY
ARE NOT, YOU KNOW, AND NOT TO
SAY THAT THIS IS -- ISN'T AT
THE TOP OF OUR RADAR SCREEN BUT
IT'S NOT.
SO...
>> I'LL SPEAK FOR MYSELF.
SO I CAN REFER TO HAVE THE
PEOPLE IN THE DAY-TO-DAY
TRENCHES, THAT IS ME CONCERN
ABOUT LIKE -- THAT THIS SHOULD
BE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE RULES
OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION SO
FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW, THE
CLERK'S, WOULD THE WORK GROUP
BE MORE FLEXIBLE, BETTER GROUP
TO BE ABLE TO START TO DEVELOP
THIS CLARITY OR CERTAINTY OR
UNIFORMITY?
>> YES.
>> DO YOU THINK IT IS -- DON'T
YOU THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA,
THOUGH, TO KEEP THE SCHEDULE
PUBLIC IN THE RULES OF JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION?
>> I'M SORRY.
>> RIGHT NOW I GUESS THERE IS A
PROPOSAL TO MOVE THE SCHEDULE
AND THE RULES OF JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION, AND HE SAYS NO,
THAT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA, WE
SHOULD HAVE IT OUT THERE, WHAT
IS THIS POSITION OF THE CLERKS
ON WHETHER IT BE PUBLISHED IN
THE RULES OR NOT?
>> DO YOU HAVE A POSITION ON
THAT?
>> WELL, WE DO THINK THAT THE
COURT ITSELF SHOULD HAVE THE
LAST SAY ON WHAT THE STANDARDS
ARE, WHAT THEIR SCHEDULES ARE.
AND WE WOULD SUGGEST THAT --
WHATEVER PROCESS IT BE, THE
COURT'S DECISION AS TO WHAT
THOSE STANDARDS ARE.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THEM, THE
DAY-TO-DAY WORK OF THEM, WE
THINK THAT THE RETENTION WORK
GROUP PROPOSAL WOULD BE MORE
FLEXIBLE, AS YOU SAY, IT WOULD
HAVE FAR MORE INPUT FROM
DIFFERENT SOURCES THAN POSSIBLY
A RULES COMMITTEE.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE -- THE REASON
I KEEP COMING UP WITH THIS
PERMANENTLY RECORDED.
IT SEEMS AS TECHNOLOGY KEEPS
CHANGING, WHAT IS -- YOU KNOW,
USED TO BE A TIME WHEN -- CAN'T
KEEP DEPOSITIONS BECAUSE THEY
ARE BULKY AND NOW, YOU CAN PUT
A LITTLE -- ON A LITTLE
WHATEVER DISC OR CD-ROM OR DVD
OR WHATEVER.
AND IT IS NOT AS, QUOTE, BIG A
DEAL AND WHO IS GOING TO BE
LOOKING AT THAT AS FAR AS
WHETHER CHANGES IN TECHNOLOGY
WILL ALLOW THINGS TO BE
RETAINED LONGER BECAUSE YOU
REALLY DON'T HAVE SPACE ISSUES,
YOU KNOW, AND THEN THE ISSUE OF
WHAT IS THIS PREFERABLE
TECHNOLOGY TO KEEP IT.
MICRO FILM VERSUS DVDs VERSUS
HARD DRIVES, YOU KNOW, AND
WHERE DO YOU SEE THAT -- THOSE
DECISIONS BEING MADE, IS THE
WORK GROUP GOING TO DO THAT?
IS THAT RULES OF JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION ISSUE?
IS THAT SOMETHING THE CLERKS
SAY, NO, LEAVE US ALONE AND
WE'LL FIGURE THAT OUT?
HOW DO YOU --
>> WE DON'T WANT TO BE LIFTED
ALONE TO FIGURE IT OUT BY
OURSELVES.
ACTUALLY, THE E-FILING
COMMITTEE WHICH THIS COURT
ESTABLISHED AND THE CHIEF
JUSTICE APPOINTED IS WORKING
VERY HARD TOWARDS AN E-FILING
STRUCTURE IN THE FUTURE.
WE'RE GOING TO NEED GUIDANCE.
THAT GROUP IS GOING TO NEED
GUIDANCE AND IS GOING TO BE AN
EVOLVING GUIDANCE AS TO HOW TO
MAINTAIN ELECTRONIC RECORDS AND
THE SECURITY OF THOSE RECORDS
AND LONGEVITY OF THOSE RECORDS.
THOSE ARE ALL GOING TO BE
ISSUES THAT ARE EVOLVING AND
DEVELOPING AS WE GO FORWARD.
>> I'M CONCERNED IN THE INTERIM,
WHO IS -- LIKE SOMEONE NEEDS TO
LOOK AT THIS, BECAUSE MY CLERK
TELLS ME THAT TECHNOLOGY THAT
USED TO BE GOOD FOR RETENTION
IS NO LONGER RELIABLE FOR THOSE
-- PURPOSES.
IT DEGRADES OR, YOU KNOW, AND
SO ONCE YOU LEAVE PAPER, WHICH
I GUESS YOU HAVE IF YOU HAVE
THEM ON MICRO FILM OR SOMETHING
AND, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THOSE
ACTUALLY ARE PERMANENTLY
RECORDED.
>> I THINK YOUR COMMENT AND
QUESTION REALLY POINT OUT THE
NEED FOR HAVING THIS KIND OF
BODY -- A BODY AS BEING
SUGGESTED BY THE WORK GROUP
THAT IS FLEXIBLE ENOUGH TO TAKE
THOSE ISSUES INTO CONSIDERATION
AND COME BACK TO THE COURT AS A
-- THEY FIND IT NEEDED.
IT IS NOT A STATIC, A STATIC
PROCESS.
>> IF WE DON'T KEEP ON TOP OF
IT, IT SEEMS THAT WE ARE REALLY
GOING TO END UP IN A SITUATION,
ONE DAY WE ARE REALLY NOT GOING
TO HAVE THE COURT RECORDS, WHEN
WE MOST NEED THEM AND THAT IS
MY CONCERN.
>> AND I THINK WE FOUND THAT IN
THE LAST FEW YEARS, THAT WE
CLERKS HAD KEPT RECORDS THE
SAME WAY THEY'VE KEPT RECORDS
50 YEARS AGO, 75 YEARS AGO, AND
THAT WAS NO LONGER APPLICABLE
IN TODAY'S RECORDKEEPING
PROCESS OF THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
MOST OF RECORDS TODAY, WELL,
MOST COURT RECORDS AS THEY COME
IN TODAY ARE BEING DIGITIZED.
BEING ELECTRONICALLY MANAGED.
WE'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE TO THE
COURT THEIR REVIEW OF RECORDS
AND LECK -- IN ELECTRONIC
FASHION.
SO ALL OF THESE ARE GOING TO
HAVE RETENTION ISSUES, THAT WE
DON'T KNOW ABOUT YET THAT ARE
GOING TO BE CHANGING.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER ITEMS
THE CLERKS NEED US TO BE
THINKING ABOUT OR CONSIDERING,
WITH REGARD TO RETENTION
POLICIES THAT ARE NOT
SPECIFICALLY -- MAY NOT BE
WITHIN THE SPECIFIC RULE WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT TODAY?
ARE THERE ANY OTHER CONCERNS
THAT MAY BE IMPACTING THIS SDIX
THAT ARE NOT -- MAY NOT BE
PRECISELY ON POINT?
>> YES, SIR, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE,
IN FACT, IN OUR COMMENTS, WE
SUBMITTED THREE POINTS OF
CONSIDERATION FOR YOU WITH
REGARD TO THIS PARTICULAR RULE.
RULE 2.430.
THE FIRST DEALT WITH RULE 3.420,
G-1 WHICH PROVIDES THAT
EXHIBITS IN CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE DISPOSED
OF AS PROVIDED BY LAW.
THE ONLY STATUTORY PROVISION WE
FIND FOR THE DISPOSITION OF
EXHIBITS AND CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS IS SECTION 28.213
WHICH SIMPLY SAYS THAT THREE
YEARS AFTER A CASE IS OVER THE
CLERK CAN DISPOSE OF EVIDENCE
WHICH HAS BEEN MAINTAINED AS AN
EXHIBIT.
IT DOESN'T PROVIDE ANY PROCESS
OR ANY NOTICE OR ANY OTHER
REQUIREMENT.
WHEREAS, IN YOUR CURRENT RULE
IN G-2, THERE IS SET OUT A
PROCESS FOR NOTICE TO PARTIES
BEFORE THE DISPOSITION OR
DISPOSAL OF EXHIBITS AND
NONCRIMINAL MATTERS.
IN CRIMINAL MATTERS YOU DON'T
HAVE THAT.
WE ARE SUGGESTING THAT YOU
CONSIDER PROVIDING IN THE RULE
A NOTICE PROVISION TO THE
PARTIES AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
THE PARTIES TO SEEK PROTECTION
OF THE COURT PRIOR TO THE
DISPOSAL BY THE CLERK.
>> AND THESE ARE THINGS THAT
SHOULD NOT WAIT AND SHOULD BE
DONE SOONER RATHER THAN LATER
IS WHAT YOUR VIEW IS.
>> YES, SIR.
SECONDLY, THE -- YOUR RULE
2.430K CURRENTLY PROVIDES NO
RECORD WHICH HAS BEEN SEALED
FROM PUBLIC EXAMINATION BY
ORDER OF THE COURT SHALL BE
DESTROYED WITHOUT HEARING AFTER
SUCH NOTICES AS REQUIRED BY THE
COURT.
RECORDS WHICH ARE OPEN TO THE
PUBLIC ARE DESTROYED ACCORDING
TO TO A RETENTION SCHEDULE
WITHOUT ANY NOTICE REQUIREMENT,
WITHOUT A HEARING -- A HEARING
REQUIREMENT, WE FEEL THERE IS A
DEFINITE NEED FOR A DISTINCT
AND SEPARATE PROCESS FOR
MAINTAINING A SEALED RECORD BUT
WE DON'T SEE THE BASIS FOR
DISCING IN THE DESTRUCTION
PROCESS IF IT IS -- IF IT
SERVED ITS TIME, IT SERVED ITS
TIME, WHETHER IN PURGATORY,
BEING SEALED OR WHETHER IT HA
BEEN OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
WE WOULD SUGGEST THIS
ELIMINATION OF THAT --
>> AND THAT SEEMS TO -- ALL OF
A SUDDEN NOW WE'RE GETTING -- I
MEAN, THE PROBLEM WITH SAYING
WE SHOULD DO THIS IMMEDIATELY
THERE IS A RULES PROCESS, I
THINK PROBABLY THE REASON FOR
THAT IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WAS
IN PURGATORY, PEOPLE ARE DEAD
AND MAYBE IT IS NOW WITHIN THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN SO IT COULD BE
UNSEALED, DESTROYED, AND -- YOU
KNOW, NEF KNOW WHAT WAS IN IT.
AND I GUESS THERE COULD BE A
DIFFERENT POLICY REASON BUT
THAT IS NOT REALLY FOR US TODAY
TO DECIDE.
>> NO, MANAGEMENT AND I THINK I
WAS RESPONDING TO THE CHIEF
JUSTICE, DIVIDE HAVE ANY OTHER
--
>> A WISH LIST.
>> WE HATED WISH LIST AND THE
LAST ONE,.
>> THE THING ON THE CRIMINAL
EXHIBITS IS A HUGE --
>> THAT WE THINK IT IS.
RULE 2.430J RELATES TO THE
EXPUNGMENT PROCESS AND PROVIDES
NOTHING IN THE RULE SHALL
AFFECT THE POWER OF THE COURT
TO ORDER RECORDS EXPUNGED.
THAT IS THE CURRENT LANGUAGE OF
THE RULE.
AND WHICH WE OF COURSE AGREE
WITH.
WE DO BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE
APPROPRIATE AND PROTECTIVE AND
CONSISTENT WITH THE WORK YOU
HAVE DONE IN THE LAST YEAR OF
THE RULES TO FURTHER PROVIDE
THAT SEALED RECORDS SHALL BE
DESTROYED NOT LESS THAN 30 DAYS
AFTER THE ORDER OF EXPUNGMENT.
THAT WOULD BE TO PROVIDE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR SOMEONE TO HAVE
AN APPROPRIATE CHALLENGE TO AN
EXPUNGMENT ORDER AND RIGHT NOW,
UNDER THE RULE, THE CLERK COULD
EXPUNGE WHICH -- AS WE KNOW
MEANS ELIMINATE, WIPE OUT THE
RECORD IMMEDIATELY AND
THEREFORE MAKING IT A POTENTIAL
CHALLENGE TO THE EXPUNGMENT
MOVE.
THOSE ARE THE ONLY THREE
SUGGESTIONS, WE WOULD LIKE TO
COULD CLOSE IN THANKING THE
COURT FOR THE OPPORTUNITY OF
THE CLERKS TO PARTICIPATE WITH
YOU, PARTICULARLY IN THE LAST
YEAR AS WE HAVE WORKED TOGETHER
IN A NUMBER OF RULE CHANGES,
DEALING WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF
RECORDS.
THE CLERKS ARE LOOKING FOR THAT
FAIR AND CONSISTENT MANNER OF
RECORDS MANAGEMENT THROUGHOUT
THE STATE FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR. BAGGET, APPRECIATE YOUR
COMMENT.
MR. COLE.
>>.
>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT.
I AMMAR VIN COLE FROM
GAINESVILLE.
I ORIGINALLY HAD RESPONDED TO
THE NOTICE IN THE FLORIDA NEWS
PROBABLY BECAUSE I HAVE A VERY
HIGH INTEREST, BOTH HISTORY AND
GENEALOGICAL STUFF AND LOOKING
THROUGH THE RETENTION RECORD
HAPPENED TO CATCH MY EYE.
I FIND IT SORT OF INTERESTING
IF THE FACT IS WORTH ANYTHING,
I DON'T KNOW OF ANY OTHER
ATTORNEY, PRACTICING ATTORNEY
IN THIS STATE WHO SUBMITTED A
COMMENT ON THIS RULE OR THE
RETENTION.
WHICH I FIND ABSOLUTELY
FASCINATING.
BUT IT ALSO SHOWS THAT
PRACTICING ATTORNEYS REALLY
AREN'T TOO INVOLVED WITH THE
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION RULES.
WE DEAL WITH THE RULES,
PROCEDURE, PROBATE, FAMILY,
WHATEVER IT IS.
SO MY INITIAL RESPONSE WAS TO
SUBMIT A BAEFK A BRIEF SIMILAR
TO WHAT I -- BASICALLY A BRIEF
SIMILAR TO WHAT I SUBMITTED TO
THIS COURT TO THE FLORIDA BAR
BOARD OF GOVERNORS AND THEY
ROLLED IT THROUGH THEIR
MEETINGS AND WHAT CAME OUT OF
THAT ALSO WAS, HEY, EVERYBODY
IS UNDER THE FALSE IMPRESSION
THAT THE COURT RECORDS OF THIS
STATE ARE NOT DESTROYED.
AND THAT IS NOT JUST PROBATE.
AND PERHAPS THAT IS A
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE.
PERSPECTIVE FROM VIRGINIA OR
WHEREVER IT IS AND CAME AS A
SHOCK WHEN I WENT DONE THE
RETENTION SCHEDULE.
MAKES SENSE, THE SCHEDULE WAS
ORIGINALLY AS I UNDERSTAND IT
IN WHAT THEY CALL THE GENERAL
SERVICES SCHEDULE OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARIES, ACROSS
THE STREET.
GS-11 I BELIEVE THIS IS
SCHEDULE THAT COVERS MOST OF
THE COURT RECORDS AND SOME OF
THE DATES ARE A STILL
ASTOUNDING, TOO, AND I'M NOT
SURE HOW MUCH THE CLERKS OBEYED
IT OR NOT BUT IT ALSO APPEARED
THAT EACH CLERK DID HIS OR HER
THING THAT'S THEY SAW IT.
DEPUTY CLERKS MAY OR MAY NOT DO
THEIR THINGS AS THEY SITE AND
SOME DID A BETTER JOBS AND SOME
OTHER AND SOME TIME AGO I
NEEDED A COURT RECORD OUT OF
ESCAMBIA COUNTY, THEY DESTROYED
THE RECORDS BUT BLESS THEIR
SWEET HEARTS THEY SPENT THE
MONEY AND PUT THE ENTIRE COURT
FILE ON MICROFICHE.
EVERYTHING.
AND MY CONCERN WAS, WHEN I
WROTE THE LETTER, I'M NOT
WORRIED ABOUT THE DEED RECORDS
AND YOU HAVE A WILL ADMITTED TO
PROBATE AND THE ORDER PERHAPS
DOING THAT, AND ADMINISTRATION
AND MAYBE A PETITION FOR
DISCHARGE BUT THERE IS A NOT
THAT IS NOT RECORDED.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF SOMEBODY DIES
ARE STATUTES REQUIRED THAT A
WILL BE FILED?
WITH THE CLERK AND SUPPOSEDLY
WITH IN TEN DAYS AND THE CLERK
WOULD USUALLY LIKE SOME
EVIDENCE OF CAUSE OF DEATH.
USUALLY THE DEATH CERTIFICATE
AND COULD BE AN OBITUARY AND
DOESN'T MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE
AND THE SCHEDULE FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARIES ACROSS
THE STREET SAYS WE KEEP THOSE
20 YEARS AND NOTHING HAPPENS
AND DESTROY 'EM.
AND I HAVE HAD TO DO PRO BATES
40 YEARS LATER.
SO WHAT WORRY DEALING ARE
RECORDS IN THE PROBATE
GUARDIANSHIP ARENA THAT ARE
PROPERTY ONLY AND YOU HAVE TO
KNOW THE FAMILY MEMBERS TO BE
ABLE TO FIGURE OUT WHO OWNS
WHAT, OUR INVENTORIES IN
PROBATE ARE SEALED BUT
DESTROYED UNDER THE CURRENT
GUIDELINES AND THAT TELLS YOU
WHAT PROPERTY IS INVOLVED AND
WHAT PEOPLE BELIEVE THEIR
PROPERTY IS AND PETITION FOR
PROBATE IS UNDER OATH AND
IDENTIFIES POTENTIAL HEIRS AND
I PERCEIVE IT AS THE PROBLEM IS
LARGER THAN PROBATE AND ALSO IS
TRUEN MARITAL SITUATIONS WHERE
I BELIEVE NOW THERE IS YOU A 75
YEAR RULE GIVE OR TAKE
MAINTAINING DISSOLUTION ORDERS.
I HAVE AN ELDERLY COUSIN WHO
WAS TRYING TO APPLY FOR SOCIAL
SECURITY AND NO BIRTH RECORD
AND THE ONLY RECORD OF HER
BIRTH WAS IN THE DIVORCE
PROCEEDINGS IN THE 1920s.
IF UNDER THE CURRENT GUIDELINES,
THOSE RECORDS HAD BEEN
DESTROYED, NO REAL PROOF AND
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE,
SHE'D LIKE TO COLLECT BENEFITS
ON A TIMELY FASHION.
AND A PERCEIVE THE SAME THING
GOES THROUGH WITH CIVIL FILES
AND CRIMINAL FILES AND THE
COURT WRESTLES WITH THESE
ISSUES AND WHETHER OR NOT
SOMEBODY WAS WRONGFULLY DWIKTED
AND IF YOU START DESTROYING
THIS STUFF AND THAT IS FOR THE
-- [INAUDIBLE] IT APPEARS TO ME
THERE IS GOING TO BE
POTENTIALLY PROBLEMS.
>> DON'T WE HAVE TO COME DOWN
TO MAKE SOME POLICY DECISIONS,
FOR EXAMPLE A FILE ON A
DOMESTIC MATTER IS IN THE COURT
FOR A DOMESTIC MATTER AND
WHETHER THAT IS GOING TO BE
USED SOME OTHER PLACE AT SOME
OTHER TIME FOR SOME OTHER
PURPOSE IS REALLY A DIFFICULT
CALL WE HAVE TO -- THE CLERKS
HAVE TO SOMEHOW MAINTAIN THINGS,
IN AN ACTIVE FASHION BECAUSE
SOMEPLACE ELSE IN THE SCOPE OF
GOVERNMENT OR HUMAN LIFE THERE
MAY BE SOMETHING IMPORTANT IN
THERE SO THAT IS A POLICY CALL
AND HOW OR WHERE IS IT BEST
DECIDED.
>> IT IS A POLICY CALL BUT I
THINK THE PROBLEM THAT BOTHERED
THE ATTORNEYS I WAS DEALING
WITH ARE THE ACTUAL COURT FILES
THEMSELVES AND NOT SO MUCH THE
PIECES OF PAPER, THE -- BEST
MEDIA KNOWN TO US IS MICRO
FILM.
THE MORMONS HAVE PROVEN THAT
AND THE FILM INDUSTRY HAS
PROVEN THAT.
THIS HAS SUSTAINED THIS RAVAGES
OF TIME AS LONG AS YOU KEEP IT
AT LEAST IN A PROTECTED VAULT
AND GOD KNOWS HOW MANY PIECES
OF PAPER, ON THIS PARTICULAR
PIECE OF FILM AND I'M NOT
SAYING DON'T GET RID OF THEM
WHICH WOULD GET BACK TOWER
POLICY ISSUE.
BUT THERE HAS TO BE A
REASONABLE WAY TO HOPEFULLY
ALLOW THE PRACTICING BAR TO DO
OUR JOB AND WE'RE THE ONES THAT
UNFORTUNATELY BUILD THOSE FILES
AND WE USE THEM AND WE DIE AND
SOMEBODY BEHIND US COMES ALONG.
>> WHERE WOULD YOU PROPOSE
THOSE DECISIONS BE CONSIDERED
AND MADE AS TO --
>> I BELIEVE --
>> ON THE TAPE AND WHAT DOES
NOT AND WHAT WE WRITE -- AND
WHATEVER IT IS, BECAUSE, I MEAN,
AS BROAD AS THE WORLD NOW, WE
DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN
THE FUTURE.
>> MY RIMDATION WOULD BE FOR
FOOD OF THOUGHT AND YOU HAVE
THE START WITH THE WORKING
GROUP.
THERE NEEDS TO BE A GROUP,
MANAGEMENT, SOMEBODY WITH IN
THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM TO SET UP A
SCHEDULE THAT IS MORE DETAILED
THAN WHAT IS THERE.
AND I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE
CURRENT SCHEDULE AND I KNOW
FROM WHAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD
TRIPLE HEARSAY THE LEON COUNTY
CLERK'S OFFICE IS DESTROYING
RECORDS ON THE TEN-YEAR NOTICE
AND IT IS ALREADY HAPPENING AND
THE FIRST THING I WOULD SUGGEST
IS YOU FREEZE AND TELL THE
CLERKS, STOP UNTIL YOU GET IT
FIGURED OUT.
>> AND WE HAVE A SPACE PROBLEM
FOR CLERKS, TOO, IS WHAT WE GET
INTO.
>> GETS BACK AND THIS SOLVES
THE SPACE.
BUT THE -- AND NEEDS TO BE
PROBABLY IN THE JUDICIAL RULES
ADMINISTRATION.
>> AND NEEDS TO BE A REAL --
WITH THE LAWYERS OF THE STATE,
WE DON'T KNOW BUT BELONGS IN
THE RULES OF JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION AND IS A POLICY
ISSUE AS LONG AS THE COURT
ACCEPTED THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR
WHEN THINGS CAN BE DETROIT.
BUT APPEARS TO ME THE GUIDANCE
NEEDS TO COME FROM THIS --
>> YOU HAVE HEARD THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CLERK'S
ASSOCIATION SUGGEST THAT THE
COMPOSITION THAT WE HAVE RIGHT
-- OR WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED IS
A LITTLE INADEQUATE BECAUSE THE
DIFFERENCES WITH THE CLERK'S
OFFICES, WHAT PROPOSALS DO YOU
HAVE OR HAVE YOU ALREADY FILED
THOSE AS TO THE COMPOSITION OF
THE GROUP THAT WOULD BE
KNOWLEDGEABLE AND HAVE THE
INFORMATION TO MAKE THE RYE
DECISIONS AND THE RIGHT
RECOMMENDATIONS TO A COURT TO
MAKE THE FINAL DECISION.
>> WELL, THE PROPOSAL THAT CAME
FROM THE WORKING GROUP IS A
VEHICLE WHICH COULD DO THAT.
THE ONLY PROBLEM I HAD IN
LOOKING AT IT, IS FULL OF CLERK
AND JUDGES.
BLESS THEIR HEARTS.
THERE IS NO PRACTICING BAR
MEMBERS IN THERE FOR THE PEOPLE
THAT CREATE AND USE THESE
FILES.
>> OKAY.
>> AND HOW MANY SHOULD BE ON
THE IT AND WHERE SHOULD THEY
COME FROM.
>> I WOULD SUGGEST THEY COME
FROM THE PRACTICING BAR AND THE
REPTILE SECTION, PROBATE REAL
ESTATE SECTION, THE CIVIL TRIAL
SECTION, THE CRIMINAL SECTION
AND THE FAMILY LAW SECTION.
THAT, TO ME -- AT LEAST ONE
FROM -- ALREADY HAVE THE
SECTIONS.
AND THESE FOLKS DEAL WITH THEM
DAY-TO-DAY AND I THINK IT
PROBABLY HELPED DEVELOP THE
SCHEDULE AND CERTAINLY USED
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
LIBRARIES ORIGINALLY HAD AND
FILL IT IN BECAUSE I THINK NOW,
I THINK WE ARE REALLY HURTING
OURSELVES.
>> OKAY.
IF YOU COULD BRING YOUR
COMMENTS TO A CONCLUSION, YOU
ARE OVER YOUR TIME AND I WANT
YOU TO SAY WHAT YOU NEED TO SAY.
>> IN BASIC CONCLUSION, WE ARE
DESTROYING OUR OWN HISTORY AND
PRACTICING CAPABILITY AND IT IS
PREMATURE AND SUGGEST THE COURT
FREEZE ALL OF THE DESTRUCTION
TILT IS SETTLED BECAUSE I THINK
THE SCHEDULE IS TOO TIGHT ON SO
MANY THINGS AND I DO BELIEVE
SOME SORT OF MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE WAS BEING SUGGESTED
IS PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA.
>> MR. COLE, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
>> JUDGE, A COUPLE OF
CONCLUDING REMARKS.
>> THANK YOU.
I'LL TRY TO -- I THINK I CAN DO
IT WITHIN TWO MINUTES AND FOUND
I THINK MUCH BETTER NOW SITTING
DOWN APPARENTLY AS MY TRAINING
AS A JUDGE I CAN'T THINK ON MY
FEET ANYMORE.
>> I WOULD LIKE YOU TO -- FOR
YOUR CONCLUDING REMARKS, I
WOULD LIKE YOU TO ADDRESS
REALLY THIS BROADER ISSUE THAT
I, FOR ONE, AM THANKFUL
SOMEBODY HAS BROUGHT OUR
ATTENTION TO, AND THAT IS THAT
TO A GREAT EXTENT WE HAVE
REALLY ALMOST -- INAUDIBLE NAB
WHEN I WAS THE CHIEF JUDGE OF
THE COURT OF APPEALS
HEADQUARTERED IN WEST PALM
BEACH MY CLERK WOULD COME TO ME
AND SAY -- WE HAVE SPACE
PROBLEMS.
OF COURSE I WOULD SAY, WELL,
THERE IS A SCHEDULE FOR RECORDS
RETENTION.
AND ACTUALLY, BAR INTEREST AT
THE TIME WAS HOPEFULLY THAT
THAT SCHEDULE ALLOWED US TO GET
RID OF RECORDS AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE AND RETAIN ONLY A
MINIMUM OF THE RECORDS IN THE
COURT FILES, SO, DINED,
VIRTUALLY A FILE-STRIPPING
PROCESS THAT WEB ON.
COUPLED WITH THE ISSUE OF, YOU
KNOW, MORE EFFICIENT WAYS SUCH
AS MICROFICHE AND MICRO FILM OF
RETAINING, WHATEVER IT WAS WE
DID.
DETECTION THAT I'M SPEAKING TO
IS THAT SORT OF PRACTICAL
ATTENTION THAT INHOUSE COURTS
LIKE ANY OTHER INSTITUTION, YOU
KNOW, SAYING, OUR SPACE IS
RUNNING OUT, YOU KNOW, THAT IS
ALL GONE NOW, ANYWAY.
OR WHATEVER.
THEN I THINK WE HAVE BEEN DONE
A SERVICE HERE THAT SORT OF
DRIVING THE POINT THAT -- THE
IDEA OF LAWYERS THAT WORK WITH
THESE RECORDS, AND REALIZE THAT
THEY HAVE GOT TO GO WAY BACK
THAT THERE IS DANGER HERE AND
TO SOME EXTENT TO WHAT WE ALL
FALL INTO IS THAT WE JUST TAKE
WHATEVER HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE
AND WONDER, WHEN WAS IT THAT
ANYBODY EVER CAME UP, YOU KNOW,
WITH THESE, TWO YEARS FOR THIS
AND FIVE YEARS FOR THIS AND TEN
YEARS FOR THIS OR WHATEVER, IT
IS ALMOST UNKNOWN NOW, YOU
KNOW, WHAT THE THEORY OR THE
PHILOSOPHY WAS BEHIND IT.
BUT IF THERE IS A BROADER ISSUE
NOW, NOT JUST THE LAWYERS
CONCERNED FOR THE NEED OF SOME
OF THESE BUT IT DOES SEEM LIKE
OUR CULTURE, WE HAVE RELIED ON
POOR RECORDS TO RECORD OUR
HISTORY.
OF OUR PEOPLE AND I -- THERE IS
LOTS OF VALUABLE STUFF IN THERE,
SO MY LONG LEAD INTO THIS IS
REALLY SAYING, HAS THE PROPOSAL
FOR THE WORK GROUP INCLUDED A
CONSIDERATION THAT TO HAVE
PEOPLE SERVE ON THAT WORK GROUP
THAT HAVE THIS BROADER
PERSPECTIVE?
CLEARLY, YOU KNOW, AT A MINIMUM
THE LAWYERS, BUT ALSO REALLY
REACHING OUT ALMOST TO
HISTORICAL SOCIETIES, OR
SECRETARY OF STATE, WHO MANAGES
A LOT OF THAT FOR THE STATE OF
FLORIDA WITH REFERENCE TO
ARCHIVES.
SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, IS HE
RIGHT?
SHOULD WE PUT A FREEZE, SHOULD
WE BROADENED OUR FOE FOCUS IN
TERMS OF RETENTION OF COURT
RECORDS SO WE DON'T LOSE OUR
HISTORY WITHOUT EVEN REALIZING
WE ARE DOING IT.
>> I'M NOT SURE I'M QUALIFIED
TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION,
JUSTICE AM STEAD.
I -- ANSTEAD, I WOULD SUGGEST
WE NEED TO PAY CLOSE ATTENTION
TO THIS AND PERHAPS A COMMITTEE
SUCH AS THIS THAT IS CHARGED
REALLY WITH RECORDS COULD
EXPAND ITS CHARGE A LITTLE BIT
AND THE -- IN THE COURSE OF
DOING WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO DO
ANYWAY AS WE SUGGESTED COULD DO
ALL OF THAT I WOULD HOPE AND
CERTAINLY THE CONTENT, WHO IS
ON THE COMMITTEE, COULD BE
MODIFIED.
IF I COULD JUST -- I KNOW,
JUSTICE, JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS
TWO OR THREE ISSUES THAT THE
COURT RAISED.
AS TO THE PERMANENTLY RECORDED
RECORDS, JUSTICE PARIENTE I
MISANSWERED AND APOLOGIZE AND
PART OF THE RULE OF JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION AND WOULD REMAN
YOU A PART OF IT, THAT
DEFINITION AND IF THERE ARE
GOING TO BE ANY CHANGES IT
WOULD BE TO THE RULES OF
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
COMMITTEE.
ALL WE HAVE SUGGESTED TAKING
OUT OF THAT RULE IS THE
RETENTION SCHEDULE, DO YOU HOLD
THESE CITATION, 60 OR 90 DAYS
AND DO THIS RECORD FIVE OR
SEVEN YEARS AND THOSE RETENTION
SCHEDULES.
SO --
>> THE PROBLEM MIGHT BE AS THEY
COME OUT, LAWYERS WHO DIDN'T
KNOW THEY WERE IN BEFORE AND
NOW THINK EVERYTHING GETS
RETAINED FOREVER, SO...
>> THAT IS -- BECAUSE WHEN YOU
RETAIN THINGS AND SOMEONE COMES
IN AND ASKS FOR THEM NOW YOU
HAVE 3,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS
INSTEAD OF 10 PAGES, PERHAPS,
SO THERE IS A -- MANY REASONS
TO NOT KEEP DOCUMENTS, EVEN IF
YOU HAVE A PHYSICAL SPACE, AS
TO JUSTICE CANTERO'S COMMENTS
AND I THINK THE CHIEF JUSTICE
TO MY KNOWLEDGE THERE AREN'T
ANY CLERKS RIGHT NOW ON THE
RULES OF JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE.
NONE.
WE SUGGESTED, TOO, ONE FROM THE
APPELLATE AND WOULDN'T FROM THE
TRIAL COURT CLERKS AND COULD
THEY -- COULD BE EXPANDED IF
YOU WANT TO, WE KEPT IT AT
NINE.
>> AND THIS ARE ALL LAWYERS
UNDER RULES OF JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE,
AREN'T THEY.
>> THAT'S TRUE AND WE HAD
PROPOSED AT LEAST ONE LAWYER
AND OF COURSE SOME PERSON TO BE
APPOINT BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE
FOR THIS STANDING COMMITTEE ON
RECORDS.
RETENTION.
SO THE OTHER POINT IS WE HAVE
ALREADY NOT PUT THE RULES --
I'M SORRY.
THE RETENTION SCHEDULES FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS ARE NOT
IN THE RULES.
THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE RULES
IN THAT RULES OF JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATION, ON
ADMINISTRATIVE -- WE HAVE DOB,
IN OTHER WORDS, WITH
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS WHAT OUR
WORK GROUP IS PROPOSING WE DO
WITH CORE RECORDS.
AND IF IT MAX SENSE TO DO IT
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE IT CERTAINLY
MAKES SENSE TO DO IT WITH COURT
RECORDS WHERE WE CAN HAVE SOME
CLERKS ON THIS GROUP THAT WE
ARE PROPOSING THAT YOU
ESTABLISH.
SO I JUST THINK THAT GROUP
WOULD BE MUCH MORE FOCUSED ON
THE ISSUES WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT.
AND FINALLY, JUSTICE QUINCE, IF
IT IS THOUGHT THAT THE COURT
NEEDS MORE CONTROL CERTAINLY IT
COULD EXERT IT AND YOU COULD
CHANGE IT TO WHERE -- TO A
REQUIREMENT THAT THE RULES OF
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
COMMITTEE COULD OBJECT AND,
THEREFORE, NOT PERMIT AN
AUTOMATIC CHANGE TO THE RULES,
BUT FOR INSTANCE, IF THE
COMMITTEE WANTED TO CHANGE FROM
60 TO 90 DAYS, HOW LONG DO YOU
HOLD CITATIONS?
>> THANK YOU.
[INAUDIBLE].
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> [INAUDIBLE].
>> ABSOLUTELY.
THAT IS A PRIMARY DRIVING FORCE
ALTHOUGH THEY RIGHTLY SAY WE
HAVEN'T CHANGED THESE RULES AND
--
>> WHERE WOULD YOU SUGGEST --
[INAUDIBLE].
>> I'M SORRY.
WELL, IT WOULD BE DONE JUST
LIKE THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS
ARE DONE NOW.
IT IS PUBLISHED AS A SEPARATE
APPENDIX AND ANYONE CAN GO
RIGHT TO THE BOOK AND LOOK IT
UP.
THE SAME BOOK, JUST AN APPENDIX,
NOT PART OF THE RULE ITSELF.
AND WE'RE SUGGESTING MORE
FLEXIBILITY.
THAT IS EXACTLY RIGHT.
>> SO, AGAIN IN THE RULES BOOK,
JUST THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO GO
THROUGH THE PETITION BEING
FILED AND --
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> IF SOMETHING SIGNIFICANT WAS
PROPOSED, DISCRETION COULD BE
STILL TO PUBLISH THAT FOR
COMMENT.
>> THEY'LL COURT WOULD HAVE TO
DO IS SAY, DON'T ENACT THAT AND
PUBLISH IT FOR COMMENT AND YOU
CAN EVEN ADD THAT THE RULES OF
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
COMMITTEE HAVE THE SAME BILLY
TO VETO A CHANGE IF YOU WANT IT
TO.
NOT A TURF WAR WE ARE TRYING TO
CREATE.
IT IS FLEXIBILITY AND
RESPONSIVENESS AND UNIFORMITY.
>> WITH OUR ASSISTANCE WE FAR
EXCEEDED YOUR TIME, THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR YOUR WORK ON
THIS.
THANK THE OTHERS WHO APPEARED
TO GIVE US YOUR THOUGHTS TODAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE'RE TRYING TO REACH THE RIGHT
ANSWER AND I THINK WE'RE ALL
DOING IT TOGETHER.
THANK YOU VERY MUCHAL