ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2004-5 (Amended) Expedited Summary Disposition Docket in the Court of Appeals Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2004-5, this Court adopted an expedited summary disposition docket in the Court of Appeals to take effect on January 1, 2005, and to expire on December 31, 2006. We now order that the expedited summary disposition docket continue in effect, as modified infra, for a twelve-month period. 1. Applicability. This amended administrative order applies to appeals filed on or after January 1, 2006, arising solely from orders granting or denying motions for summary disposition under MCR 2.116. These appeals are to be placed on an expedited appeal track under which they shall generally be briefed, argued, and disposed of within six months of filing. A motion to remove is required to divert such appeals to the standard appeal track. 2. Time Requirements. Appeals by right or by leave in cases covered by this order must be taken within the time stated in MCR 7.204 or MCR 7.205. Claims of crossappeal must be filed within 14 days after the claim of appeal is filed with the Court of Appeals or served on the cross-appellant, whichever is later, or within 14 days after the clerk certifies the order granting leave to appeal. 3. Trial Court Orders on Motions for Summary Disposition. If the trial court concludes that summary disposition is warranted under MCR 2.116(C), the court shall render judgment without delay in an order that specifies the subsection of MCR 2.116(C) under which the judgment is entered. 4. Claim of Appeal - Form of Filing. With the following exceptions, a claim of appeal filed under this order shall conform in all respects with the requirements of MCR 7.204 (A) A docketing statement will not be required as long as the case proceeds on the summary disposition track. (B) When the claim of appeal is filed, it shall be accompanied by: (1) evidence that the transcript of the hearing(s) on the motion for summary disposition has been ordered, or (2) a statement that there is no record to transcribe, or (3) the stipulation of the parties that the transcript has been waived. Failure to file one of the above three documents with the claim of appeal will not toll subsequent filing deadlines for transcripts or briefs. Sustained failure to provide the required documentation may result in dismissal of the appeal under MCR 7.201(B)(3), as long as the Court of Appeals provides a minimum 7-day warning. 5. Application for Leave - Form of Filing. An application for leave to appeal, or an answer to an application for leave to appeal, filed under this administrative order shall conform in all pertinent respects with the requirements of MCR 7.205. At the time an application or an answer is filed, the filing party must provide the Court of Appeals with 5 copies of that party's trial court summary disposition motion or response, brief, and appendices. 6. Claim of Cross-Appeal. Subject to the filing deadline contained in section 2, a claim of cross-appeal filed under this administrative order shall conform in all other pertinent respects with the requirements of MCR 7.207. 7. Removal from Summary Disposition Track. A party may file a motion to remove the case from the summary disposition track to the standard track. (A) Time to File. A motion to remove may be filed by any party at any time. However, filing of the motion most closely in time to discovery of the basis for removal will maximize the likelihood that the motion will be granted. (B) Form. Motions to remove shall concisely state the basis for removal, and must be in the form prescribed by the Court of Appeals. This form shall include a statement advising whether the appellee is expected to oppose the motion. (C) Answer. An answer to a motion to remove must be filed within 7 days after service of the motion. If applicable, the answer should state whether the appellee is expected to file a claim of cross-appeal. (D) Disposition. Within 14 days after the filing of the motion to remove, the Court of Appeals shall issue an order disposing of the motion and setting the time for further filings in the case. The time for further filings in the case will commence on the date of certification of the order on the motion. (E) Docketing Statement. If the case is removed from the summary disposition track, a docketing statement must be filed within 14 days after the date of certification of the order on the motion. (F) Administrative Removal. The Court of Appeals may remove a case from the summary disposition track at any time, on its own motion, if it appears to the Court that the case is not an appropriate candidate for processing under this administrative order. (G) Effect of Removal. If the Court of Appeals removes a case from the summary disposition track, the order shall state whether, and the deadlines by which, the parties are entitled to file briefs in accordance with the time and page limitations set forth in MCR 7.212. 8. Transcript - Production for Purposes of Appeal. (A) Appellant. (1) The appellant must order the transcript of the hearing(s) on the motion for summary disposition before or contemporaneously with the filing of the claim of appeal or application for leave to appeal, unless there is no record to transcribe or all parties to the appeal stipulate that the transcript is unnecessary. (2) Evidence that the transcript was ordered must be filed with the claim of appeal or application for leave to appeal. Appropriate evidence of the ordering includes (but is not limited to) the following: (a) a letter to the specific court reporter requesting the specific hearing dates and enclosing any required deposit; or (b) an "Appeal Transcript, Demand, Order and Acknowledgment" form, or (c) a court reporter or recorder's certificate. (3) If the transcript is not timely filed, the appellant or an appellee may file an appropriate motion with the Court of Appeals at any time. Avoiding undue delay in filing the motion under the circumstances of the case, and concisely stating the specific basis for it, will maximize the likelihood that the motion will be granted. (4) If an appropriate motion is filed, the order disposing of such motion shall state the time for filing any outstanding brief(s). (5) Absent an order of the Court of Appeals that resets the time, and regardless of whether the ordered transcript is timely filed, the time for filing the appellant's brief will commence on the date the claim of appeal was filed or the order granting leave was certified . In such event, the appellant's brief shall be filed within 56 days after the claim of appeal was filed or 28 days after certification of the order granting leave to appeal. See section 9(B)(1). (B) Appellee. (1) If the transcript has been ordered by the appellant but is not filed by the time the appellant's brief is served on an appellee, the appellee may file an appropriate motion with the Court of Appeals. Avoiding undue delay in filing the motion under the circumstances of the case, and concisely stating the specific basis for it, will maximize the likelihood that the motion will be granted. (2) If an appropriate motion is filed, the order shall state the time for filing any outstanding appellee briefs. (C) Court Reporter. The court reporter or recorder shall file the transcript with the trial court or tribunal within 28 days after it is ordered by either the appellant or the appellee. The court reporter or recorder shall conform in all other respects with the requirements of MCR 7.210. (D) Transcript Fee. The court reporter or recorder shall be entitled to the sum of $3.00 per original page and 50 cents per page for each copy for transcripts ordered in appeals processed under the expedited docket, if the transcript is filed within 28 days after it was ordered. If the court reporter or recorder does not file the transcript within 28 days after it was ordered, the rate will remain $1.75 per original page and 30 cents per page for each transcript, as set by MCL 600.2543. 9. Briefs on Appeal. (A) With the following exceptions, the parties' briefs shall conform to the requirements of MCR 7.212. (B) Time For Filing. (1) In appeals by right, the appellant's brief shall be filed within 56 days after the claim of appeal is filed, or as ordered by the Court. In appeals by leave, the appellant's brief shall be filed within 28 days after the order granting leave is certified, or as ordered by the Court. In appeals by leave, the appellant may rely on the application for leave to appeal rather than filing a separate brief by timely filing 5 copies of the application for leave to appeal with a new cover page indicating that the appellant is relying on the application in lieu of filing a brief on appeal. The cover page should indicate whether oral argument is requested or is not requested. MCR 7.212(C)(1). (2) The appellee's brief shall be filed within 28 days after the appellant's brief is served on the appellee, or as ordered by the Court. In appeals by leave, the appellee may rely on the answer to the application for leave to appeal rather than filing a separate brief by timely filing 5 copies of the answer to the application for leave to appeal with a new cover page indicating that the appellee is relying on the answer to the application in lieu of filing a brief on appeal. The cover page should indicate whether oral argument is requested or is not requested. MCR 7.212(C)(1) and (D)(1). (3) Time for filing any party's brief may be extended for 14 days on motion for good cause shown, filed within the original brief-filing period. If the motion is filed by the appellant within the original brief-filing period, the motion will toll the time for any sanctions for untimely briefs. A motion may include a statement from opposing counsel that counsel does not oppose the 14-day extension. A motion to extend the time for filing a brief will be submitted for disposition forthwith; opposing counsel need not file an answer. (4) If the appellant's brief is not filed within 7 days after the date due, the Court of Appeals shall issue an order assessing costs and warning the appellant that the case will be dismissed if the brief is not filed within 14 days after the deadline. If the brief is not filed within that 14-day period, the Court of Appeals shall issue an order that dismisses the appeal and that may assess additional costs. (C) Length and Form. Briefs filed under this administrative order are limited to 35 pages, double-spaced, exclusive of tables, indexes, and appendices. At the time each brief is filed, the filing party must provide the Court of Appeals with that party's trial court summary disposition motion or response, brief, and appendices. Failure to file these documents at the time of filing the appellant's brief will not extend the time to file the appellee's brief, however. Provided such omission is noted appropriately in the appellee's brief, the appellee may omit these appendices if they were included with the appellant's brief. (D) A reply brief may be filed within 14 days after the appellee's brief is served on the appellant, and is limited to 5 pages, double-spaced, exclusive of tables, indexes, and appendices. 10. Record on Appeal. The Court of Appeals shall request the record on appeal from the trial court or tribunal clerk 28 days after jurisdiction has been confirmed and material filing deficiencies have been corrected. The trial court or tribunal clerk shall transmit the record as directed in MCR 7.210(G). 11. Notice of Cases. Within 7 days after the filing of the appellee's brief, or after the expiration of the time for filing the appellee's brief, the clerk shall notify the parties that the case will be submitted as a "calendar case" on the summary disposition track. 12. Decision of the Court. The opinion or order of the panel shall be issued no later than 35 days after submission of the case to, or oral argument before, a panel of judges for final disposition. This amended order will remain in effect until December 31, 2006, during which time the Court of Appeals Work Group will monitor the expedited docket program. If, at any time during that monitoring process, it becomes apparent to the work group that procedural aspects of the program need to be modified, the group is encouraged to seek authorization from this Court to implement modifications. The work group will provide this Court with written updates on the pilot program before the one-year and eighteen-month anniversaries of the program's implementation. At the end of the two-year pilot period, this Court will evaluate expedited processing of summary disposition appeals to determine whether the procedure will be discontinued, changed, or continued. [Effective January 1, 2006] ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 2004-5 (SECOND AMENDED) Expedited Summary Disposition Docket in the Court of Appeals Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2004-5, this Court adopted an expedited summary disposition docket in the Court of Appeals to take effect on January 1, 2005, and to expire on December 31, 2006. On December 21, 2005, Amended Administrative Order 2004-5 was adopted to take effect January 1, 2006. We now order that the expedited summary disposition docket continue in effect, as modified infra, for an additional one-year period to expire December 31, 2007. Although the Court of Appeals has failed to meet the stated objectives for this pilot program during its existence, the Court is persuaded to approve the extension of the expedited summary disposition docket because the Court of Appeals Work Group (which consists of members of the Court of Appeals, Court of Appeals staff members, and members of the Appellate Practice Section) unanimously recommended the extension in anticipation that the newest recommended changes will permit the program to meet its goals. The Court of Appeals and members of the bar should not presume that this extension in any way signals the Court’s intention to eventually make the program permanent, particularly if it does not meet its intended goal of reducing appellate delay in the Court of Appeal during this additional year of experimentation. 1. Applicability. This amended administrative order applies to appeals filed on or after January 1, 2007, arising solely from orders granting or denying motions for summary disposition under MCR 2.116. Unless otherwise removed by order of the Court of Appeals, these appeals shall be placed on an expedited appeal track under which they shall generally be briefed, argued, and disposed of within six months of filing. A motion to remove is required for a party to divert such appeals to the standard appeal track. 2. Time Requirements. Appeals by right or by leave in cases covered by this second amended order must be taken within the time stated in MCR 7.204 or MCR 7.205. Claims of cross-appeal must be filed within the time stated in MCR 7.207. 3. Trial Court Orders on Motions for Summary Disposition. If the trial court concludes that summary disposition is warranted under MCR 2.116(C), the court shall render judgment without delay in an order that specifies the subsection of MCR 2.116(C) under which the judgment is entered. 4. Claim of Appeal - Form of Filing. With the following exceptions, a claim of appeal filed under this order shall conform in all respects with the requirements of MCR 7.204 (A) A docketing statement is not required unless the case is removed by order before the filing of the appellant’s brief. (B) When the claim of appeal is filed, it shall be accompanied by: (1) evidence that the transcript of the hearing(s) on the motion for summary disposition has been ordered, or (2) a statement that there is no record to transcribe, or (3) the stipulation of the parties that the transcript has been waived. Failure to file one of the above three documents with the claim of appeal will not toll subsequent filing deadlines for transcripts or briefs. Sustained failure to provide the required documentation may result in dismissal of the appeal under MCR 7.201(B)(3), as long as the Court of Appeals provides a minimum 7-day warning. 5. Application for Leave - Form of Filing. An application for leave to appeal, or an answer to an application for leave to appeal, filed under this second amended administrative order shall conform in all pertinent respects with the requirements of MCR 7.205. At the time an application or an answer is filed, the filing party must provide the Court of Appeals with 5 copies of that party's trial court summary disposition motion or response, brief, and appendices. 6. Claim of Cross-Appeal. A claim of cross-appeal filed under this second amended administrative order shall conform in all pertinent respects with the requirements of MCR 7.207. Upon the filing of a claim of cross-appeal in an appeal proceeding on the summary disposition track, the Court will remove the case from the track as provided in section 7, if it determines that the case is no longer appropriate for the track. 7. Removal from Summary Disposition Track. A party may file a motion, or the Court may act sua sponte to remove a case from the summary disposition track to the standard track. (A) Time to File. A motion to remove may be filed by any party at any time. (B) Form. Motions to remove shall concisely state the basis for removal, and must be in the form prescribed by the Court of Appeals. Factors that weigh in favor of removal include: (1) the length of one or more briefs exceeds 25 pages; removal of the case from the summary disposition track becomes more likely as the briefs approach the 35-page limit under section 9(C), (2) the lower court record consists of more than 3 moderately sized files and more than 100 pages of transcripts from the relevant hearing(s) and deposition(s), (3) there are more than four issues to be decided, and (4) one or more of the issues are matters of first impression, including the first interpretation of a statute, or are factually or legally complex. (C) Fee. No fee is required for a motion to remove from the summary disposition track. (D) Answer. An answer to a motion to remove must be filed within 7 days after service of the motion. (E) Disposition. Motions to remove shall be liberally granted. Within 14 days after the filing of the motion to remove, the Court of Appeals shall issue an order disposing of the motion and setting the time for further filings, if any, in the case. The time for further filings in the case will commence on the date of certification of the order on the motion. (F) Docketing Statement. If the case is removed from the summary disposition track before the filing of the appellant’s brief, a docketing statement must be filed within 14 days after the date of certification of the order on the motion. (G) Administrative Removal. The Court of Appeals will remove a case from the summary disposition track, on its own motion, if it appears to the Court that the case is not an appropriate candidate for processing under this second amended administrative order. Such administrative removal may be made at any time, even after the parties’ briefs are filed. (H) Effect of Removal. If the Court of Appeals removes a case from the summary disposition track before the filing of the appellant’s brief, the parties are entitled to file briefs in accordance with time requirements and page limitations set forth in MCR 7.212. New or supplemental briefs shall not be permitted in cases removed from the summary disposition track after the filing of the parties’ briefs except upon motion of a party and further order of the Court. 8. Transcript - Production for Purposes of Appeal. (A) Appellant. (1) The appellant must order the transcript of the hearing(s) on the motion for summary disposition before or contemporaneously with the filing of the claim of appeal or application for leave to appeal, unless there is no record to transcribe or all parties to the appeal stipulate that the transcript is unnecessary. (2) Evidence that the transcript was ordered must be filed with the claim of appeal or application for leave to appeal. Appropriate evidence of the ordering includes (but is not limited to) the following: (a) a letter to the specific court reporter requesting the specific hearing dates and enclosing any required deposit; or (b) an "Appeal Transcript, Demand, Order and Acknowledgment" form, or (c) a court reporter or recorder's certificate. (3) If the transcript is not timely filed, the appellant or an appellee may file an appropriate motion with the Court of Appeals at any time. Avoiding undue delay in filing the motion under the circumstances of the case, and concisely stating the specific basis for it, will maximize the likelihood that the motion will be granted. (4) If an appropriate motion is filed, the order disposing of such motion shall state the time for filing any outstanding brief(s). (5) Absent an order of the Court of Appeals that resets the time, the appellant’s brief will be due as provided in section 9(B)(1) regardless of whether the ordered transcript is timely filed. (B) Appellee. (1) If the transcript has been ordered by the appellant but is not filed by the time the appellant's brief is served on an appellee, the appellee may file an appropriate motion with the Court of Appeals. Avoiding undue delay in filing the motion under the circumstances of the case, and concisely stating the specific basis for it, will maximize the likelihood that the motion will be granted. (2) If an appropriate motion is filed, the order shall state the time for filing any outstanding appellee briefs. (C) Court Reporter. The court reporter or recorder shall file the transcript with the trial court or tribunal within 28 days after it is ordered by either the appellant or the appellee. The court reporter or recorder shall conform in all other respects with the requirements of MCR 7.210. (D) Transcript Fee. The court reporter or recorder shall be entitled to the sum of $3.00 per original page and 50 cents per page for each copy for transcripts ordered in appeals processed under the expedited docket, if the transcript is filed within 28 days after it was ordered. If the court reporter or recorder does not file the transcript within 28 days after it was ordered, the rate will remain $1.75 per original page and 30 cents per page for each transcript, as set by MCL 600.2543. 9. Briefs on Appeal. (A) With the following exceptions, the parties' briefs shall conform to the requirements of MCR 7.212. (B) Time For Filing. (1) In appeals by right, the appellant's brief shall be filed within 56 days after the claim of appeal is filed, or as ordered by the Court. In appeals by leave, the appellant's brief shall be filed within 28 days after the order granting leave is certified, or as ordered by the Court. In appeals by leave, the appellant may rely on the application for leave to appeal rather than filing a separate brief by timely filing 5 copies of the application for leave to appeal with a new cover page indicating that the appellant is relying on the application in lieu of filing a brief on appeal. The cover page should indicate whether oral argument is requested or is not requested. MCR 7.212(C)(1). (2) The appellee's brief shall be filed within 28 days after the appellant's brief is served on the appellee, or as ordered by the Court. In appeals by leave, the appellee may rely on the answer to the application for leave to appeal rather than filing a separate brief by timely filing 5 copies of the answer to the application for leave to appeal with a new cover page indicating that the appellee is relying on the answer to the application in lieu of filing a brief on appeal. The cover page should indicate whether oral argument is requested or is not requested. MCR 7.212(C)(1) and (D)(1). (3) Time for filing any party's brief may be extended for 14 days on motion for good cause shown. If the motion is filed by the appellant within the original brief-filing period, the motion will toll the time for any sanctions for untimely briefs. A motion may include a statement from opposing counsel that counsel does not oppose the 14-day extension. A motion to extend the time for filing a brief will be submitted for disposition forthwith; opposing counsel need not file an answer. (4) If the appellant's brief is not filed within 7 days after the date due, the Court of Appeals shall issue an order assessing costs and warning the appellant that the case will be dismissed if the brief is not filed within 7 days after the clerk’s certification of the order. If the brief is not filed within that 7- day period, the Court of Appeals shall issue an order that dismisses the appeal and that may assess additional costs. (C) Length and Form. Briefs filed under this second amended administrative order are limited to 35 pages, double-spaced, exclusive of tables, indexes, and appendices. At the time each brief is filed, the filing party must provide the Court of Appeals with that party's trial court summary disposition motion or response, brief, and appendices. Failure to file these documents at the time of filing the appellant's brief will not extend the time to file the appellee's brief. If the appellant filed copies of the appellee’s summary disposition response, brief, and appendices, the appellee may omit these documents provided that appellee notes the omission prominently on the title page of the appellee’s brief. (D) A reply brief may be filed within 14 days after the appellee's brief is served on the appellant, and is limited to 5 pages, double-spaced, exclusive of tables, indexes, and appendices. 10. Record on Appeal. The Court of Appeals shall request the record on appeal from the trial court or tribunal clerk 28 days after jurisdiction has been confirmed and material filing deficiencies have been corrected. The trial court or tribunal clerk shall transmit the record as directed in MCR 7.210(G). 11. Notice of Cases. Within 7 days after the filing of the appellee's brief, or after the expiration of the time for filing the appellee's brief, the clerk shall notify the parties that the case will be submitted as a "calendar case" on the summary disposition track. 12. Decision of the Court. The opinion or order of the panel shall be issued no later than 35 days after submission of the case to, or oral argument before, a panel of judges for final disposition. This amended order will remain in effect until December 31, 2007, during which time the Court of Appeals Work Group will monitor the expedited docket program. If, at any time during that monitoring process, it becomes apparent to the work group that procedural aspects of the program need to be modified, the group is encouraged to seek authorization from this Court to implement modifications. The work group will provide this Court with a written report by November 1, 2007, for this Court’s use in evaluating expedited processing of summary disposition appeals to determine whether the procedure will be discontinued, changed, or continued. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2004-6 Minimum Standards for Indigent Criminal Appellate Defense Services On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court has considered revised minimum standards for indigent criminal appellate defense services proposed by the Appellate Defender Commission pursuant to 1978 PA 620, MCL 780.711 to 780.719. The Court approves the standards with some revisions replacing those adopted in Administrative Order No. 1981-7, effective January 1, 2005. PREAMBLE: The Michigan Legislature in MCL 780.712(5) requires the Appellate Defender Commission to develop minimum standards to which all criminal appellate defense services shall conform. Pursuant to this mandate, these standards are intended to serve as guidelines to help counsel achieve the goal of effective appellate and postjudgment representation. Criminal appellants are not constitutionally entitled to counsel's adherence to these guidelines. Hence, counsel's failure to comply with any standard does not of itself constitute grounds for either a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel or a violation of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, and no failure to comply with one or more of these standards shall, unless it is independently a violation of a rule of professional conduct, serve as the basis for a request for investigation with the Attorney Grievance Commission. Standard 1 Counsel shall promptly examine the trial court record and register of actions to determine the proceedings, in addition to trial, plea, and sentencing, for which transcripts or other documentation may be useful or necessary, and, in consultation with the defendant and, if possible, trial counsel, determine whether any relevant proceedings have been omitted from the register of actions, following which counsel shall request preparation and filing of such additional pertinent transcripts and review all transcripts and lower court records relevant to the appeal. Although the trial court is responsible for ordering the record pursuant to MCR 6.425(F)(2), appellate counsel is nonetheless responsible for ensuring that all useful and necessary portions of the transcript are ordered. Standard 2 Before filing the initial postconviction or appellate motion or brief and after reviewing the relevant transcripts and lower court records, counsel must consult with the defendant about the proposed issues to be raised on appeal and advise of any foreseeable benefits or risks in pursuing the appeal generally or any particular issue specifically. At counsel's discretion, such confidential consultation may occur during an interview with the defendant in person or through an attorney agent, by a comparable video alternative, or by such other reasonable means as counsel deems sufficient, in light of all the circumstances. Standard 3 Counsel should raise those issues, recognizable by a practitioner familiar with criminal law and procedures on a current basis and who engages in diligent legal research, which offer reasonable prospects of meaningful postconviction or appellate relief, in a form that protects where possible the defendant's option to pursue collateral attacks in state or federal courts. If a potentially meritorious issue involves a matter not reflected in the trial court record, counsel should move for and conduct such evidentiary hearings as may be required. Standard 4 When a defendant insists that a particular claim or claims be raised on appeal against the advice of counsel, counsel shall inform the defendant of the right to present the claim or claims in propria persona. Defendant's filing shall consist of one brief filed with or without an appropriate accompanying motion. Counsel shall also provide such procedural advice and clerical assistance as may be required to conform the defendant's filing for acceptability to the court. The defendant's filing in propria persona must be received by the Court of Appeals within 84 days after the appellant's brief is filed by the attorney, but if the case is noticed for submission within that 84- day period, the filing must be received no later than 7 days before the date of submission, or within the 84-day period, whichever is earlier. The 84-day deadline may be extended only by the Court of Appeals on counsel's motion, upon a showing of good cause for the failure to file defendant's pleading within the 84-day deadline. Standard 5 An appeal may never be abandoned by counsel; an appeal may be dismissed on the basis of the defendant's informed consent, or counsel may seek withdrawal pursuant to Anders v California, 386 US 738; 87 S Ct 1396; 18 L Ed 2d 493 (1967), and related constitutional principles. Standard 6 Counsel should request oral argument, and preserve the right to oral argument by timely filing the defendant's brief on appeal. Oral argument may be waived if counsel subsequently concludes that the defendant's rights will be adequately protected by submission of the appeal on the briefs alone. Standard 7 Counsel must keep the defendant apprised of the status of the appeal and promptly forward copies of pleadings filed and opinions or orders issued by a court. Standard 8 Upon final disposition of the case by the court, counsel shall promptly and accurately inform the defendant of the courses of action that may be pursued as a result of that disposition, and the scope of any further representation counsel may provide. If counsel's representation terminates, counsel shall cooperate promptly and fully with the defendant and any successor counsel in the transmission of records and information. Standard 9 Upon acceptance of the assignment, counsel is prohibited from seeking or accepting fees from the defendant or any other source beyond those authorized by the appointing authority. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2004-7 Adoption of Concurrent Jurisdiction Plans for the Third Circuit of Wayne County, the 19th District Court, the 29th District Court, and the 35th District Court Administrative Order No. 2003-1 and MCL 600.401 et seq. authorize Michigan trial courts to adopt concurrent jurisdiction plans within a county or judicial circuit, subject to approval of the Court. The Court hereby approves adoption of the following concurrent jurisdiction plans effective May 1, 2005: Third Circuit of Wayne County and the 19th District Court Third Circuit of Wayne County and the 29th District Court Third Circuit of Wayne County and the 35th District Court The plans shall remain on file with the State Court Administrator. Amendments of concurrent jurisdiction plans may be implemented by local administrative order pursuant to MCR 8.112. Plan amendments shall conform to the requirements of Administrative Order No. 2003-1 and MCL 600.401 et seq. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2005-1 Adoption of Concurrent Jurisdiction Plans for the 41st Circuit Court, the 95B District Court, and the Iron County Probate Court, and for the 32nd Circuit Court and the Ontonagon County Probate Court Administrative Order No. 2003-1 and MCL 600.401 et seq. authorize Michigan trial courts to adopt concurrent jurisdiction plans within a county or judicial circuit, subject to approval of this Court. The Court hereby approves adoption of the following concurrent jurisdiction plans effective September 1, 2005: 41st Circuit Court, 95B District Court, and Iron County Probate Court 32nd Circuit Court and Ontonagon County Probate Court The plans shall remain on file with the state court administrator. Amendments of concurrent jurisdiction plans may be implemented by local administrative order pursuant to MCR 8.112. Plan amendments shall conform to the requirements of Administrative Order No. 2003-1 and MCL 600.401 et seq. It is further ordered that Administrative Order No. 1999-2 is rescinded effective September 1, 2005. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2005-2 Clarification of Time for Filing Postjudgment Motions On July 13, 2005, this Court entered an order, effective January 1, 2006, that reduced the time from 12 months to 6 months for filing postjudgment motions pursuant to MCR 6.310(C) (motion to withdraw plea), 6.419(B) (motion for directed verdict of acquittal), 6.429(B) (motion to correct invalid sentence), and 6.431(A) (motion for new trial). This amendment is not applicable to cases where the order appointing appellate counsel was entered on or before December 31, 2005. In cases where the order appointing appellate counsel was entered on or before December 31, 2005, such postjudgment motions shall be filed within 12 months of the date of the order appointing appellate counsel. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2005-3 Adoption of Concurrent Jurisdiction Plan for the 45th Circuit Court and the 3B District Court of St. Joseph County Administrative Order No. 2003-1 and MCL 600.401 et seq. authorize Michigan trial courts to adopt concurrent jurisdiction plans within a county or judicial circuit, subject to approval of the Court. The Court hereby approves adoption of the following concurrent jurisdiction plan effective March 1, 2006: The 45th Circuit Court and the 3B District Court The plans shall remain on file with the state court administrator. Amendments of concurrent jurisdiction plans may be implemented by local administrative order pursuant to MCR 8.112. Plan amendments shall conform to the requirements of Administrative Order No. 2003-1 and MCL 600.401 et seq. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2006-2 Privacy Policy and Access to Court Records The Social Security Number Privacy Act, 2004 PA 454, requires all persons who, in the ordinary course of business, obtain one or more social security numbers, to create a privacy policy in order to ensure the confidentiality of social security numbers, prohibit unlawful disclosure of such numbers, limit access to information or documents containing social security numbers, provide for proper disposal of documents containing social security numbers, and establish penalties for violation of the privacy policy. The management of documents within court files is the responsibility of the judiciary. In the regular course of business, courts are charged with the duty to maintain information contained within public documents that is itself nonpublic, based upon statute, court rule, or court order. In carrying out its responsibility to maintain these documents, the judiciary must balance the need for openness with the delicate issue of personal privacy. In an effort to prevent the illegal or unethical use of information found within court files, the following privacy policy is provided for all court records, effective March 1, 2006, and to be implemented prospectively. Accordingly, on order of the Court, A. The State Court Administrative Office is directed to assist trial courts in implementing this privacy policy and to update case file management standards established pursuant to this order. B. Trial courts are directed to: 1. limit the collection and use of a social security number for party and court file identification purposes on cases filed on or after March 1, 2006, to the last 4 digits; 2. implement updated case file management standards for nonpublic records; 3. eliminate the collection of social security numbers for purposes other than those required or allowed by statute, court rule, court order, or collection activity when it is required for purposes of identification; 4. establish minimum penalties for court employees and custodians of the records who breach this privacy policy; and 5. cooperate with the State Court Administrative Office in implementing the privacy policy established pursuant to this order. On further order of the Court, the following policies for access to court records are established. Access To Public Court Records Access to court records is governed by MCR 8.119 and the Case File Management Standards. Access To Nonpublic Records 1. Maintenance of nonpublic records is governed by the Nonpublic and Limited Access Court Records Chart and the Case File Management Standards. 2. The parties to a case are allowed to view nonpublic records within their court file unless otherwise provided by statute or court rule. 3. If a request is made by a member of the public to inspect or copy a nonpublic record or a record that does not exist, court staff shall state, "No public record exists." Social Security Numbers And Nonpublic Records 1. The clerk of the court shall be allowed to maintain public files containing social security numbers on documents filed with the clerk subject to the requirements in this section. 2. No person shall file a document with the court that contains another person's social security number except when the number is required or allowed by statute, court rule, court order, or for purposes of collection activity when it is required for identification. A person who files a document with the court in violation of this directive is subject to punishment for contempt and is liable for costs and attorney fees related to protection of the social security number. 3. A person whose social security number is contained in a document filed with the clerk on or after March 1, 2006, may file a motion asking the court to direct the clerk to: a. redact the number on any document that does not require or allow a social security number pursuant to statute, court rule, court order, or for purposes of collection activity when it is required for identification; or b. file a document that requires or allows a social security number pursuant to statute, court rule, court order, or for purposes of collection activity when it is required for identification, in a separate nonpublic file. The clerk shall comply with the court's order and file the request in the court file. 4. Dissemination of social security numbers is restricted to the purposes for which they were collected and for which their use is authorized by federal or state law. Upon receiving a request for copies of a public document filed on or after March 1, 2006, that contains a social security number pursuant to statute, court rule, court order, or for purposes of collection activity when it is required for identification, a court shall provide a copy of the document after redacting all social security numbers on the copy. This requirement does not apply to requests for certified copies or true copies when required by law or for requests to view or inspect files. This requirement does not apply to those uses for which the social security number was provided. Retention And Disposal Of Nonpublic Records Retention and disposal of nonpublic records and information shall be governed by General Schedule 16 and the Michigan Trial Court Case File Management Standards. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.2006-3 Michigan Uniform System of Citation On order of the Court, Administrative Order Nos. 1987-2 and 2001-5, which amended the Michigan Uniform System of Citations, are rescinded. Effective May 1, 2006, all reported decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals shall adhere to and follow the Michigan Uniform System of Citation as revised by this order. The Michigan Uniform System of Citation provides a comprehensive scheme for citation of authority in documents filed with or issued by Michigan courts. This revision reflects the style currently used in the opinions of the Supreme Court as published in Michigan Reports. It is based on the former Uniform System of Citations, Administrative Order No. 1971-3, 385 Mich xxvi-xxxv (1971), Administrative Order No. 1973-5, 390 Mich xxxi (1973), Administrative Order No. 1987-2, 428 Mich cviii (1987), Administrative Order No. 2001-5, 464 Mich lxxviii (2001), and the Proposed Rules of Citation, 402A Mich 455-468 (1978). For matters not covered, refer to The Bluebook, A Uniform System of Citation (18th ed), for guidance, but conform citations to Michigan citation style. I. Citation of Authority A. Citation of Cases 1. Initial citation. The first time a case is cited in an opinion, either in the body of the text or in a footnote, cite in full the official reporter of its jurisdiction (where available), and include the parallel citation of the regional reporter. Mayberry v Pryor, 422 Mich 579; 374 NW2d 683 (1985). If a case is first cited in an order, either in the body of the text or in a footnote, cite the official report only. Mayberry v Pryor, 422 Mich 579 (1985). Where an official citation is not yet available, provide blanks for the volume and page numbers. Mayberry v Pryor, _____ Mich ____; 374 NW2d 683 (1985). If a case is initially cited only in a footnote, it must be re-cited in full in the text if it is referred to subsequently in the text. 2. Subsequent citation. a. Once cited in full in the text, a case need not be cited again in full in the text or a footnote. Subsequent reference in the text or in a footnote may use any of the following shortened forms: E.g., Mayberry; Mayberry, supra; Mayberry v Pryor. (N.B.: "Id." may be used as a subsequent reference only if no other authority intervenes between the previous citation of the same source and "id.") b. Where a case is cited in full in a footnote, a subsequent short-form citation may be used in a subsequent footnote to refer the reader to the full citation: Mayberry, n 4 supra. 3. Point or "jump" citation. a. To refer to an internal page of an opinion, cite the official reporter where available: 1) initial citation: include the "jump" page in the complete citation: Mayberry v Pryor, 422 Mich 579, 587; 374 NW2d 683 (1985); or 2) subsequent citation: append the "jump" page to any short-form citation: Mayberry, supra, p 587; Mayberry, supra at 587; Mayberry, p 587; id., p 587; id. at 587; 422 Mich 587. (N.B.: The form of the short-form citation must be consistent throughout an opinion. Do not mix Mayberry, supra, p 587, with Mayberry, supra at 587.) b. If the official report of a case is not yet available, refer to the "jump" page in an unofficial report: 1) initial citation: Galster v Woods (On Rehearing), 173 Cal App 3d 529, ____; 219 Cal Rptr 500, 509 (1985); 2) subsequent citation: Galster, supra, 219 Cal Rptr 509; or id., 219 Cal Rptr 509; or 219 Cal Rptr 509 (N.B.: it is mandatory in this situation that the identity of the unofficial reporter be shown because references to pages not otherwise identified are presumed to be to the official reporter.) 4. Case names. a. Italicizing. Names of cases should be italicized both in the text of an opinion and in footnotes. Underscoring no longer should be used to indicate italics. b. Official sources. Cite the name of a case as set forth on the first page of the official reporter as fully as necessary for recognition. Do not show et al., et ux., or like references to other parties in a case name, but do show ex rel (for on the Relation of or for the use and benefit of) and the relator's name. c. Abbreviations. Where the name of the case as it appears in the official reporter is long or involved, it should be shortened. Abbreviations are encouraged for common words such as Commission (Comm), County (Co), Manufacturing (Mfg), International (Int'l), etc., where appropriate. Citations should include only the first plaintiff's surname or corporate name and the first defendant's surname or corporate name. Examples: The title in the official report of 262 US 447 is Commonwealth of Massachusetts v Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, et al., and should be cited as Massachusetts v Mellon, 262 US 447; 43 S Ct 597; 67 L Ed 1078 (1923). International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO Frigidaire Local 801 v NLRB, 113 US App DC 342; 307 F2d 679 (1962), may be shortened to Electrical Workers Union v NLRB, etc. d. Identical titles. Where two or more separate cases with the same title are referred to in an opinion: 1) add the first names of the parties in order to distinguish the cases, e.g., People v John Smith/People v Mary Smith, etc.; or 2) add a roman numeral after the case name, e.g., Smith I, Smith II, etc. (N.B.: Where cases with identical surnames are reported in the same volume, first names are included. It is not necessary to include first names when cited in a slip opinion unless two or more cases with such names are cited in the slip opinion.) e. Officials as parties. 1) Michigan cases: If a person was sued in an official capacity, use that person's official title, not the name of the person Jones v Secretary of State, not Jones v Austin; Giannotta v Governor, not Giannotta v Milliken 2) United States Supreme Court cases and cases from other jurisdictions: Follow the commonly accepted practice within the jurisdiction (if known) regarding the surname or title of the party. Otherwise, follow (e)(1). E.g., in cases decided in the United States Supreme Court and some sister states, the title of a party is not ordinarily used. Example: Massachusetts v Mellon, not Massachusetts v Secretary of Treasury f. State or city as a party. Where a state or a city is a party, use only the name of the state or city: The title that appears at 383 Mich 579 is Consumers Power Company v State of Michigan; cite it as Consumers Power Co v Michigan. If the name of a city also commonly may be used as a surname, such as the city of Warren, cite as Jones v City of Warren; but where a city is well known, it should be cited as Jones v Detroit. g. Traffic violations, civil infractions. 1) In cases involving a civil infraction of a traffic ordinance of a political subdivision, the proper party is the subdivision: City of Troy v Ohlinger, 438 Mich 477; 475 NW2d 54 (1991), not People of the City of Troy, or People v Ohlinger. 2) However, where a civil infraction is a violation of the Vehicle Code, the proper party is the state: People v Ferency, 133 Mich App 526; 351 NW2d 225 (1984). See 1978 PA 510, MCL 257.741. h. County, township, or school district as a party. Place the name of the county, township, or school district first and then Co, Twp, School Dist, or Bd of Ed, regardless of the entitlement of the case in the reports. Examples: Oakland Co v Smith; Bush v Waterford Twp; Jones v Waverly School Dist; Smith v Lansing Bd of Ed. i. Second case name. Do not give a second name for a case if the first will fully identify it. Examples of a second name being required: Harvey v Lewis (In re Escrow Funds), 364 Mich 491; 111 NW2d 119 (1961), and Harvey v Lewis (In re Fee for Receiver's Attorney), 364 Mich 493; 112 NW2d 500 (1961). j. Rehearing, remand, or amended. If the opinion cited was decided on rehearing or after remand, the specification (On Rehearing), (On Remand), or (After Remand) is part of the title and must be included in the citation. Also if an opinion is amended by a special panel of the Court of Appeals, the specification (Amended Opinion) should be included. Example: People v Walker, 371 Mich 599; 124 NW2d 761 (1963); People v Walker (On Rehearing), 374 Mich 331; 132 NW2d 87 (1965). k. Supplemental opinions. Example: In re Ernst, 373 Mich 337, Supplemental Opinion, 349; 129 NW2d 430 (1964). l. Punctuation in case citations. 1) The official volume number, reporter abbreviation, page number, parallel citation and year are in nonrestrictive apposition with the case name and must be preceded by a comma and followed by a comma, semicolon, period, or other punctuation (except where parenthetical matter postpones it). Example: "resolved in Village of Kingsford v Cudlip, 258 Mich 144; 241 NW 893 (1932), where the Court . . . ". 2) Parallel citations are separated from official citations and from other parallel citations by semicolons to avoid confusion with the commas that frequently separate point citations. These semicolons should not be viewed as punctuation, but merely as separators. Example: People ex rel Gummow v Larson, 35 Ill 2d 280, 282; 220 NE2d 165 (1966). However, where a string of citations is conjoined by "and," use commas to separate the complete citation of each case. Example: Nicholls v Charlevoix Circuit Judge, 155 Mich 455; 120 NW 343 (1909), Kemp v Stradley, 134 Mich 676; 97 NW 41 (1903), and Backus v Detroit, 49 Mich 110; 13 NW 380 (1882). Where a string of citations is not conjoined by "and," separate with semicolons. m. Jurisdiction. 1) Michigan and state courts. Jurisdiction is usually shown by the abbreviation of the title of the official reporter: Michigan Supreme Court (Mich); Michigan Court of Appeals (Mich App); United States Supreme Court (US). Where official reports are no longer published, the jurisdiction must be indicated in the parentheses at the end of the citation, followed by a comma and the year of decision. For the highest court of a state, only the name of the state should be shown. Use the abbreviations of state names listed in State abbreviations, p XX (Appendix A). For intermediate appellate courts, abbreviate the name of the court in addition to the state name. Examples: People v Blythe, 417 Mich 430; 339 NW2d 399 (1983); Gaines v Betts, 2 Doug 98 (Mich, 1845); State v Gallion, 572 P2d 683 (Utah, 1977); Miller v Stumbo, 661 SW2d 1 (Ky App, 1983) 2) Federal circuit courts. Federal courts of appeals are shown in parentheses with the date of decision as CA plus the circuit number or "Fed" for the federal circuit. E.g.: CA 6, not 6 Cir or 6th Cir or CCA 6. (N.B.: The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is not shown in parentheses because there is an official reporter: App DC or US App DC, and a citation of the official reporter indicates the jurisdiction.) Examples: Kirkland v Preston, 128 US App DC 148; 385 F2d 670 (1967). Ierardi v Gunter, 528 F2d 929, 930-931 (CA 1, 1976). 3) Federal district courts. Federal districts, but not divisions, are shown in parentheses if one exists (ED Mich, not ND ED Mich). If a state comprises only one district, use D plus the state abbreviation, not the state abbreviation alone. Example: United States ex rel Mayberry v Yeager, 321 F Supp 199, 211 (D NJ, 1971). 4) Early US Supreme Court cases. Early US reports, through 90 US, are to be cited by consecutive volume number in the US series. The corresponding reporter's name (abbreviated) and volume number in parentheses may be added. Example: Sexton v Wheaton, 21 US (8 Wheat) 229; 5 L Ed 603 (1823). n. Parallel citations. 1) Parallel citations for United States Supreme Court reports are to be given in the order S Ct; L Ed. 2) A parallel citation of the National Reporter System Regional Reports is to be given if one exists. For New York or California cases, the New York Supplement or California Reporter citation also must be given. 3) Parallel citations of other reports, e.g., ALR, may be given if the case is reported in full therein. o. Unavailable citations. 1) When an official and a parallel citation are not yet available, provide blanks in which the information later can be inserted. Example: ____ Mich ____; ____ NW2d ____ (1978). Do not use this form where the citation will never be available because reports have been discontinued. 2) USLW, LEXIS, WESTLAW, or other advance reports or abstract citations should be given only if both the official and the regional or other permanent unofficial report citations are not yet available. p. Periods and spacing of report names and capitalization. 1) Use no periods in abbreviations of report names, even if there are two or more words, and do not insert a space where single letters abbreviate the words. Examples: NE; NW; NY; RI; US; ALR 2) Do insert a space where more than one letter is used to abbreviate the individual words, and capitalize the first letter of each word. Examples: Mich App; F Supp; US App DC; S Ct; L Ed 3) Insert a space between the report name and series designation (2d, etc.) if the last word is abbreviated with more than one letter; otherwise do not. Examples: (No space) F2d; NYS2d; ALR3d; A2d; NE2d; SW2d (Space) Wis 2d; So 2d; Misc 2d; L Ed 2d (Exception- space) LRA NS q. Date of decision. Generally, the year of decision should follow parallel citations in parentheses; however, in the Court of Appeals, where controlling authority is governed by MCR 7.215(J)(1), the year of release should be inserted. E.g., Farrell v Auto Club of Michigan was decided on October 25, 1990, but was approved for publication on January 16, 1991. The correct citation form is: Farrell v Auto Club of Michigan (On Remand), 187 Mich App 220; 466 NW2d 298 (1991). The time of release is not to be noted in the citation. r. Subsequent history. Citation of denial of discretionary action such as rehearing, leave to appeal, certiorari, reconsideration, or the like should not be indicated unless jurisprudentially significant within the jurisdiction. (N.B.: In Michigan, denial of leave has no effect on the precedence of a case, see MCR 7.321; this is also true with regard to denial of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court, see Maryland v Baltimore Radio Show, 338 US 912, 919 [1950].) Where given, subsequent history should be indicated by using the following abbreviations without periods and not followed by a comma: affirmed aff'd affirming aff'g appeal dismissed app dis certiorari denied cert den leave to appeal denied lv den leave to appeal granted lv gtd modified mod rehearing denied reh den rehearing granted reh gtd reversed rev'd reversed on other grounds rev'd on other grounds reversing rev'g vacated no abbreviation Only the official report of subsequent action should be cited. s. Unreported matters. Cite unpublished Michigan cases and orders as follows, and foreign cases by analogy: A v B, unpublished opinion per curiam (or memorandum opinion) of the Court of Appeals, issued [month, day, year] (Docket No. ______). A v B, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered [month, day, year] (Docket No. ______). A v B, unpublished opinion of the _____ Circuit Court, issued ______________________ (Docket No. _______ [suffix]). Unpublished opinion of the Attorney General (No. ______, [month, day, year]). t. String citations. Use of overly long string citations, even in footnotes, generally should be avoided inasmuch as "they may cast doubt upon the credibility of your claims because they can give the impression that your case is so weak that you have to substantiate it with every source you can find." More effective is the use of "only one or two of your strongest sources." Charrow & Erhardt, Clear and Effective Legal Writing (Boston: Little, Brown & Co, 1986), ch 3, p 64. 5. Consistent citation form. The citation form used within an opinion should be uniform, i.e., do not mix id., p 270, with id. at 270, or Ensign, supra, p 270, with Ensign, supra at 270. B. Citation of Constitutions, Statutes, Regulations, Court Rules, and Jury Instructions 1. Constitutions. a. Michigan. Give the year of the constitution (not the year of an amendment), article, and section number in Arabic numerals. Example: Const 1963, art 6, § 1; Const 1963, sched § 1. If the section has been amended since adoption, the reference is presumed to be to the current section unless otherwise indicated. b. United States. Give the article or amendment number in Roman numerals and the section number in Arabic numerals: Example: US Const, art III, § 1. For amendments: US Const, Am XIV (not Art XIV). c. Other states. Cite by analogy to the Michigan Constitution and United States Constitution. 2. Statutes. a. Michigan. 1) Public and local acts. Cite the year, "PA" or "LA," and the act number. Examples: 1974 PA 296, not Act 296, 1974; 1974 LA 1. If enacted at an extra session, the extra session designation follows the year in parentheses. Examples: 1912 (1st Ex Sess) PA 10, part 2, § 9 1967 (Ex Sess) PA 3 2) Amended acts. Cite as: 1961 PA 236, as amended (or as added) by 1974 PA 52, MCL 600.103. 3) Compiled Laws. Cite the official compilations of 1948, 1970, and 1979 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. (N.B.: Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated [MCLA] and Michigan Compiled Laws Service [MCLS] have the same numbering system.) Examples: 1948 CL 566.140 1970 CL 35.291. When citing, use MCL for the current (1979) compilation, not MCLA or MCLS, e.g., MCL 776.20. Inclusion of the public act number is optional. If used, the form is: 1937 PA 286, MCL 487.703. Subsequent references in the same opinion may be shortened as follows: § 3, or Act 286, § 3 4) Catchlines. The boldface catchlines found at the beginning of, and sometimes elsewhere in, statutes in the Public and Local Acts, MCL, MCLA, and MCLS were inserted by an editor, not enacted by the Legislature. They are not part of the statute and should not be included when quoting a statute. Similarly, catchlines found in a statute following the section number, as in many sections of the Michigan Penal Code, are not part of the statute and should not be included in quotations. 5) Section numbers. Generally speaking, any section number appearing at the beginning of a statute also should be omitted from the quotation unless needed for clarity, e.g., if the sections of the act are not evident and will be used later in an opinion in short form for reference. 6) History. The statutory history that follows each section also is not part of the legislative enactment and should not be included in quoted material. Examples: 691.1412 Claims under act; defenses available. [delete] [Sec. 12.] [delete] Claims under this act are subject to all of the defenses available to claims sounding in tort brought against private persons. [HISTORY: New 1964, p. 224, Act 170, Eff. Jul. 1, 1965.] [delete] 7) Short titles. a) Official title. If an act has an official "short title" enacted as part of the act, capitalize the initial letters of the title. Indication of the year of enactment is unnecessary, even though it may be given as part of the title. Example: 1961 PA 236, § 101, MCL 600.101 provides: "This act shall be known and may be cited as the revised judicature act of 1961." Omit the 1961 in citation, referring to it merely as the Revised Judicature Act. Generally recognized abbreviations of titles may be used, whether mentioned in the act or not. For example, § 101 of the Revised Judicature Act specifically authorizes use of the abbreviation "RJA"; § 1101 of the Uniform Commercial Code gives the title without mentioning an abbreviation, but UCC is permissible. b) No official title. If an act does not have an official title, a short title used in referring to it should not be capitalized unless it is a word that is normally capitalized. For example, the teacher tenure act, MCL 38.71 et seq., has no official title, nor has the nofault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq. c) Multiple titles. An act may be referred to by an unofficial title even though it has an official title. Worker's Disability Compensation Act/workers' compensation act d) Sponsors. Generally omit the names of an act's sponsors in an official act. The R. Hood-McNeely-Geake Malpractice Arbitration Act of 1975 should be referred to as the Malpractice Arbitration Act; the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, as the Civil Rights Act or the Michigan Civil Rights Act where an opinion also refers to the federal Civil Rights Act. b. Federal. Cite the title and section numbers of the United States Code without punctuation or section symbol: 11 USC 29, not 11 USC § 29. The official United States Code (USC), the United States Code Annotated (USCA), and the United States Code Service (USCS) all use the same numbering system; therefore, cite the official version (USC). Citation of the Statutes at Large is unnecessary except where there is no corresponding USC citation or where the particular USC title has not been enacted into positive law and the wording of USC is materially different from that of the Statutes at Large. Federal session laws are to be cited: PL 96-123, § 109, 93 Stat 926. c. Other states. Cite in the manner usually followed in the jurisdiction, preferably in the official reports, consistent with manual form. The jurisdiction must appear clearly in or with the citation. Consult the Bluebook for titles. Examples: Ariz Rev Stat 13-4032, not ARS 13-4032. NH Rev Stat Ann 651:57, not NHRSA 651:57. The year of compilation should not be included unless the reference is not to a statute currently in force. 3. Court rules. a. Michigan Court Rules of 1985. Cite as: MCR and the rule number. (MCR 2.625.) b. Michigan Rules of Evidence. Cite as: MRE and the rule number. (MRE 801.) c. Former court rules. 1) General Court Rules of 1963: GCR 1963, 105.4. 2) Court Rules of 1945: Court Rule No 8, § 7 (1945). 3) Earlier court rules: Cite analogously to the Court Rules of 1945. 4) Former District Court Rules: DCR and the rule number. 5) Former Probate Court Rules: PCR and the rule number. 6) Former Juvenile Court Rules: JCR 1969, and the rule number. d. Local Court Rules. [Jurisdiction] LCR and the rule number. (30th Circuit LCR 2.119.) e. Proposed court rules. Proposed MCR and the rule number. f. Rules of Professional Conduct. MRPC 1.0. g. Code of Judicial Conduct. Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 1. h. State Bar Rules. SBR 6, § 3. i. Rules of the Board of Law Examiners. BLE 5. j. Federal rules. 1) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: FR Civ P 52(a). 2) Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: FR Crim P 11. 3) Federal Rules of Evidence: FRE 803(24 k. Other jurisdictions. Cite in the same manner as cited by the official reporter of the court, but consistent with manual form. 4. Administrative orders. Administrative Order No. 1993-1. Subsequent extensive references may be shortened: AO 1993-1. 5. Jury instructions. a. Criminal Jury Instructions: CJI2d 1.1. b. Michigan Model Civil Jury Instructions: M Civ JI 3.02. 6. Administrative rules. a. Mich Admin Code, R 408.41863. b. If the rule has been amended or superseded, cite the appropriate Annual Supplement where available: 1983 Annual Admin Code Supp, R 408.41863, or a more recent revision in the Michigan Register: 1985 Mich Reg 7, R 408.30495c. (N.B.: Revisions appear monthly in the Michigan Register and are cumulated annually in Annual Admin Code Supp. E.g., regulations published in 1985 Mich Reg, vols. 1-12, are later reprinted in 1985 Annual Admin Code Supp.) Subsequent references may be shortened: Rule 408.41863. 2003 PA 53 amended §§ 55 and 59 of the Administrative Procedures Act, MCL 24.255 and 24.259, effective July 14, 2003, to provide that the official Michigan Administrative Code is what is published and annually supplemented on the Office of Regulatory Reinvention website at <http://www.michigan.gov/lara/0,1607,7-154- 10576_35738---,00.html>. C. Miscellaneous Citations 1. Attorney General opinions. Cite as: 1 OAG, 1956, No 3,010, p 407 (August 26, 1957). OAG, 1947-1948, No 146, p 217 (March 7, 1947). 2. Municipal charters and ordinances. a. Charters. Cite the name of the municipality, the charter, and sufficient data to identify the particular section of interest uniquely, but not redundantly. For example, if all the sections of chapter 6 of a charter are numbered as 6.1, 6.2, etc., and sections in no other chapter are so numbered, 6.2 is sufficient and ch 6 should not be added to the citation. Examples: Detroit Charter, tit VI, ch VII, § 11. Lansing Charter, § 5-207. b. Ordinances. 1) Codified Ordinances. Cite the name of the municipality, the ordinance code, and sufficient data to identify the particular section of interest uniquely, but not redundantly. Example: Detroit Ordinance, § 38-5-7. 2) Uncodified Ordinances. Cite the name of the municipality and the ordinance number and section; the date is unnecessary for ordinances currently in force, but should be added in parentheses when necessary to distinguish from other versions. Example: Saginaw Ordinance D-511, § 203. 3. Administrative decisions. Cite published cases as follows: A v B, 1978 MERC Lab Op 328. (Employment Relations Commission) A v B, 95 LRRM 1274 (1977). (Labor Relations Reference Manual) A v B, 1 MTTR 95 (Docket No. 3799, May 15, 1975). (Tax Tribunal Reports) A v B, 1979 WCABO 2617. (Workers' Compensation Appeal Board Opinions) A v B, 1989 Mich ACO 1. (Workers' Compensation Appellate Commission Opinions) Cite other reports by analogy. 4. Constitutional Convention. 2 Official Record, Constitutional Convention 1961, p 2038. 5. Legislative materials. a. Bills. HB 4015. SB 481. b. Journals. 1) Bound volumes. Cite the year of the session and the page number: 1965 Journal of the House 77-78. 1983 Journal of the Senate 2280. 2) Advance sheets. Cite, in addition, the pamphlet number and the date of issue: 1986 Journal of the House 76 (No. 6, January 22, 1986). 1986 Journal of the Senate 449 (No. 26, March 6, 1986). c. Analyses. House Legislative Analysis, HB 6037, September 29, 1980. 6. Executive orders. Cite in full: Executive Order No. 1991-1. Short forms: order 1991-1 or EO 1991-1. 7. Legal treatises and texts. a. Examples: 3 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice (2d ed), Standard 18-4.1, commentary, p 18-240 78 ALR2d 218, § 2, pp 220-221 2 Am Jur 2d, Administrative Law, § 698, p 597 Anno: Fraud or undue influence in conveyance from child to parent, 11 ALR 735, 746 3 Callaghan's Michigan Pleading & Practice (2d ed), § 16.23, p 564 26 CJS, Declaratory Judgment, § 108, p 214 1 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (2d ed), p 10 2 Couch, Insurance, 2d (rev ed), § 15:57, pp 298-302 1 Gillespie, Michigan Criminal Law & Procedure (2d ed), § 312, p 374 Lewis, Trusts (13th ed), p 91 2 Martin, Dean & Webster, Michigan Court Rules Practice, p 334 McCormick, Evidence (3d ed), § 72, p 171 12 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3d ed, 1976 Cum Supp), § 32.133, p 141 12 Michigan Law & Practice, Fraud, § 10, pp 409-410 Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed), § 4, p 21 Restatement Contracts, 2d (Tentative Draft No 8, 1973), § 267, pp 77-78 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, Appendix (1966), § 344, p 237 3 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 520, p 41 3 Sands, Sutherland Statutory Construction (4th ed), § 62.01, p 113 2 Weinstein & Berger, Evidence, ¶ 412[01], pp 412-10, 412-11 6 Wigmore, Evidence (Chadbourn rev), § 1747, p 195 b. Subsequent citation: Once an authority has been cited in full, a short-form citation may be used where it will not result in confusion. E.g.: Weinstein, ¶ 411 Wigmore, § 1745 Cooley, p 10 Restatement, § 340 Note, however, where a citation of the Restatement of Contracts intervenes after a citation of the Restatement of Torts, simply providing "Restatement, § 340," will not suffice because it could refer to either. 8. United States Law Week. Use only where an official or regional reporter is unavailable. Comm'r of Internal Revenue v Kowalski, ____ US ____; ____ S Ct ____; ____ L Ed 2d ____; 46 USLW 4015 (November 29, 1977). Pechter v Lyons, ____ F Supp ____; 46 USLW 2251 (SD NY, November 8, 1977). 9. LEXIS/WESTLAW. Use only where an official or regional reporter is unavailable. A v B, ____ [Official Reporter] ____; ____ [Unofficial Reporter(s)] ____; [year] LEXIS/WL [library] [page]. 10. Nonlegal books. Cite the author, editor, or issuing institution, title in italics, and, in parentheses, the place of publication, colon, publisher, edition number, and year of publication, followed by, if appropriate, sufficient data to identify the matter of interest, such as the chapter and page number. Examples: Greenfield & Sternbach, eds, Handbook of Psychophysiology (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc, 1972), ch 19, p 749 Yung-Ping Chen & The Technical Committee on Income, Income: Background & Issues (Washington, DC: White House Conference on Aging, 1971) United States Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970, Detailed Characteristics; Final Report PC(1)- D24 Michigan (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1972) Bernstein, The Careful Writer (New York: Atheneum, 1973) Follett, Modern American Usage (New York: Hill & Wang, 1966) Evans, A Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage (New York: Random House, 1957) 11. Dictionaries. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed) (no italics) Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged Edition (1966) The Random House Dictionary of the English Language: Unabridged Edition Random House Webster's College Dictionary (1991) The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1973) 12. Law review material. a. Include the volume number, abbreviated name of the law review or journal, page number or numbers, and, in parentheses, the year. b. Articles with named authors should be cited beginning with the surname of the author (unless more is needed for certainty) and the title in italics. c. A commentary or note should be cited as commentary or note, comma, and italicized title. (N.B.: The name of the author should not be included.) d. Matter in the nature of a regular department of a periodical having a number of contributors or anonymous contributors should be cited by the usual title, e.g., Current Law Notes, Recent Legislation, Recent Developments, and not italicized. Examples: Comment, Prosecutorial discretion in the duplicative statutes setting, 42 U Colo L R 455 (1971) Conyers, The politics of revenue sharing, 52 J Urban L 61 (1974) Crawford, Local zoning control of billboards ___ A guide for Michigan Attorneys, 1989 Det Col L R 1473 Kimble, Protecting your writing from law practice, 66 Mich B J 912 (1987) Kutak & Gottschalk, In search of a rational sentence: A return to the concept of appellate review, 53 Neb L R 463 (1974) Moley, The use of the information in criminal cases, 17 ABA J 292 (1931) Project, Seventeenth annual review of criminal procedure, 76 Geo L J 521, 925 (1988) Richardson, 1983 Annual Survey of Michigan Law, Natural resources, real property and trusts, 30 Wayne L R 763, 769-772 13. Internet material. Materials found only on an Internet website should include an author (if available), a title, an Internet address, and the date on which the site was accessed. Examples: James Wyman, Florida Law Online <http://www.gate.net/~wyman/flo.html> (accessed August 1, 1999). Federal Judicial Center, Federal Judicial Center Publications <http://www.fjc.gov/pubs.html> (accessed July 10, 1999). 14. Michigan Child Support Formula Manual. Cite as [year] MCSF [section number]. Example: 2001 MCSF 208(A). II. Material Quoted in Opinions Generally, material quoted in opinions should be reproduced exactly as it appears in the original source. Examples: MCL 769.26 provides: No judgment or verdict shall be set aside or reversed or a new trial be granted by any court of this state in any criminal case, on the ground of misdirection of the jury, or the improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for any error as to any matter of pleading or procedure, unless in the opinion of the court, after an examination of the entire cause, it shall affirmatively appear that the error complained of resulted in a miscarriage of justice. [Emphasis added.] As this Court has noted, [t]he measure of control exercised in connection with the prevention and detection of crime and prosecution and punishment of criminals is set forth in the statutes of the State pertaining thereto, particularly the penal code and the code of criminal procedure. The powers of the courts with reference to such matters are derived from the statutes. [People v Piasecki, 333 Mich 122, 143; 52 NW2d 626 (1952).] A. Case Law. 1. Where available, official sources should be quoted. (N.B.: the official opinions of the Michigan Supreme Court are published in the Michigan Reports [Mich], not the North Western Reporter or Michigan Reporter [NW2d]; the official opinions of the United States Supreme Court are published in the United States Reports [US], not the Supreme Court Reporter [S Ct], the United States Supreme Court Reports, Lawyers Edition [L Ed, L Ed 2d], or United States Law Week [USLW].) 2. Published opinions of Michigan, federal, or foreign courts should be quoted exactly, except that a parallel citation or year of decision must be added with brackets if missing from the quoted material. Examples: In 378 Mich 195, the following citation appears: Brown v. City of Highland Park (1948), 320 Mich 108. If the paragraph containing the citation is quoted in a current opinion, it should appear as: Brown v. City of Highland Park (1948), 320 Mich 108 [30 NW2d 798]. (N.B.: A parallel citation has been added.) In 199 Mich 316, "Jones v. Berkey, 181 Mich. 472 (148 N.W. 375)," should be quoted: "Jones v. Berkey, 181 Mich. 472 (148 N.W. 375) [1914]." B. Statutes and Administrative Rules. These should be quoted exactly as they appear in printed form, not off a website. If it appears that the text of a statute or rule contains an error, "[sic]" should be inserted in the text immediately following the error. C. Punctuation in Quoted Material. 1. Colons and semicolons. Colons and semicolons that are not part of the original quoted material are placed outside quotation marks. 2. Question marks and exclamation points. Placement of question marks and exclamation points depends on their relation to the material quoted. The mark is placed inside quotation marks where it applies only to the material quoted, and outside where it applies to the entire sentence. Examples: The witness responded, "I saw him do it!" Why did you respond, "I saw him do it"? 3. Quotation marks. A quotation within a quotation is enclosed in single quotation marks. E.g., "Unless the legislation creates a 'classification scheme,' or 'impinges upon the exercise of a fundamental right,' it is 'accorded a presumption of constitutionality, and is reviewed by applying a rational basis standard.'" Brown v Manistee Co Rd Comm, 452 Mich 354, 361-362; 550 NW2d 215 (1996), quoting Doe v Dep't of Social Services, 439 Mich 650, 662; 487 NW2d 166 (1992). D. Deletions in Quoted Materials (Ellipses). 1. Within a sentence. To delete material within a sentence, insert three periods (ellipses) and four spaces: "Insanity . . . is an extreme of mental illness." (Note: Ellipses without spaces are incorrect. "Insanity...is an extreme....") 2. At end of a sentence. To delete material at the end of a sentence, insert three periods and four spaces before the terminal punctuation: "To put it alternatively, the statutes provide that all insane people are mentally ill . . . ." "The Court: Well, what was this thing . . . ?" 3. Following a sentence/between sentences. To delete material after a complete sentence or between complete sentences, insert three periods and three spaces after the terminal punctuation: Insanity by definition is an extreme of mental illness. . To put it alternatively, the statutes provide that all . . insane people are mentally ill but not all mentally ill people are insane. Insanity by definition is an extreme of mental illness. . T]he law provides that criminal responsibility does] . . not attach. Note that the "t" in the final sentence, lower case in the original, is capitalized in brackets [T] because the material remaining after deletion can be read as a complete sentence. 4. At the middle of a sentence. No ellipses are required where a quotation begins in the middle of a sentence and: a) the fragment quoted completes an original sentence and begins with a lower case letter: E.g.:When a person is found to be insane, "the law provides that criminal responsibility does not attach." b) a capital letter is inserted in brackets: E.g.: The lead opinion in Fultz noted, "[A]ll insane people are mentally ill but not all mentally ill people are insane." 5. Internal punctuation in original. Internal punctuation should be retained only where required for clarity: "When a person's mental illness reaches that extreme, . . . criminal responsibility does not attach." (The comma in the original is retained.) but: "Defendant . . . admitted doing the particular act, but also stated that he was insane." (Punctuation in the deleted material is not retained.) 6. At the end of a paragraph. Where material is deleted at the end of a paragraph and the next paragraph immediately follows, insert three periods and three spaces after the terminal punctuation of the first paragraph: Furthermore, defendant's account of what transpired was clearly in accord with the psychiatric evaluation in that defendant admitted committing the act but stated that he could not help what he was doing. . . . The Court: Well, what was this thing that came over you? 7. Between paragraphs. Where one or more paragraphs are deleted between quoted paragraphs, insert three asterisks (centered) and two blank lines between the paragraphs quoted: So, just as a finding of no insanity is essential for an adjudication of guilt by trial, we hold such a finding to be equally essential for a plea of guilty. Such a finding was not made in the instant case and the plea for that reason is invalid. * * * Lastly, as we find the plea to be invalid for the aforestated reasons, it is unnecessary to address the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. E. Italics. Italics should be used only in the following instances: 1. case names: People v Smith, 2. supra, id., infra, ante, post, et seq., 3. words the author wishes to emphasize, 4. where italics are used in the material quoted, 5. unfamiliar foreign words and phrases or longer Latin "legal" phrases. E.g.: Italicize: expressio unius est exclusio alterius and en ventre sa mere, etc., but not: de novo, arguendo, sua sponte, etc. (Check Black's Law Dictionary [8th ed] for guidance.) Italicize: Nec flectitur, nec mutant; hôtel de ville; die Weltanschauung, etc., but not: vis-à-vis; quid pro quo; der Bundestag; Arc de Triomphe; etc. (Check the Random House Dictionary for guidance.) 6. In titles of nonlegal books, law review articles, and ALR annotations. 7. The following should not be italicized: abbreviations (e.g., i.e., viz., N.B., etc.); signals (see, see also, compare . . . with); later history of cases (cert den, lv den, aff'd); 8. When quoting from trial or other transcripts italicize: a) "Q." and "A." (Do not use: "Q:" or "A:") Examples: "Q. Were you on Oakland Avenue on the date in question? "A. No, sir." b) Names or titles of the speakers: The Court: Mr. Smith (attorney for the defense): The Defendant: F. Quoting a Footnote. 1. If material quoted contains a footnote that is to be included in the quotation, use the same footnote numbering as the original and add the footnote at the end of the block of quoted material, separated from the main quotation by lines from margin to margin above and below the footnote. For clarity, where possible, put the citation in the opinion text before beginning the block quotation. Example: A discussion of presumptions and their effect upon the burden of producing evidence appears in In re Wood Estate, 374 Mich 278, 289; 132 NW2d 35; 54 ALR3d 1 (1965): "The immediate legal effect of a presumption is procedural ___ it shifts the burden of going forward with the evidence relating to the presumed fact. 5 Once there is a presumption that fact C is true, the opposing party must produce evidence tending to disprove either facts A and B or presumed fact C; if he fails to do so, he risks jury instruction that they must presume fact C to have been established. ___________________________________________________________ ______________ " 5 Baker v Delano, 191 Mich 204, 208 [157 NW 427 (1916)], citing 1 Elliott on Evidence, § 91: ' "The office or effect of a true presumption is to cast upon the party against whom it works the duty of going forward with evidence." ' " _________________________________________________________ _______________ The thrust of the Wood case was to change the law in this state concerning the effect that a presumption was after rebuttal evidence has been introduced. 2. Where footnotes appear in the original source, but are not material to the purpose for which the text is quoted, footnote numbers in the text should be deleted without ellipses. Do not add "(footnotes deleted)" at the end of the quotation! G. Placement of Citation. A citation indicating the source of a block quotation generally should be supplied in the text preceding the quotation. Example: The Equal Protection Clause, US Const, Am XIV, § 5, provides: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. A citation may follow the quotation in the block, immediately after the quoted material, without additional separation, followed by a period and enclosed in brackets. The no-fault insurance act provides, in part: An agreement for assignment of a right to benefits payable in the future is void. [MCL 500.3143.] H. Parentheses and Brackets. 1. Use Parentheses ( ): a) To set off short, supplementary, parenthetic, or explanatory material when the interruption is more marked than that usually indicated by commas and when the inclusion of such material does not essentially alter the meaning of the sentence. The work (he was preeminently fitted for it) absorbed his attention for weeks. The cost of living (see chart II) has risen slowly but surely. b) To enclose figures or letters used in enumerations. The immediate results were these: (1) a cornering of the market; (2) a decrease in available material; (3) an advance in prices. (N.B.: Parentheses postpone punctuation. No punctuation immediately precedes parentheses, except when a sentence ends with a period and the next sentence is in parentheses.) 2. Use brackets [ ]: a) To enclose explanatory remarks, extraneous data, editorial interpolations, or additional citations within quoted passages or a citation following a block quotation where no quotation marks are used: Example: There is no doubt that the April 23, 1973 finding was that defendant was guilty of civil contempt. Judge O'Hair specifically told the defendant that she would be jailed until she purged herself. She therefore was able to "carry the 'keys of [the] prison in [her] own pocket' [and] the action is essentially civil." People v Goodman, 17 Mich App 175, 177; 169 NW2d 120 (1969). If one substitutes "warehouse owner, lessee or operator" for "consignee," then the exclusion would read "no portion of any premises owned or leased or operated by a [warehouse owner, lessee or operator] shall be deemed to be a public warehouse." The expansive meaning sought by the city does not work unless there can be a consignor without a consignee. The proscription of "unreasonable searches and seizures" and the warrant requirement "must be read in light of 'the history that gave rise to the words' ___ a history of 'abuses so deeply felt by the Colonies as to be one of the potent causes of the Revolution . . . .' [United States v Rabinowitz], 339 US [56], 69 [70 S Ct 430; 94 L Ed 653 (1950)]. The amendment was in large part a reaction to the general warrants and warrantless searches that had so alienated the colonists and had helped speed the movement for independence." b) To indicate a change in capitalization to conform to the sense of the context in quoted source material. Example: [W]e cannot agree that the Fourth Amendment interests at stake in these [administrative] inspection cases are merely "peripheral." It is surely anomalous to say that the individual and his private property are fully protected by the Fourth Amendment only when the individual is suspected of criminal behavior. c) To indicate a misspelled or misused word in the text accompanied by the word "sic." Example: Any person who shall commit the offense of larceny, by steeling [sic], shall be guilty of a felony . . . . d) To function as parentheses within parentheses. Example: The statute (MCL 418.551[2]) provides . . . . e) Use empty brackets [ ] to indicate deletion of a letter or letters where, for example, the plural in quoted material is to be rendered in the singular. Example: "actions" becomes "action[ ]." APPENDIX A. STATE ABBREVIATION Ala Ky ND Alas La Ohio Ariz Me Okla Ark Md Or Cal Mass Pa Col Mich RI Conn Minn SC Del Miss SD DC Mo Tenn Fla Mont Tex Ga Neb Utah Hawaii Nev Vt Idaho NH Va Ill NJ Wash Ind NM W Va Iowa NY Wis Kan NC Wy APPENDIX B. COURTS NO LONGER PUBLISHING OFFICIAL REPORTS State Last Volume Last Year Alabama 295 1976 Alabama Appeals 57 1976 Alaska 17 1958 Arizona Appeals 27 1976 Colorado 200 1980 Colorado Appeals 44 1980 Delaware 59 1966 Delaware Chancery 43 1966 Florida 160 1948 Indiana 275 1981 Indiana Appeals 182 1981 Iowa 261 1968 Kentucky 314 1951 Louisiana 263 1972 Louisiana Appeals 19 1932 Maine 161 1965 Minnesota 312 1977 Mississippi 254 1966 Missouri 365 1956 Missouri Appeals 241 1955 North Dakota 79 1953 Oklahoma 208 1953 Oklahoma Criminal Appeals 97 1953 Rhode Island 122 1980 South Dakota 90 1976 Tennessee 225 1971 Tennessee Appeals 63 1971 Tennessee Civil Appeals 8 1918 Texas 163 1962 Texas Criminal Appeals 172 1963 Texas Civil Appeals 63 1911 Utah 30 Utah 2d 1974 Wyoming 80 1959 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2006-4 Adoption of Concurrent Jurisdiction Plan for the 28th Circuit Court and the 84th District Court of Wexford County Administrative Order No. 2003-1 and MCL 600.401 et seq. authorize Michigan trial courts to adopt concurrent jurisdiction plans within a county or judicial circuit, subject to approval of the Court. The Court hereby approves adoption of the following concurrent jurisdiction plan effective August 1, 2006: The 28th Circuit Court and the 84th District Court The plan shall remain on file with the state court administrator. Amendments of concurrent jurisdiction plans may be implemented by local administrative order pursuant to MCR 8.112. Plan amendments shall conform to the requirements of Administrative Order No. 2003-1 and MCL 600.401 et seq. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2006-5 Adoption of the Michigan Child Support Formula as Juvenile Court Reimbursement Guideline On order of the Court, notice of the proposed changes and an opportunity for comment in writing and at a public hearing having been provided, and consideration having been given to the comments received, the Court adopts the Michigan Child Support Formula Schedules Supplement from the Michigan Child Support Formula Manual to replace the July 30, 1990, Schedule of Payments in the Guideline for Court Ordered Reimbursement, effective July 1, 2006. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2006-6 Prohibition on “Bundling” Cases On order of the Court, the need for immediate action having been found, the following Administrative Order is adopted, effective immediately. Public comments on this administrative order, however, may be submitted to the Supreme Court Clerk in writing or electronically until December 1, 2006, at: P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909, or MSC_clerk@courts.mi.gov. When filing a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2003-47. Your comments will be posted, along with the comments of others, at www.courts.mi.gov/supremecourt/resources/administrative/index.htm. The Court has determined that trial courts should be precluded from “bundling” asbestos-related cases for settlement or trial. It is the opinion of the Court that each case should be decided on its own merits, and not in conjunction with other cases. Thus, no asbestos-related disease personal injury action shall be joined with any other such case for settlement or for any other purpose, with the exception of discovery. This order in no way precludes or diminishes the ability of a court to consolidate asbestos-related disease personal injury actions for discovery purposes only. For purposes of this Administrative Order, “asbestos-related disease personal injury actions” include all cases in which it is alleged that a party has suffered personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos, regardless of the theory of recovery. [Effective August 9, 2006] [Retained June 19, 2007] ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2006-7 Interactive Video Proceedings (Family Division of Circuit Court and Probate Court) Rescinded effective May 1, 2007. See Administrative Order 2007-1. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER No. 2006-8 Deliberative Privilege and Case Discussions in the Supreme Court The following administrative order, supplemental to the provisions of Administrative Order No. 1997-10, is effective immediately. All correspondence, memoranda and discussions regarding cases or controversies are confidential. This obligation to honor confidentiality does not expire when a case is decided. The only exception to this obligation is that a Justice may disclose any unethical, improper or criminal conduct to the JTC or proper authority. [Effective December 6, 2006] Administrative Order No. 2006-9 Adoption of Concurrent Jurisdiction Plan for the 28th Circuit Court, the 84th District Court, and the Probate Court of Missaukee County Administrative Order No. 2003-1 and MCL 600.401 et seq. authorize Michigan trial courts to adopt concurrent jurisdiction plans within a county or judicial circuit, subject to approval of the Court. The Court hereby approves the adoption of the following concurrent jurisdiction plan effective April 1, 2007: The 28th Circuit Court, the 84thDistrict Court, and the Probate Court of Missaukee County The plan shall remain on file with the state court administrator. Amendments to concurrent jurisdiction plans may be implemented by local administrative order pursuant to MCR 8.112. Plan amendments shall conform to the requirements of Administrative Order No. 2003-1 and MCL 600.401 et seq. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 2007-1 Expanded Use of Interactive Video Technology By order entered February 14, 2007, this Court has adopted new rules authorizing the use of interactive video technology (IVT) for specified hearings in delinquency proceedings, child protective proceedings, and probate matters. In addition to the use of IVT specifically authorized under new Rules 3.904 and 5.738a of the Michigan Court Rules, this Court encourages courts in appropriate circumstances to expand the use of IVT in those proceedings and matters to hearings not enumerated in the new rules by seeking permission from the State Court Administrative Office. The goal of the expanded use of IVT is to promote efficiency for the court and accessibility for the parties while ensuring that each party’s rights are not compromised. Effective May 1, 2007, each court seeking to expand its use of IVT beyond the uses set forth in new MCR 3.904 and 5.738a must submit a local administrative order for approval by the State Court Administrator, pursuant to MCR 8.112(B), describing the administrative procedures for each type of hearing for which IVT will be used. Upon a court’s filing of a local administrative order, the State Court Administrative Office shall either approve the order or return the order to the chief judge of the circuit court or the probate court for amendment in accordance with requirements and guidelines provided by the State Court Administrative Office. The State Court Administrative Office shall assist courts in implementing the expanded use of IVT, and shall report to this Court regarding its assessment of any expanded IVT programs. Those courts approved for an expanded program of IVT use shall provide statistics and otherwise cooperate with the State Court Administrative Office in monitoring the expanded-use programs. Third Amended Administrative Order No. 2007-2 Expedited Summary Disposition Docket in the Court of Appeals Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2004-5, this Court adopted an expedited summary disposition docket in the Court of Appeals to take effect on January 1, 2005, and to expire on December 31, 2006. On December 21, 2005, Amended Administrative Order No. 2004-5 was adopted to take effect January 1, 2006, and to expire December 31, 2007. At the request of Chief Judge William C. Whitbeck, we now order that the expedited summary disposition docket be suspended indefinitely effective May 7, 2007. The Court of Appeals has indicated that as of May 7, 2007, all cases currently on the expedited summary disposition track will no longer be considered on an expedited basis and will proceed on the standard track. If any party believes this shift would create a hardship or a significant inequity, a party may file a motion for appropriate relief in conformity with MCR 7.211. Parties to cases that were filed under the expedited summary disposition docket need not file a docketing statement, as is required for cases that were not filed under the expedited summary disposition docket. If transcripts in an expedited summary disposition case have been ordered and are completed by the court reporter within the time limits established in Administrative Order No. 2004-5, the court reporter is entitled to charge the premium rate per page. [Entered May 2, 2007] Administrative Order 2007-3 [As amended October 20, 2011, incorporating the relevant content of Administrative Order 2009-1. AO 2009-1 is rescinded] E-filing pilot project in Oakland County On order of the Court, the 6 th Circuit Court is authorized to implement an Electronic Document Filing Pilot Project. The pilot project is established to study the effectiveness of electronically filing court documents in lieu of traditional paper filings. The pilot project shall begin August 1, 2007, or as soon thereafter as is possible, and shall remain in effect until July 30, 2013, or further order of this Court. The 6th Circuit Court is aware that rules regarding electronic filing have been published for comment by this Court. If this Court adopts electronic-filing rules during the pendency of the 6th Circuit Court Electronic Document Filing Pilot Project, the 6th Circuit Court will, within 60 days of the effective date of the rules, comply with the requirements of those rules. The 6th Circuit Court will track the participation and effectiveness of this pilot program and shall report to and provide information as requested by the State Court Administrative Office. 1. Construction The purpose of the pilot program is to study the effectiveness of electronically filing court documents in connection with the just, speedy, and economical determination of the actions involved in the pilot program. The Sixth Circuit Court may exercise its discretion to grant necessary relief to avoid the consequences of error so as not to affect the substantial rights of the parties. Except for matters related to electronically filing documents during the pilot program, the Michigan Rules of Court govern all other aspects of the cases involved in the pilot. 2. Definitions (a) “Clerk” means the Oakland County Clerk. (b)“E-filing” means any court pleading, motion, brief, response, list, order, judgment, notice, or other document filed electronically pursuant to the pilot program. (c) “LAO” means all local administrative orders governing the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court. (d)“MCR” means the Michigan Rules of Court. (e) “Pilot program” means the initiative by the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court, the Oakland County Clerk, and the Oakland County Department of Information Technology in conjunction with Wiznet, Inc., and under the supervision of the State Court Administrative Office. This e-filing application facilitates the electronic filing of pleadings, motions, briefs, responses, lists, orders, judgments, notices, and other documents. All state courts in Michigan are envisioned as eventually permitting efiling (with appropriate modifications and improvements). The Oakland County pilot program will begin testing with four circuit judges with “C” or “N” type civil cases. The court plans to expand the pilot program to all circuit judges who wish to participate (f) “Technical malfunction” means any hardware, software, or other malfunction that prevents a user from timely filing a complete e-filing or sending or receiving service of an e-filing. 3. Participation in the Pilot Program (a) Participation in the pilot program shall be mandatory in all pending “A,” “C,” “P” or “N” type cases assigned to participating circuit judges. At the discretion of the judge, participation may also include postdisposition proceedings in qualifying case types assigned to participating judges. Until April 30, 2012, court users will have the discretion to submit the initiating documents in “A,” “C,” “P” and “N” type cases and any fees associated with the documents either traditionally or electronically. Beginning May 1, 2012, submission of initiating documents shall be made electronically, subject to the exception created at subsection 3.3(b) below. The court shall provide on campus computer facilities at the county clerk’s office and the law library to enable a party or attorney without a computer to e-file on campus. (b)This is a mandatory e-filing project. It is presumed that all documents will be filed electronically. However, the Court recognizes that circumstances may arise that will prevent one from e-filing. To ensure that all parties retain access to the courts, parties that demonstrate good cause will be permitted to file their documents with the clerk, who will then file the documents electronically. Among the factors that the Sixth Circuit Court will consider in determining whether good cause exists to excuse a party from mandatory e-filing are a party’s access to the Internet and indigency. A self-represented party is not excused from the project merely because the individual does not have counsel. However, upon submission of proof of incarceration, a self-represented party shall be exempted from e-filing during the period of the individual’s incarceration. Application for a waiver of e-filing at the time of case initiation shall be made to the chief judge or the chief judge’s designate. 4. E-filings Submission, Acceptance, and Time of Service with the Court; Signature (a) In an effort to facilitate uniform service within the scope of this project, the Sixth Circuit Court strongly recommends electronic service. However, service of process for initiating documents shall be made pursuant to MCR 2.105. After the initial process has been served and the defendant has registered as a user with the Tyler (Wiznet) e-filing system for the case, amendments to the initiating documents may be served electronically subject to the limitations or restrictions otherwise imposed in this order. (b) Program participants must submit e-filings pursuant to these rules and the pilot program’s technical requirements. The clerk may, in accordance with MCR 8.119(C) reject documents submitted for filing that do not comply with MCR 2.113(C)(1), are not accompanied by the proper fees, clearly violate Administrative Order No. 2006-2, do not conform to the technical requirements of this pilot project, or are otherwise submitted in violation of a statute, an MCR, an LAO, or the program rules. (c) E-filings may be submitted to the court at any time, but shall only be reviewed and accepted for filing by the Oakland County Clerk’s Office during the normal business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. E-filings submitted after business hours shall be deemed filed on the business day the e-filing is accepted (usually the next business day). The clerk shall process electronic submissions on a first-in, first-out basis. (d) E-filings shall be treated as if they were hand delivered to the court for all purposes under statute, the MCR, and the LAO. (e) A pleading, document, or instrument e-filed or electronically served under this rule shall be deemed to have been signed by the judge, court clerk, attorney, party, or declarant. (i)Signatures submitted electronically shall use the following form: /s/ John L. Smith. (ii) A document that requires a signature under the penalty of perjury is deemed signed by the declarant if, before filing, the declarant has signed a printed form of the document. (iii) An e-filed document that requires a signature of a notary public is deemed signed by the notary public if, before filing, the notary public has signed a printed form of the document. (f) The original of a sworn or verified document that is an e-filing (e.g., a verified pleading) or part of an e-filing (e.g., an affidavit, notarization, or bill of costs) must be maintained by the filing attorney and made available upon reasonable request of the court, the signatory, or opposing party. (g) Proposed orders shall be submitted to the court in accordance with the provisions of the pilot program. The court and the clerk shall exchange the documents for review and signature pursuant to MCR 2.602(B). (h) By electronically filing the document, the electronic filer indicates compliance with these rules. 5. Time for Service and Filing of Pleadings, Documents, and Motions; Judge’s Copies; Hearings on Motions; Fees (a)All times for filing and serving e-filings shall be governed by the applicable statute, the MCR and the LAO as if the e-filings were hand delivered. Where a praecipe is required by LCR 2.119(A), it must be e-filed along with the documents that require the praecipe, unless another courtapproved mechanism is approved and used by the filer. (b)The electronic submission of a motion and brief through this pilot program satisfies the requirements of filing a judge’s copy under MCR 2.119(A)(2). Upon request by the court, the filing party shall promptly provide a traditional judge’s copy to chambers. (c) Applicable fees, including e-filing fees and service fees, shall be paid electronically through procedures established by the Oakland County Clerk’s Office at the same time and in the same amount as required by statute, court rule, or administrative order. (i) Each e-filing is subject to the following e-filing fees. Type of Filing Fee EFO (e-filing only) $5.00 EFS (e-filing with service) $8.00 SO (service only) $5.00 (ii) Users who use credit cards for payment are also responsible for a 3% user fee. 6. Service (a)All parties shall register with the court and opposing parties one e-mail address with the functionality required for the pilot program through Tyler Odyssey File and Serve. All service shall originate from this registered e-mail address. Additional e-mail addresses for other attorneys or staff persons associated with counsel for the party may be added as registered users. Service shall be perfected upon a self represented party or counsel and any additional registered users associated with counsel at the e-mail addresses registered with the Tyler (Wiznet) e-filing system. Each individual bears the responsibility for the accuracy of the registered e-mail address. (b)Unless otherwise agreed to by the court and the parties, all e-filings must be served electronically to the e-mail addresses of all parties. The subject matter line for the transmittal of document served by email shall state: “Service of e-filing in case [insert caption of case].” (c) The parties and the court may agree that, instead of e-mail service, efilings may be served to the parties (but not the court) by facsimile or by traditional means. For those choosing to accept facsimile service: (i) the parties shall provide the court and the opposing parties with one facsimile number with appropriate functionality, (ii) the facsimile number shall serve as the number to which service may be made, (iii) the sender of the facsimile should obtain a confirmation of delivery, and (iv) parties shall comply with the requirements of MCR 2.406 on the use of facsimile communication equipment. (d)Proof of Service shall be submitted to the Sixth Circuit Court according to MCR 2.104 and these rules. 7. Format and Form of E-filing and Service (a)A party may only e-file documents for one case in each transaction. (b)All e-filings shall comply with MCR 1.109 and the technical requirements of the court’s vendor. (c) Any exhibit or attachment that is part of an e-filing must be clearly designated and identified as an exhibit or attachment. (d)All e-filings, subject to subsection 6(c) above, shall be served on the parties in the same format and form as submitted to the court. 8. Pleadings, Motions, and Documents not to be E-filed The following documents shall not be e-filed during the pilot program and must be filed by the traditional methods provided in the MCR and the LAO: (a)documents to be filed under seal (pursuant to court order), and (b)documents for case evaluation proceedings. 9. Official Court Record; Certified Copies (a) The official record, with the exception of documents filed under seal [see subsection 8(a) of this administrative order and MCR 8.119(F)] is the electronic version of all documents filed with the court. An appellate record shall be certified in accordance with MCR 7.210(A)(1). (b) Certified or true copies of e-filed documents shall be issued in the conventional manner by the Oakland County Clerk’s Office in compliance with the Michigan Trial Court Case File Management Standards. (c) At the conclusion of the pilot program, if the program does not continue as a pilot project or in some other format, the clerk shall convert all e-filings to paper form in accordance with MCR 8.119(D)(1)(d). Participating attorneys shall provide reasonable assistance in constructing the paper record. (d) At the conclusion of the pilot program, if the program continues as a pilot project or in another format, the clerk shall provide for record retention and public access in a manner consistent with the instructions of the court and the court rules. 10. Court Notices, Orders, and Judgments At the court’s discretion, the court may issue, file, and serve orders, judgments, and notices as e-filings. Pursuant to a stipulation and order, the parties may agree to accept service from the court via facsimile pursuant to the procedures set forth in Rule 6(c). 11. Technical Malfunctions (a)A party experiencing a technical malfunction with the party’s equipment (such as Portable Document Format [PDF] conversion problems or inability to access the pilot sites), another party’s equipment (such as an inoperable e-mail address), or an apparent technical malfunction of the court’s pilot equipment, software, or server shall use reasonable efforts to timely file or receive service by traditional methods and shall provide prompt notice to the court and the parties of any such malfunction. (b)If a technical malfunction has prevented a party from timely filing, responding to, or otherwise perfecting or receiving service of an e-filing, the affected party may petition the Sixth Circuit Court for relief. Such petition shall contain an adequate proof of the technical malfunction and set forth good cause for failure to use nonelectronic means to timely file or serve a document. The court shall liberally consider proof of the technical malfunction and use its discretion in determining whether such relief is warranted. 12. Privacy Considerations (a)With respect to any e-filing, the following requirements for personal information shall apply: 1. Social Security Numbers. Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2006-2, full social security numbers shall not be included in e-filings. If an individual’s social security number must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of that number may be used and the number specified in substantially the following format: XXX-XX-1234. 2. Names of Minor Children. Unless named as a party, the identity of minor children shall not be included in e-filings. If a nonparty minor child must be mentioned, only the initials of that child’s name may be used. 3. Dates of Birth. An individual’s full birthdate shall not be included in efilings. If an individual’s date of birth must be referenced in an e-filing, only the year may be used and the date specified in substantially the following format: XX/XX/1998. 4. Financial Account Numbers. Full financial account numbers shall not be included in e-filings unless required by statute, court rule, or other authority. If a financial account number must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of these numbers may be used and the number specified in substantially the following format: XXXXX1234. 5. Driver’s License Numbers and State-Issued Personal Identification Card Numbers. A person’s full driver’s license number and state-issued personal identification number shall not be included in e-filings. If an individual’s driver’s license number or state-issued personal identification card number must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of that number should be used and the number specified in substantially the following format: X-XXX-XXX-XX1- 234. 6. Home Addresses. With the exception of a self-represented party, full home addresses shall not be included in e-filings. If an individual’s home address must be referenced in an e-filing, only the city and state should be used. (b)Parties wishing to file a complete personal data identifier listed above may: 1. Pursuant to and in accordance with the MCR and the LAO, file a motion to file a traditional paper version of the document under seal. The court, in granting the motion to file the document under seal, may still require that an e-filing that does not reveal the complete personal data identifier be filed for the public files. or 2. Pursuant to and in accordance with the applicable MCR and LAO, obtain a court order to file a traditional paper reference list under seal. The reference list shall contain the complete personal data identifiers and the redacted identifiers used in the e-filing. All references in the case to the redacted identifiers included in the reference list shall be construed to refer to the corresponding complete personal data identifiers. The reference list must be filed under seal, and may be amended as of right. (c) Parties should exercise caution when filing papers that contain private or confidential information, including, but not limited to, the information covered above and listed below: 1. Medical records, treatment and diagnosis; 2. Employment history; 3. Individual financial information; 4. Insurance information; 5. Proprietary or trade secret information; 6. Information regarding an individual’s cooperation with the government; and 7. Personal information regarding the victim of any criminal activity. 13. Further, the Oakland Circuit Court shall file an annual report with the Court by January 1 of each year (or more frequently or on another date as specified by the Court) that outlines the following: a. Detailed financial data that shows the total amount of money collected in fees for documents filed and/or served under the pilot project to date, the original projections for collections of fees, and whether the projections have been met or exceeded. b. Detailed financial information regarding the distribution/retention of collected fees, including the amount paid to Wiznet per document and in total for the subject period and the amount retained by the court per document and in total for the period, and whether the monies retained by the court are in a separate account or commingled with other monies. c. A detailed itemization of all costs attributed to the project to date and a statement of whether and when each cost will recur. d. A detailed itemization of all cost savings to the court whether by reduced personnel or otherwise and a statement of whether any cost savings to the court are reflected in the fee structure charged to the parties. e. Information regarding how the filing and service fees were calculated and whether it is anticipated that those fees will be necessary and continued after the conclusion of the pilot program. f. A statement of projections regarding anticipated e-filing and service-fee collections and expenditures for the upcoming periods. 14. Amendment Procedural aspects of these rules may be amended upon the recommendation of the participating judges, the approval of the chief judge, and authorization by the State Court Administrator. Proposed substantive changes, including, for example, a proposed expansion of the program to permit additional case types and a proposed change in fees, must be submitted to the Supreme Court for approval. 15. Expiration Unless otherwise directed by the Michigan Supreme Court, this pilot program, requiring parties to electronically file documents in cases assigned to participating judges, shall continue until July 30, 2013. Administrative Order No. 2007-4 Adoption of Concurrent Jurisdiction Plan for the 49th Circuit Court, the 77th District Court, and Probate District 18 of Mecosta and Osceola Counties Administrative Order No. 2003-1 and MCL 600.401 et seq. authorize Michigan trial courts to adopt concurrent jurisdiction plans within a county or judicial circuit, subject to approval of the Court. The Court hereby approves the adoption of the following concurrent jurisdiction plan, effective April 1, 2008: The 49th Circuit Court, the 77th District Court, and Probate District 18 of Mecosta and Osceola Counties The plan shall remain on file with the state court administrator. Amendments to concurrent jurisdiction plans may be implemented by local administrative order pursuant to MCR 8.112. Plan amendments shall conform to the requirements of Administrative Order No. 2003-1 and MCL 600.401 et seq. Administrative Order No. 2008-1 Pilot Project No. 1 17 th Judicial Circuit Court (Expedited Process in the Resolution of the Low Conflict Docket of the Family Division) On order of the Court, the 17 th Judicial Circuit Court is authorized to implement a domestic relations pilot project. The pilot project will study the effectiveness of the use of pleadings that contain nonadversarial language, and the requirement that parents submit parenting time plans to encourage settlements and reduce postjudgment litigation. The pilot project shall begin April 1, 2008, or as soon thereafter as is possible, and shall remain in effect until July 30, 2009, or until further order of this Court. The 17th Judicial Circuit Court will track the degree of participation and the overall effectiveness of this pilot project and shall report to and provide information as requested by the State Court Administrative Office. 1. Purpose of the Pilot Project. The purpose of the pilot project is to study the effectiveness of the use of nonadversarial language in pleadings, judgments, and orders, and the effectiveness of a proposed provision for inclusion of parenting time plans, particularly in relation to the just, speedy, and economical determination of the actions involved in the pilot project and the reduction of postjudgment litigation. Except for matters related to the form of pleadings and orders, requirements for parenting time plans, and the use of nonadversarial language during the pilot project, the Michigan Court Rules govern all other aspects of the cases involved in the pilot project. 2. Construction and Participation. (a) The 17th Judicial Circuit Court shall determine a method by local administrative order that creates a pool of pilot-project cases and also a pool of control-group cases. The local administrative order shall specify the cases to be included in the pilot project by one of the following methods: the date an action is filed, a specific number of consecutive cases or actions filed, or by the assigned judge. (b) Participation also shall include postjudgment proceedings in qualifying cases that were included in the pilot pool. (c) This is a mandatory project. A self-represented party is not excused from the project merely because the individual does not have counsel. 3. Nonadversarial Terms. The pilot project will incorporate the use of nonadversarial terms, such as “mother” or “parent” instead of “plaintiff” or “defendant.” However, the use of nonadversarial language will not change the roles of parents as custodians for purposes of any state or federal law for which custody is required to be determined. Judgments and orders produced in the pilot project will clearly delineate how custody is to be determined for purposes of state and federal laws that require a person to be designated as a custodian. 4. Procedure. When an attorney or a pro se parent files a complaint with the clerk’s office, and the clerk’s office determines that the new case meets the requirements of the pilot project, that parent will be given two informational pamphlets explaining the purpose of the project, as well as two sets of instructions for a parenting time plan and two blank forms for proposed parenting time plans. Each of these documents must be approved by the State Court Administrative Office before they are distributed by the court to the parent. The parent’s attorney or the pro se parent seeking the divorce will be responsible for serving the informational pamphlet regarding parenting time instructions and the proposed parenting time plan on the other parent. The parent’s attorney must ensure that his or her client receives the informational pamphlet containing the parenting time instructions and the proposed parenting time plan. Each parent must complete the proposed parenting time plan and file it with the court within 28 days of filing his or her initial pleadings. The parents must also serve the other parent’s attorney, or the other parent if that parent is not represented, and the friend of the court with a copy of the proposed parenting time plan. 5. Amendment. These processes may be amended upon the recommendation of the participating judges, approval of the chief judge, and authorization by the state court administrator. 6. Expiration. Unless otherwise directed by the Michigan Supreme Court, this pilot program shall continue until July 30, 2009. [Note: Continued through February 28, 2011 by AO 2009-2] Administrative Order No. 2008-2 Adoption of a Pilot Project to Study the Effects of the Jury Reform Proposal On order of the Court, the judges listed below are authorized to implement a pilot project to study the effects of the jury-reform proposal that was published for comment by this Court in an order that entered July 11, 2006. The purposes of the pilot project are to determine whether, and in what way, the proposed jury-reform amendments support the goal of meaningful juror participation, and lead to greater confidence in the validity of the specific verdict and the overall jury system. In addition, the Court is interested in the effects of the proposed rules on court efficiency and the opinions of the attorneys and jurors who will operate under them. Courts that participate in the pilot project will operate under the following rules for the period of the pilot project, which will continue through December 31, 2010, or as otherwise ordered by the Court. At the Court’s request, the participating courts will update the Court on the pilot program’s status, and the judges’ perceptions of the program’s success. The Court anticipates that the pilot courts will apply these rules to the greatest extent possible as a way to test and assess all of the proposed ideas. The pilot project’s success will be measured by the Court’s evaluation of surveys that have been completed by the courts to determine the jurors’, judges’, and attorneys’ responses to the various procedures being tested. Participant judges include the following: The Honorable Wendy L. Potts (6th Circuit Court) The Honorable David Viviano (16th Circuit Court) The Honorable Timothy G. Hicks (14th Circuit Court) The Honorable Kenneth W. Schmidt and the Honorable William J. Caprathe (18th Circuit Court) The Honorable Richard J. Celello (41st Circuit Court) The Honorable Paul E. Stutesman (45th Circuit Court) The Honorable Beth Gibson (92nd District Court) The Honorable Peter J. Wadel (79th District Court) The Honorable Donald L. Sanderson (2B District Court) The Honorable Thomas P. Boyd (55th District Court) The Honorable Richard W. May (90th District Court) Rule 2.512 Instructions to Jury (A)Request for Instructions. (1) At a time the court reasonably directs, the parties must file written requests that the court instruct the jury on the law as stated in the requests. In the absence of a direction from the court, a party may file a written request for jury instructions at or before the close of the evidence. (2) In addition to requests for instructions submitted under subrule (A)(1), after the close of the evidence, each party shall submit in writing to the court a statement of the issues and may submit the party’s theory of the case regarding each issue. The statement must be concise, be narrative in form, and set forth as issues only those disputed propositions of fact that are supported by the evidence. The theory may include those claims supported by the evidence or admitted. (3) A copy of the requested instructions must be served on the adverse parties in accordance with MCR 2.107. (4) The court shall inform the attorneys of its proposed action on the requests before their arguments to the jury. (5) The court need not give the statements of issues or theories of the case in the form submitted if the court presents to the jury the material substance of the issues and theories of each party. (B) Instructing the Jury. (1) At any time during the trial, the court may, with or without request, instruct the jury on a point of law if the instruction will materially aid the jury in understanding the proceedings and arriving at a just verdict. (2) Before or after arguments or at both times, as the court elects, the court shall instruct the jury on the applicable law, the issues presented by the case, and, if a party requests as provided in subrule (A)(2), that party’s theory of the case. (C) Objections. A party may assign as error the giving of or the failure to give an instruction only if the party objects on the record before the jury retires to consider the verdict (or, in the case of instructions given after deliberations have begun, before the jury resumes deliberations), stating specifically the matter to which the party objects and the grounds for the objection. Opportunity must be given to make the objection out of the hearing of the jury (D) Model Civil Jury Instructions. (1) The Committee on Model Civil Jury Instructions appointed by the Supreme Court has the authority to adopt model civil jury instructions (M Civ JI) and to amend or repeal those instructions approved by the predecessor committee. Before adopting, amending, or repealing an instruction, the committee shall publish notice of the committee’s intent, together with the text of the instruction to be adopted, or the amendment to be made, or a reference to the instruction to be repealed, in the manner provided in MCR 1.201. The notice shall specify the time and manner for commenting on the proposal. The committee shall thereafter publish notice of its final action on the proposed change, including, if appropriate, the effective date of the adoption, amendment, or repeal. A model civil jury instruction does not have the force and effect of a court rule. (2) Pertinent portions of the instructions approved by the Committee on Model Civil Jury Instructions or its predecessor committee must be given in each action in which jury instructions are given if (a) they are applicable, (b) they accurately state the applicable law, and (c) they are requested by a party. (3) Whenever the committee recommends that no instruction be given on a particular matter, the court shall not give an instruction unless it specifically finds for reasons stated on the record that (a) the instruction is necessary to state the applicable law accurately, and (b) the matter is not adequately covered by other pertinent model civil jury instructions. (4) This subrule does not limit the power of the court to give additional instructions on applicable law not covered by the model instructions. Additional instructions, when given, must be patterned as nearly as practicable after the style of the model instructions and must be concise, understandable, conversational, unslanted, and nonargumentative. Rule 2.513 Conduct of Jury Trial (A) Preliminary Instructions. After the jury is sworn and before evidence is taken, the court shall provide the jury with pretrial instructions reasonably likely to assist in its consideration of the case. Such instructions, at a minimum, shall communicate the duties of the jury, trial procedure, and the law applicable to the case as are reasonably necessary to enable the jury to understand the proceedings and the evidence. The jury also shall be instructed about the elements of all civil claims or all charged offenses, as well as the legal presumptions and burdens of proof. The court shall provide each juror with a copy of such instructions. MCR 2.512(D)(2) does not apply to such preliminary instructions. (B) Court’s Responsibility. The trial court must control the proceedings during trial, limit the evidence and arguments to relevant and proper matters, and take appropriate steps to ensure that the jurors will not be exposed to information or influences that might affect their ability to render an impartial verdict on the evidence presented in court. The court may not communicate with the jury or any juror pertaining to the case without notifying the parties and permitting them to be present. The court must ensure that all communications pertaining to the case between the court and the jury or any juror are made a part of the record. (C) Opening Statements. Unless the parties and the court agree otherwise, the plaintiff or the prosecutor, before presenting evidence, must make a full and fair statement of the case and the facts the plaintiff or the prosecutor intends to prove. Immediately thereafter, or immediately before presenting evidence, the defendant may make a similar statement. The court may impose reasonable time limits on the opening statements. (D) Interim Commentary. Each party may, in the court’s discretion, present interim commentary at appropriate junctures of the trial. (E) Reference Documents. The court must encourage counsel in civil and criminal cases to provide the jurors with a reference document or notebook, the contents of which should include, but which is not limited to, witness lists, relevant statutory provisions, and, in cases where the interpretation of a document is at issue, copies of the relevant document. The court and the parties may supplement the reference document during trial with copies of the preliminary jury instructions, admitted exhibits, and other appropriate information to assist jurors in their deliberations. (F) Deposition Summaries. Where it appears likely that the contents of a deposition will be read to the jury, the court should encourage the parties to prepare concise, written summaries of depositions for reading at trial in lieu of the full deposition. Where a summary is prepared, the opposing party shall have the opportunity to object to its contents. Copies of the summaries should be provided to the jurors before they are read. (G) Scheduling Expert Testimony. The court may, in its discretion, craft a procedure for the presentation of all expert testimony to assist the jurors in performing their duties. Such procedures may include, but are not limited to: (1) Scheduling the presentation of the parties’ expert witnesses sequentially; or (2) allowing the opposing experts to be present during the other’s testimony and to aid counsel in formulating questions to be asked of the testifying expert on cross examination; or (3) providing for a panel discussion by all experts on a subject after or in lieu of testifying. The panel discussion, moderated by a neutral expert or the trial judge, would allow the experts to question each other. (H) Note Taking by Jurors. The court may permit the jurors to take notes regarding the evidence presented in court. If the court permits note taking, it must instruct the jurors that they need not take notes, and they should not permit note taking to interfere with their attentiveness. If the court allows jurors to take notes, jurors must be allowed to refer to their notes during deliberations, but the court must instruct the jurors to keep their notes confidential except as to other jurors during deliberations. The court shall ensure that all juror notes are collected and destroyed when the trial is concluded. (I) Juror Questions. The court may permit the jurors to ask questions of witnesses. If the court permits jurors to ask questions, it must employ a procedure that ensures that such questions are addressed to the witnesses by the court itself, that inappropriate questions are not asked, and that the parties have an opportunity outside the hearing of the jury to object to the questions. The court shall inform the jurors of the procedures to be followed for submitting questions to witnesses. (J) Jury View. On motion of either party, on its own initiative, or at the request of the jury, the court may order a jury view of property or of a place where a material event occurred. The parties are entitled to be present at the jury view. During the view, no person, other than an officer designated by the court, may speak to the jury concerning the subject connected with the trial. Any such communication must be recorded in some fashion. (K) Juror Discussion. After informing the jurors that they are not to decide the case until they have heard all the evidence, instructions of law, and arguments of counsel, the court may instruct the jurors that they are permitted to discuss the evidence among themselves in the jury room during trial recesses. The jurors should be instructed that such discussions may only take place when all jurors are present and that such discussions must be clearly understood as tentative pending final presentation of all evidence, instructions, and argument. (L) Closing Arguments. After the close of all the evidence, the parties may make closing arguments. The plaintiff or the prosecutor is entitled to make the first closing argument. If the defendant makes an argument, the plaintiff or the prosecutor may offer a rebuttal limited to the issues raised in the defendant’s argument. The court may impose reasonable time limits on the closing arguments. (M) Comment on the Evidence. After the close of the evidence and arguments of counsel, the court may fairly and impartially sum up the evidence and comment to the jury about the weight of the evidence, if it also instructs the jury that it is to determine for itself the weight of the evidence and the credit to be given to the witnesses and that jurors are not bound by the court’s summation or comment. The court shall not comment on the credibility of witnesses or state a conclusion on the ultimate issue of fact before the jury. (N) Final Instructions to the Jury. (1) Before closing arguments, the court must give the parties a reasonable opportunity to submit written requests for jury instructions. Each party must serve a copy of the written requests on all other parties. The court must inform the parties of its proposed action on the requests before their closing arguments. After closing arguments are made or waived, the court must instruct the jury as required and appropriate, but at the discretion of the court, and on notice to the parties, the court may instruct the jury before the parties make closing arguments. After jury deliberations begin, the court may give additional instructions that are appropriate. (2) Solicit Questions about Final Instructions. As part of the final jury instructions, the court shall advise the jury that it may submit in a sealed envelope given to the bailiff any written questions about the jury instructions that arise during deliberations. Upon concluding the final instructions, the court shall invite the jurors to ask any questions in order to clarify the instructions before they retire to deliberate. If questions arise, the court and the parties shall convene, in the courtroom or by other agreed-upon means. The question shall be read into the record, and the attorneys shall offer comments on an appropriate response. The court may, in its discretion, provide the jury with a specific response to the jury’s question, but the court shall respond to all questions asked, even if the response consists of a directive for the jury to continue its deliberations. (3) Copies of Final Instructions. The court shall provide each juror with a written copy of the final jury instructions to take into the jury room for deliberation. The court, in its discretion, also may provide the jury with a copy of electronically recorded instructions. (4) Clarifying or Amplifying Final Instructions. When it appears that a deliberating jury has reached an impasse, or is otherwise in need of assistance, the court may invite the jurors to list the issues that divide or confuse them in the event that the judge can be of assistance in clarifying or amplifying the final instructions. (O) Materials in the Jury Room. The court shall permit the jurors, on retiring to deliberate, to take into the jury room their notes and final instructions. The court may permit the jurors to take into the jury room the reference document, if one has been prepared, as well as any exhibits and writings admitted into evidence. (P) Provide Testimony or Evidence. If, after beginning deliberation, the jury requests a review of certain testimony or evidence that has not been allowed into the jury room under subrule (O), the court must exercise its discretion to ensure fairness and to refuse unreasonable requests, but it may not refuse a reasonable request. The court may make a video or audio recording of witness testimony, or prepare an immediate transcript of such testimony, and such tape or transcript, or other testimony or evidence, may be made available to the jury for its consideration. The court may order the jury to deliberate further without the requested review, as long as the possibility of having the testimony or evidence reviewed at a later time is not foreclosed. Rule 2.514 Rendering Verdict (A) Majority Verdict; Stipulations Regarding Number of Jurors and Verdict. The parties may stipulate in writing or on the record that (1) the jury will consist of any number less than 6, (2) a verdict or a finding of a stated majority of the jurors will be taken as the verdict or finding of the jury, or (3) if more than 6 jurors were impaneled, all the jurors may deliberate. Except as provided in MCR 5.740(C), in the absence of such stipulation, a verdict in a civil action tried by 6 jurors will be received when 5 jurors agree. (B) Return; Poll. (1) The jury must return its verdict in open court. (2) A party may require a poll to be taken by the court asking each juror if it is his or her verdict. (3) If the number of jurors agreeing is less than required, the jury must be sent back for further deliberation; otherwise, the verdict is complete, and the court shall discharge the jury. (C) Discharge From Action; New Jury. The court may discharge a jury from the action: (1) because of an accident or calamity requiring it; (2) by consent of all the parties; (3) whenever an adjournment or mistrial is declared; (4) whenever the jurors have deliberated and it appears that they cannot agree. The court may order another jury to be drawn, and the same proceedings may be had before the new jury as might have been had before the jury that was discharged. (D) Responsibility of Officers. (1) All court officers, including trial attorneys, must attend during the trial of an action until the verdict of the jury is announced. (2) A trial attorney may, on request, be released by the court from further attendance, or the attorney may designate an associate or other attorney to act for him or her during the deliberations of the jury. Rule 2.515 Special Verdicts (A)Use of Special Verdicts; Form. The court may require the jury to return a special verdict in the form of a written finding on each issue of fact, rather than a general verdict. If a special verdict is required, the court shall, in advance of argument and in the absence of the jury, advise the attorneys of this fact and, on the record or in writing, settle the form of the verdict. The court may submit to the jury: (1) written questions that may be answered categorically and briefly; (2) written forms of the several special findings that might properly be made under the pleadings and evidence; or (3) the issues by another method, and require the written findings it deems most appropriate. The court shall give to the jury the necessary explanation and instruction concerning the matter submitted to enable the jury to make its findings on each issue. (B) Judgment. After a special verdict is returned, the court shall enter judgment in accordance with the jury's findings. (C) Failure to Submit Question; Waiver; Findings by Court. If the court omits from the special verdict form an issue of fact raised by the pleadings or the evidence, a party waives the right to a trial by jury of the issue omitted unless the party demands its submission to the jury before it retires for deliberations. The court may make a finding with respect to an issue omitted without a demand. If the court fails to do so, it is deemed to have made a finding in accord with the judgment on the special verdict. Rule 2.516 Motion for Directed Verdict (A) Request for Instructions. A party may move for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence offered by an opponent. The motion must state specific grounds in support of the motion. If the motion is not granted, the moving party may offer evidence without having reserved the right to do so, as if the motion had not been made. A motion for a directed verdict that is not granted is not a waiver of trial by jury, even though all parties to the action have moved for directed verdicts. Administrative Order No. 2009-1 [Rescinded October 20, 2011 by an order incorporating the relevant content and further amending AO 2007-3] Extension and Expansion of E-Filing Pilot Project On order of the Court, the provisions of the e-filing pilot project authorized in Administrative Order No. 2007-3 in the Oakland Circuit Court are continued in effect through July 30, 2013. Further, the Oakland Circuit Court shall file an annual report with the Court within 90 days of this order covering the project to date and by January 1 of each following year (or more frequently or on another date as specified by the Court) that outlines the following: 1. Detailed financial data that shows the total amount of money collected in fees for documents filed and/or served under the pilot project to date, the original projections for collections of fees, and whether the projections have been met or exceeded. 2. Detailed financial information regarding the distribution/retention of collected fees, including the amount paid to Wiznet per document and in total for the subject period and the amount retained by the court per document and in total for the period, and whether the monies retained by the court are in a separate account or commingled with other monies. 3. A detailed itemization of all costs attributed to the project to date and a statement of whether and when each cost will recur. 4. A detailed itemization of all cost savings to the court whether by reduced personnel or otherwise and a statement of whether any cost savings to the court are reflected in the fee structure charged to the parties. 5. Information regarding how the filing and service fees were calculated and whether it is anticipated that those fees will be necessary and continued after the conclusion of the pilot program. 6. A statement of projections regarding anticipated e-filing and service-fee collections and expenditures for the upcoming periods. Further, the Oakland Circuit Court is authorized to expand the case-type codes eligible for participation in the e-filing pilot project to those that begin with “A” and “P.” Administrative Order No. 2009-2 On order of the Court, the provisions of the pilot project authorized in Administrative Order No. 2008-1, relating to the use of parenting time plans and nonadversarial language in domestic relations proceedings in the 17th Circuit Court, are continued in effect through February 28, 2011. Administrative Order No. 2009-3 Adoption of Concurrent Jurisdiction Plan for the 53rd Circuit Court of Cheboygan and Presque Isle Counties and the Presque Isle County Probate Court Administrative Order No. 2003-1 and MCL 600.401 et seq. authorize Michigan trial courts to adopt concurrent jurisdiction plans within a county or judicial circuit, subject to approval of the Court. The Court hereby approves adoption of the following concurrent jurisdiction plan effective July 1, 2009: • The 53rd Circuit Court of Cheboygan and Presque Isle Counties and the Presque Isle County Probate Court. The plan shall remain on file with the state court administrator. Amendments of concurrent jurisdiction plans may be implemented by local administrative order pursuant to MCR 8.112. Plan amendments shall conform to the requirements of Administrative Order No. 2003-1 and MCL 600.401 et seq. Administrative Order No. 2009-4 E-filing Pilot Project in the 42 nd Circuit Court On order of the Court, the 42nd Circuit Court is authorized to implement an electronic filing pilot project to study, in asbestos cases, the effectiveness of electronically filing court documents in lieu of traditional paper filings. The pilot project shall begin May 19, 2009, or as soon thereafter as is possible, and shall remain in effect until July 30, 2013, or further order of this Court. The 42nd Circuit Court acknowledges that certain rules regarding electronic filing have been published for comment by this Court. If this Court adopts electronic-filing rules during the pendency of this pilot project, the 42nd Circuit Court will, within 60 days of the effective date of the rules, comply with the requirements of those rules. The 42nd Circuit Court will track the participation in and effectiveness of this pilot project and shall report to and provide such information upon request by the State Court Administrative Office. 1. Construction The purpose of the pilot project is to study the effectiveness of electronically filing court documents in connection with the just, speedy, and economical determination of the actions involved in the pilot project. This court may exercise its discretion to grant necessary relief to avoid the consequences of error so as not to affect the substantial rights of the parties. The Michigan Court Rules govern all other aspects of the cases involved in the pilot project, except for matters related to electronically filing documents during the pilot project. 2. Definitions (a) “Clerk” means the Midland County Clerk. (b) “E-filing” means any court pleading, motion, brief, response, list, order, judgment, notice, or other document filed electronically pursuant to the pilot project. (c) “LAO” means all local administrative orders governing the 42 nd Circuit Court. (d) “MCR” means the Michigan Court Rules. (e) “Pilot project” means the initiative by the 42 nd Circuit Court, the Clerk, and the Midland County Information Systems Department in conjunction with Wiznet, Inc., CherryLAN Systems, Inc., and under the supervision of the State Court Administrative Office. This e-filing application facilitates the electronic filing of pleadings, motions, briefs, responses, lists, orders, judgments, notices, and other documents. (f) “Asbestos” means the matters that the pilot project will test and are described as all pending cases identified as an “NP” Case Type based in whole or in part on a claim of injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. (g) “Technical malfunction” means any hardware, software, or other malfunction that prevents a user from timely filing a complete e-filing or sending or receiving service of an e-filing. 3. Participation in the Pilot Project (a) Participation in the pilot project shall be mandatory in all pending “Asbestos” type cases. Participation shall be assigned following the filing and service of the initial complaint or other initial filing and assignment of the case to the participating judge. (b) This is a mandatory e-filing project. It is presumed that all documents will be filed electronically. However, the court recognizes that circumstances may arise that will prevent one from e-filing. To ensure that all parties retain access to the courts, parties that demonstrate good cause will be permitted to file their documents with the clerk, who will then file the documents electronically. Among the factors that the 42 nd Circuit Court will consider in determining whether good cause exists to excuse a party from mandatory e-filing are a party’s access to the Internet and indigency. A self-represented party is not excused from the pilot project merely because the individual does not have counsel. 4. E-filings Submission, Acceptance, and Time of Service with the Court; Signature (a) In an effort to facilitate uniform service within the scope of this pilot project, the 42 nd Circuit Court strongly recommends electronic service. (b) Program participants must submit e-filings pursuant to these rules and the pilot project’s technical requirements. The clerk may, in accordance with MCR 8.119(C), reject documents submitted for filing that do not comply with MCR 2.113(C)(1), are not accompanied by the proper fees, do not conform to the technical requirements of this pilot project, or are otherwise submitted in violation of a statute, an MCR, an LAO, or the program rules. Type of Filing Fee EFO (e-filing only) $5.00 EFS (e-filing with service) $8.00 SO (service only) $5.00 (ii) Users who use credit cards for payment are also responsible for a 3% user fee. 6. Service (a) All parties shall provide the court and opposing parties with one e-mail address with the functionality required for the pilot project. All service shall originate from and be perfected upon this e-mail address. (b) Unless otherwise agreed to by the court and the parties, all e-filings must be served electronically to the e-mail addresses of all parties. The subject matter line for the transmittal of document served by e-mail shall state: “Service of e-filing in case [insert caption of case].” (c) The parties and the court may agree that, instead of e-mail service, efilings may be served to the parties (but not the court) by facsimile or by traditional means. For those choosing to accept facsimile service: (i) the parties shall provide the court and the opposing parties with one facsimile number with appropriate functionality, (ii) the facsimile number shall serve as the number to which service may be made, (iii) the sender of the facsimile should obtain a confirmation of delivery, and (iv) parties shall comply with the requirements of MCR 2.406 on the use of facsimile communication equipment. (d) Proof of service shall be submitted to the 42 nd Circuit Court according to MCR 2.104 and this administrative order. 7. Format and Form of E-filing and Service (a) A party may only e-file documents for one case in each transaction. (b) All e-filings shall comply with MCR 1.109 and the technical requirements of the court’s vendor. (c) Any exhibit or attachment that is part of an e-filing must be clearly designated and identified as an exhibit or attachment. (d) All e-filings, subject to subsection 6(c) above, shall be served on the parties in the same format and form as submitted to the court. 8. Pleadings, Motions, and Documents not to be E-filed The following documents shall not be e-filed during the pilot project and must be filed by the traditional methods provided in the MCR and the LAO: (a) documents to be filed under seal (pursuant to court order), (b) initiating documents, and (c) documents for case evaluation proceedings. 9. Official Court Record; Certified Copies (a) For purposes of this pilot project, e-filings are the official court record. An appellate record shall be certified in accordance with MCR 7.210(A)(1). (b) Certified or true copies of e-filed documents shall be issued in the conventional manner by the clerk in compliance with the Michigan Trial Court Case File Management Standards. (c) At the conclusion of the pilot project, if the program does not continue as a pilot project or in some other format, the clerk shall convert all e-filings to paper form in accordance with MCR 8.119(D)(1)(d). Participating attorneys shall provide reasonable assistance in constructing the paper record. (d) At the conclusion of the pilot project, if the program continues as a pilot project or in another format, the clerk shall provide for record retention and public access in a manner consistent with the instructions of the Court and the court rules. 10. Court Notices, Orders, and Judgments At the court’s discretion, the court may issue, file, and serve orders, judgments, and notices as e-filings. Pursuant to a stipulation and order, the parties may agree to accept service from the court via facsimile pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 6(c) above. 11. Technical Malfunctions (a) A party experiencing a technical malfunction with the party’s equipment (such as format or conversion problems or inability to access the pilot sites), another party’s equipment (such as an inoperable e-mail address), or an apparent technical malfunction of the court’s pilot equipment, software, or server shall use reasonable efforts to timely file or receive service by traditional methods and shall provide prompt notice to the court and the parties of any such malfunction. (b) If a technical malfunction has prevented a party from timely filing, responding to, or otherwise perfecting or receiving service of an e-filing, the consider proof of the technical malfunction and use its discretion in determining whether such relief is warranted. 12. Privacy Considerations a.With respect to any e-filing, the following requirements for personal information shall apply: i. Social Security Numbers. Full social security numbers shall not be included in e-filings. If an individual’s social security number must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of that number may be used and the number specified in substantially the following format: XXX-XX-1234. ii. Names of Minor Children. Unless named as a party, the identity of minor children shall not be included in e-filings. If a nonparty minor child must be mentioned, only the initials of that child’s name may be used. iii. Dates of Birth. An individual’s full birth date shall not be included in e-filings. If an individual’s date of birth must be referenced in an e-filing, only the year may be used and the date specified in substantially the following format: XX/XX/1998. iv. Financial Account Numbers. Full financial account numbers shall not be included in e-filings unless required by statute, court rule, or other authority. If a financial account number must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of these numbers may be used and the number specified in substantially the following format: XXXXXX1234. v. Driver’s License Numbers and State-Issued Personal Identification Card Numbers. A person’s full driver’s license number and state-issued personal identification number shall not be included in e-filings. If an individual’s driver’s license number or state-issued personal identification card number must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of that number should be used and the number specified in substantially the following format: X-XXX-XXX-XX1-234. vi. Home Addresses. With the exception of a self-represented party, full home addresses shall not be included in e-filings. If an individual’s home address must be referenced in an e-filing, only the city and state should be used. b. Parties wishing to file a complete personal data identifier listed above may: i. Pursuant to, and in accordance with the MCR and administrative orders, file a motion seeking the court’s permission to file a traditional paper version of the document under seal. The court may, in granting the motion to file the document under seal, still require that an e-filing that does not reveal the complete personal data identifier be filed for the public files. or ii. Pursuant to and in accordance with the applicable MCR and LAO, obtain a court order to file a traditional paper reference list under seal. The reference list shall contain the complete personal data identifiers and the redacted identifiers used in the e-filing. All references in the case to the redacted identifiers included in the reference list shall be construed to refer to the corresponding complete personal data identifiers. The reference list must be filed under seal, and may be amended as of right. c.Parties should exercise caution when filing papers that contain private or confidential information, including, but not limited to, the information covered above and listed below: i. Medical records, treatment, and diagnosis; ii. Employment history; iii. Individual financial information; iv. Insurance information; v. Proprietary or trade secret information;Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 vi. Information regarding an individual’s cooperation with the government; and vii. Personal information regarding the victim of any criminal activity. 13. Amendment These rules may be amended upon the recommendation of the participating judges, the approval of the chief judge, and authorization by the state court administrator. 14. Expiration Unless otherwise directed by the Michigan Supreme Court, this pilot program, requiring parties to electronically file documents in cases assigned to participating judges, shall continue until July 1, 2011, or further order of the 56th Circuit Court. Administrative Order No. 2009-6 [Entered September 9, 2009] A Court Shall Submit a Local Administrative Order to SCAO When Appointing Magistrates and Referees On order of the Court, effective January 1, 2010, a court shall submit local administrative orders to the State Court Administrative Office to identify individuals appointed as magistrates or referees in that court. Courts are authorized by statute to appoint magistrates and referees to positions that allow those magistrates and referees to perform various functions. As the entity charged with supervision of the state’s courts, it is essential that the State Court Administrative Office of the Michigan Supreme Court be aware of the identity of each of these appointed individuals. In addition, because the law with regard to magistrates allows the court that appoints the magistrate to establish the scope of the duties the magistrate will perform, and because immunity for the magistrate’s actions extends only to those actions that are performed within the scope of the authority established by the court that appoints the magistrate, it is also essential that the Supreme Court be notified of the scope of authority granted Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 by each court to its magistrate or magistrates. Further, the Michigan Court Rules grant courts the authority to determine the specific types of hearings and proceedings to be heard by referees, and this information should likewise be submitted to the State Court Administrative Office. Accordingly, on order of the Court, A. Each court that appoints a magistrate or referee shall submit a local administrative order to the State Court Administrative Office that identifies an individual appointed as a magistrate or referee. The local administrative order shall include the name and contact information for the individual and the date the appointment is or was effective. B. Further, each court that appoints a magistrate or referee shall describe the scope of the authority conferred by the court on the magistrate or referee. C. It is the responsibility of a magistrate or referee to notify the State Court Administrative Office of changes in the individual’s contact information during the course of the appointment. Administrative Order No. 2009-7 Adoption of a Pilot Project in the 46 th District Court to Study the Effects of Proposed Rule 8.119 of the Michigan Court Rules On August 11, 2009, the 46 th District Court submitted a letter to the Court in which the 46 th District Court proposed revision of MCR 8.119 to implement a process that would allow a court clerk to return to a litigant a document that the clerk has identified as nonconforming with the Michigan Court Rules, requirements contained in the Michigan statutes, or the Michigan Supreme Court records standards. Upon receipt of the returned document, the litigant would have several options: the litigant could correct the nonconformity identified by the clerk, submit documentation in support of the document, request the clerk to submit the paper as it was initially submitted for immediate review by the court, or withdraw the document. On order of the Court, the 46 th District Court is authorized to implement a pilot project in its court to study the effects of proposed Rule 8.119, limited to cases that involve garnishments and consumer debt collections. Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 The purpose of the pilot project is to determine whether the proposed language represents a feasible and practical procedure for courts to follow in screening documents that are submitted for filing in cases that involve garnishments and consumer debt collections. The Court is interested in learning whether this procedure will increase efficiency within the court (including assessing its effect on the clerk and the judges of the court), and determining what effect the procedure will have on litigants. The 46 th District Court will operate under the following rule for the period of the pilot project, which will begin on the date this order enters and continue for one year or as otherwise ordered by the Court. The 46 th District Court will provide a report to the Court within three months of the conclusion of the pilot project regarding the court’s assessment of the feasibility of the procedure described below. In addition, litigants will have an opportunity to provide feedback on the pilot project through a survey to be included when documents are returned by clerks, and through polls conducted of those who participate in the judicial review procedure. The 46 th District Court shall keep a list of litigants who request that the submitted document be reviewed by a judge. Rule 8.119 Court Records and Reports; Duties of Clerks (A)-(B)[Unchanged.] (C) Filing of Papers. The clerk of the court shall endorse on the first page of every document the date on which it is filed. Papers filed with the clerk of the court must comply with the Michigan Court Rules, requirements contained in the Michigan statutes, and the Michigan Supreme Court records standards. The clerk of the court may reject papers which do not conform to MCR 2.113(C)(1) and MCR 5.113(A)(1) return nonconforming papers related to a garnishment or consumer debt collection case in accordance with (D) below. (D) Return of Nonconforming Papers Related to Garnishment or Consumer Debt Collection Case. If the clerk of the court returns a paper related to a garnishment or consumer debt collection case as nonconforming, the clerk must notify the litigant in writing of the reason for the return. The notice shall provide the name and phone number of the deputy clerk returning the papers. The litigant may, with no additional filing or motion fee, (a) submit supporting documentation; (b) submit an amended version of the paper; (c) request the clerk to submit the paper as initially submitted to the court for immediate review; or (d) withdraw the paper. If no judge is assigned to the case, the chief judge or the chief judge’s designee shall perform the review. Upon review, the judge shall either allow the filing or issue a written order disallowing the filing. If disallowed, the reason shall be stated in the order. If the litigant withdraws the paper, the court shall not charge a filing fee and any filing fee previously paid shall be returned to the filer.Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 If a complaint is returned by a clerk as nonconforming, the litigant may file a motion for judicial review. Upon review, if the judge decides that the complaint was conforming as originally filed and should have been accepted, the complaint shall be considered filed on the original filing date. (D)-(G)[Relettered (E)-(H), but otherwise unchanged.] Administrative Order 2010-1 Adoption of Administrative Order to Establish and Require Compliance with Court Collections Program and Reporting Requirements On order of the Court, notice of the proposed changes and an opportunity for comment in writing and at a public hearing having been provided, and consideration having been given to the comments received, the following administrative order is adopted, effective May 1, 2010. Enforcing court orders, including financial sanctions, is a responsibility of the courts that, if done effectively, enhances the courts’ integrity and credibility while providing funds to assure victims are made whole and support law enforcement, libraries, the crime victim’s rights fund, and local governments. In order to improve the enforcement and collection of court-ordered financial sanctions, it is ordered that the State Court Administrator establish court collections program requirements and that all circuit courts, circuit court family divisions, district courts, and municipal courts comply with those requirements. The State Court Administrative Office shall enforce the requirements and assist courts in adopting practices in compliance with those requirements. In order to effectively monitor and measure the effect of collections programs, it is ordered that the State Court Administrator establish reporting requirements regarding outstanding receivables and collections efforts undertaken by courts, including establishment of the reporting format, method, and due dates. It is further ordered that all circuit courts, circuit court family divisions, district courts, and municipal courts comply with those requirements. The State Court Administrative Office shall facilitate compliance with and enforce the requirements. Administrative Order 2010-2 Adoption of Concurrent Jurisdiction Plan for the12 th Circuit Court and the Baraga County Probate CourtAdministrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 Administrative Order No. 2003-1 and MCL 600.401 et seq. authorize Michigan trial courts to adopt concurrent jurisdiction plans within a county or judicial circuit, subject to approval of the Court. The Court approves adoption of the following concurrent jurisdiction plan, effective June 14, 2010: • The 12 th Circuit Court and the Baraga County Probate Court The plan shall remain on file with the state court administrator. Amendments to concurrent jurisdiction plans may be implemented by local administrative order pursuant to MCR 8.112. Plan amendments shall conform to the requirements of Administrative Order No. 2003-1 and MCL 600.401 et seq. Administrative Order 2010-3 [As amended October 20, 2011] E-filing Pilot Project in Oakland Circuit Court, Family Division Beginning March 16, 2010, or as soon thereafter as is possible and effective until December 31, 2012 or further order of this court, the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court adopts an e-filing pilot program requiring parties to electronically file documents in cases assigned to one or more participating judges. Rules designed to address issues unique to the implementation of this program are attached to and incorporated by reference to this local administrative order. Participation in this pilot program is mandatory for cases with a “DO” case code and assigned to pilot program judge(s), and, effective immediately, will be gradually implemented for cases with a “DM” case code. The Sixth Judicial Circuit Court will track the participation and effectiveness of this pilot program and report the results to the SCAO. 1. Construction The purpose of the pilot is to study the effectiveness of electronically filing court documents in connection with the just, speedy, and economical determination of divorce actions involved in the pilot. The Court may exercise its discretion to grant necessary relief to avoid the consequences of error so as not to affect the substantial rights of the parties. Except for matters related to electronically filing documents during the pilot, the Michigan Rules of Court govern all other aspects of the cases involved in the pilot. 2. DefinitionsAdministrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 (a) “Clerk” means the Oakland County Clerk. (b) “E-filing” means any court pleading, motion, brief, response, list, order, judgment, notice, or other document filed electronically pursuant to the pilot. (c) “LAO” means all local administrative orders governing the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court. (d) “MCR” means the Michigan Rules of Court. (e) “Pilot” means the initiative by the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court, the Oakland County Clerk, and the Oakland County Department of Information Technology in conjunction with Wiznet, Inc. and under the supervision of the SCAO. This e-filing application facilitates the electronic filing of pleadings, motions, briefs, responses, lists, orders, judgments, notices, and other documents. The vision is that all state courts in Michigan will eventually permit e-filing (with appropriate modifications and improvements). The Oakland County pilot will begin testing with two Circuit Court judges with “DO” type civil cases. “DM” type cases are also included in the scope of this pilot project. The Court plans to expand the pilot to all Family Division judges who wish to participate. The pilot program is expected to last approximately two years, beginning on January 1, 2010. (f) “Technical malfunction” means any hardware, software, or other malfunction that prevents a user from timely filing a complete e-filing or sending or receiving service of an e-filing. (g) “Wiznet envelope” means an electronic submission that contains one or more Wiznet transactions. (h) “Wiznet transaction” means the submission of one or more related documents which results in a single register of actions entry. A single register of actions entry is determined by the Clerk. E.g. a motion, brief, affidavit, notice of hearing, and proof of service for a single motion submitted at one time frequently constitutes a single register of actions entry. 3. Participation in the Pilot (a) Participation in the Pilot program shall be mandatory in all pending or newly filed “DO” type cases assigned to participating Circuit Court judges. Participation for new filings shall begin following the filing of the initial complaint or other initiating document, and assignment of the case to a participating judge. At the discretion of the e-filing judge, participation in the pilot may also include proceedings in post-disposition cases assigned to the pilot judge. In addition, this order authorizes e-filing for all “DM” cases. Recognizing the logistical challenges associated with implementing e-filing in “DM” cases, the Court authorizes the Family Division of the Sixth Circuit Court to gradually implement the pilot beginning with a limited number of cases Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 assigned to a single judge and a single Friend of the Court referee team assigned to that judge. The Sixth Circuit Court may expand the scope of the pilot at any time to include additional judges and/or FOC referee teams without further authorization of the Court. (b) This is a mandatory e-filing project. It is presumed that all documents will be filed electronically. However, the Court recognizes that circumstances will arise which prevent one from e-filing. To ensure that all parties retain access to the courts, parties that demonstrate good cause will be permitted to file their documents with the Clerk, who will then file the documents electronically. Among the factors that the Court will consider in determining whether good cause exists to excuse a party from mandatory e-filing are a party’s access to the Internet and indigency. A self-represented party is not excused from the project merely because the individual does not have counsel. 4. E-filings Submission, Acceptance, and Time of Service with the Court; Signature (a) Program participants must submit e-filings pursuant to these rules and the Pilot program’s technical requirements. The Clerk may, in accordance with MCR 8.119(C) reject documents submitted for filing that do not comply with MCR 2.113(C), are not accompanied by the proper fees, clearly violate AO 2006-2, do not conform to the technical requirements of this pilot project, or are otherwise submitted in violation of statute, court rule, administrative order, or program rules. (b) E-filings may be submitted to the court at any time, but shall only be reviewed and accepted for filing by the Oakland County Clerk’s Office during normal business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. E-filings submitted after business hours shall be deemed filed the business day the e-filing is accepted (usually the next business day). The Clerk shall process electronic submissions on a first in/ first out basis. (c) E-filings shall be treated as if they were hand delivered to the court for all purposes under statute, court rule, and administrative order. (d) A pleading, document, or instrument e-filed or electronically served under this rule shall be deemed to have been signed by the judge, court clerk, attorney, party, or declarant. (i)Signatures submitted electronically shall use the following form: /s/ John L. Smith. (ii) A document that requires a signature under the penalty of perjury is deemed signed by the declarant if, before filing, the declarant has signed a printed form of the document. (iii) An e-filed document that requires a signature of a notary public is deemed signed by the notary public if, before filing, the notary public has signed a printed form of the document. (e) The original of a sworn or verified document that is an e-filing (e.g., a verified pleading) or part of an e-filing (e.g., an affidavit, notarization, or bill Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 of costs) must be maintained by the filing attorney or self represented litigant and made available upon reasonable request of the court, the signatory, or opposing party. (f) Proposed orders shall be submitted to the court in accordance with the provisions of the pilot. The Court and Clerk shall exchange the documents for review and signature pursuant to MCR 2.602(B). (g) By electronically filing the document, the electronic filer indicates compliance with these rules. 5. Time for Service and Filing of Pleadings, Documents, and Motions; Judge’s Copies; Hearings on Motions; Fees (a) All times for filing and serving e-filings shall be governed by the applicable statute, court rule, and administrative order as if the e-filings were hand delivered. Where a praecipe is required by LCR 2.119(A), it must be submitted electronically to the Court through the epraecipe application at http://courts.oakgov.com/ePraecipe/. (b) The electronic submission of a motion and brief through this Pilot program satisfies the requirements of filing a Judge’s Copy under MCR 2.119(A)(2). Upon a request of the Court, the filing party shall promptly provide a traditional paper Judge’s Copy to chambers. (c) Applicable fees, including e-file fees and service fees, shall be paid electronically through procedures established by the Oakland County Clerk’s Office at the same time and in the same amount as required by statute, court rule, or administrative order. (i) Each e-filing is subject to the following e-file fees. Type of Filing Fee EFO (e-file only) $5.00 EFS (e-filing with service) $8.00 SO (service only) $5.00 (ii) Users who use credit cards for payment are also responsible for a 3% user fee. 6. Service (a) All parties shall register as a service contact with the Wiznet application which will provide the court and opposing parties with one email address with the functionality required for the Pilot program. (b) It is highly recommended that all e-filings must be served electronically to the email addresses of all parties. (c) The parties and court may agree that, instead of eservice, e-filings may be served to the parties (but not the court) as provided in MCR 2.107. Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 (d) For those choosing to accept facsimile service: (i) the parties shall provide the court and opposing parties with one facsimile number with appropriate functionality, (ii) the facsimile number shall serve as the number to which service may be made, (iii) the sender of the facsimile should obtain a confirmation of delivery, and (iv) parties shall comply with the requirements of MCR 2.406 on the use of facsimile communication equipment. (e) Proof of Service shall be submitted to the Court according to MCR 2.104 and these rules. 7. Format and Form of E-filing and Service (a)A party may only e-file documents for one case per Wiznet envelope. (b)A party may e-file multiple Wiznet transactions within a single Wiznet envelope, subject to subrule 7(a). (c) All e-filings shall comply with MCR 1.109 and the technical requirements of the Court’s vendor. (d)Any exhibit or attachment that is part of an e-filing must be clearly designated and identified as an exhibit or attachment. (e)All e-filings, subject to subsection 6(c) above, shall be served on the parties in same format and form as submitted to the court. 8. Pleadings, Motions, and Documents not to be E-filed The following documents shall not be e-filed during the Pilot program and must be filed by the traditional methods provided in the court rules and administrative orders: (a) documents to be filed under seal (pursuant to court order), and (b) initiating documents, and (c) documents related to divorce proceedings that are not filed in the court file, such as a verified statement of divorce and judgment information forms. 9. Official Court Record; Certified Copies (a) For purposes of this Pilot program, the electronic version of all documents filed with the Court , with the exception of documents filed under seal [see 8(a) and MCR 8.119(F)] is the official court record. An appellate record shall be certified in accordance with MCR 7.210(A)(1). (b) Certified or true copies of e-filed documents shall be issued in the conventional manner by the Oakland County Clerk’s Office in compliance with the Michigan Trial Court Case File Management Standards. (c) At the conclusion of the pilot program, if the program does not continue as a pilot project or in some other format, the clerk shall convert all Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 e-filings to paper form in accordance with MCR 8.119(D)(1)(d). Participating attorneys shall provide reasonable assistance in constructing the paper record. (d) At the conclusion of the Pilot program, if the program continues as a Pilot project or in another format, the Court and Clerk shall provide for record retention and public access in a manner consistent with the instructions of the court and court rules. 10. Court Notices, Orders, and Judgments The Court shall issue, file, and serve orders, judgments, and notices as e-filings. A party exempted from e-filing under this pilot shall be served in accordance with MCR 2.107(C). 11. Technical Malfunctions (a)A party experiencing a technical malfunction with the party’s equipment (such as PDF conversion problems or inability to access the Pilot sites), another party’s equipment (such as an inoperable email address), or an apparent technical malfunction of the court’s Pilot equipment, software or server shall use reasonable efforts to timely file or receive service as provided in these rules and shall provide prompt notice to the court and parties of any such malfunction. (b)If a technical malfunction has prevented a party from timely filing, responding to, or otherwise perfecting or receiving service of an e-filing, the affected party may petition the Court for relief. Such petition shall contain an adequate proof of the technical malfunction and set forth good cause for failure to use non-electronic means to timely file or serve a document. The Court shall liberally consider proof of the technical malfunction and use its discretion in determining whether such relief is warranted. 12. Privacy Considerations (a)With respect to any e-filing, the following requirements for personal information shall apply: 1. Social Security Numbers. Pursuant to Administrative Order 2006-2, full social security numbers shall not be included in any efilings. If an individual’s social security number must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of that number may be used and the number specified in substantially the following format: XXX-XX- 1234. 2. Names of Minor Children. Unless named as a party or otherwise required by statute, court rule, or administrative order, the identity of minor children shall not be included in any e-filings. If a non-party minor child must be mentioned, only the initials of that child’s name may be used. 3. Dates of Birth. Except as required by statute, court rule, or administrative order, an individual’s full birth date shall not be Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 included in any e-filings. Subject to the above limitation, if an individual’s date of birth is otherwise referenced in an e-filing, only the year may be used and the date specified in substantially the following format: XX/XX/1998. 4. Financial Account Numbers. Full Financial account numbers shall not be included in any e-filings unless required by statute, court rule, or other authority. If a financial account number must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of these numbers may be used and the number specified in substantially the following format: XXXXX1234. 5. Driver’s License Numbers and State-Issued Personal Identification Card Numbers. A person’s full Driver’s license number and state-issued personal identification number shall not be included in any e-filings. If an individual’s driver’s license number or state-issued personal identification card number must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of that number should be used and the number specified in substantially the following format: XXXX-XXX-XX1-234. 6. Home Addresses. With the exception of a self-represented party, full home addresses shall not be included in any e-filings. If an individual’s home address must be referenced in an e-filing, only the city and state should be used. For a party whose address has been made confidential by court order pursuant to MCR 3.203(F), the alternative address shall be treated as specified above. (b)Parties wishing to file a complete personal data identifier listed above may: 1. Pursuant to and in accordance with court rules and administrative orders, file a motion to file a traditional paper version of the document under seal. The Court may, in granting the motion to file the document under seal, still require that an e-filing that does not reveal the complete personal data identifier be filed for the public files. OR 2. Pursuant to and in accordance with the applicable court rules and administrative orders, obtain a court order to file a traditional paper reference list under seal. The reference list shall contain the complete personal data identifiers and the redacted identifiers used in the e-filing. All references in the case to the redacted identifiers included in the reference list shall be construed to refer to the corresponding complete personal data identifiers. The reference list must be filed under seal, and may be amended as of right. (c) Parties should exercise caution when filing papers that contain private or confidential information, including, but not limited to, the information covered above and listed below:Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 1. Medical records, treatment and diagnosis; 2. Employment history; 3. Individual financial information; 4. Insurance information; 5. Proprietary or trade secret information; 6. Information regarding an individual’s cooperation with the government; and 7. Personal information regarding the victim of any criminal activity. (d) These rules are designed to protect the private personal identifiers and information of individuals involved or referenced in actions before the Court. Nothing in these rules should be interpreted as authority for counsel or a self represented litigant to deny discovery to the opposing party under the umbrella of complying with these rules. 13. Amendment Procedural aspects of these rules may be amended upon the recommendation of the participating judges, the approval of the chief judge, and authorization by the State Court Administrator. Proposed substantive changes, including, for example, a proposed expansion of the program to permit additional case types and a proposed change in fees, must be submitted to the Supreme Court for approval. 14. Financial data. Detailed financial data as defined in Administrative Order No. 2009-1, including costs generated and savings realized under the terms of this e-filing pilot project, shall be included in the Oakland Circuit Court’s annual report for submission to this Court. 15. Expiration Unless otherwise directed by the Michigan Supreme Court, this pilot program, requiring parties to electronically file documents in cases assigned to participating judges, shall continue until December 31, 2012 or further order of this court. Administrative Order No. 2010-4 Adoption of Administrative Order to Implement E-filing Pilot Project in the 13 th Judicial Circuit CourtAdministrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 On order of the Court, the 13 th Circuit Court is authorized to implement an Electronic Document Filing Pilot Project. The pilot project is established to study the effectiveness of electronically filing court documents in lieu of traditional paper filings. The pilot project shall begin July 1, 2010, or as soon thereafter as is possible, and shall remain in effect until July 1, 2015, or further order of this Court. The 13 th Circuit Court is aware that rules regarding electronic filing have been published for comment by this Court. If this Court adopts electronic-filing rules during the pendency of the 13 th Circuit Court Electronic Document Filing Pilot Project, the 13 th Circuit Court will, within 60 days of the effective date of the rules, comply with the requirements of those rules. The 13 th Circuit Court will track the participation and effectiveness of this pilot program and shall report to and provide information as requested by the State Court Administrative Office. 1. Construction The purpose of the pilot program is to study the effectiveness of electronically filing court documents in connection with the just, speedy, and economical determination of the actions involved in the pilot program. The 13 th Circuit Court may exercise its discretion to grant necessary relief to avoid the consequences of error so as not to affect the substantial rights of the parties. Except for matters related to electronically filing documents during the pilot program, the Michigan Rules of Court govern all other aspects of the cases involved in the pilot. 2. Definitions (a) “Clerk” means the Antrim, Grand Traverse and Leelanau County Clerks. (b) “E-filing” means any court pleading, motion, brief, response, list, order, judgment, notice, or other document filed electronically pursuant to the pilot program. (c) “LAO” means all local administrative orders governing the 13 th Judicial Circuit Court. (d) “MCR” means the Michigan Court Rules. (e) “Pilot program” means the initiative by the 13 th Judicial Circuit Court, the 13 th Circuits’ Clerks and the Grand Traverse Information Technology Department in conjunction with OnBase Software, and Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 under the supervision of the State Court Administrative Office. This efiling application facilitates the electronic filing of pleadings, motions, briefs, responses, lists, orders, judgments, notices, and other documents. All state courts in Michigan are envisioned as eventually permitting e-filing (with appropriate modifications and improvements). The 13 th Circuit pilot program will begin testing with “C” or “N” type civil cases in Grand Traverse County. The Court plans to expand the pilot program to Antrim and Leelanau Counties. The pilot program is expected to last approximately five (5) years, beginning on July 1, 2010. (f) “Technical malfunction” means any hardware, software, or other malfunction that prevents a user from timely filing a complete e-filing or sending or receiving service of an e-filing. 3. Participation in the Pilot Program (a) Participation in the pilot program shall be mandatory in all pending “C” or “N” type cases. Participation shall be assigned following the filing and service of the initial complaint or other initial filing. At the discretion of the judge, participation may also include postdisposition proceedings in qualifying case types. (b) This is a mandatory e-filing project. It is presumed that all documents will be filed electronically. However, the Court recognizes that circumstances may arise that will prevent one from e-filing. To ensure that all parties retain access to the courts, parties that demonstrate good cause will be permitted to file their documents with the clerk, who will then file the documents electronically. Among the factors that the 13 th Circuit Court will consider in determining whether good cause exists to excuse a party from mandatory e-filing are a party’s access to the Internet and indigency. A self-represented party is not excused from the project merely because the individual does not have counsel. 4. E-filings Submission, Acceptance and Time of Service with the Court; Signature (a) In an effort to facilitate uniform service within the scope of this project, the 13 th Circuit Court strongly recommends electronic service. (b) Program participants must submit e-filings pursuant to these rules and the pilot program’s technical requirements. The clerk may, in accordance with MCR 8.119(C) reject documents submitted for filing that do not comply with MCR Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 2.113(C)(1), are not accompanied by the proper fees, clearly violate Administrative Order No. 2006-2, do not conform to the technical requirements of this pilot project, or are otherwise submitted in violation of a statute, an MCR, an LAO, or the program rules. (c) E-filings may be submitted to the court at any time, but shall only be reviewed and accepted for filing by the clerk’s office during the normal business hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. E-filings submitted after business hours shall be deemed filed on the business day the e-filing is accepted (usually the next business day). The clerk shall process electronic submissions on a first-in, first-out basis. (d) E-filings shall be treated as if they were hand-delivered to the court for all purposes under statute, the MCR, and the LAO. (e) A pleading, document, or instrument e-filed or electronically served under this rule shall be deemed to have been signed by the judge, court clerk, attorney, party or declarant. (i)Signatures submitted electronically shall use the following form: /s/ John L. Smith. (ii) A document that requires a signature under the penalty of perjury is deemed signed by the declarant if, before filing, the declarant has signed a printed form of the document. (iii) An e-filed document that requires a signature of a notary public is deemed signed by the notary public if, before filing, the notary public has signed a printed form of the document. (f) The original of a sworn or verified document that is an efiling (e.g., a verified pleading) or part of an e-filing (e.g. an affidavit, notarization, or bill of costs) must be maintained by the filing attorney and made available upon reasonable request of the court, the signatory, or opposing party. (g)Proposed orders shall be submitted to the court in accordance with the provisions of the pilot program. The court and the clerk shall exchange the documents for review and signature pursuant to MCR 2.602(B).Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 (h)By electronically filing the document, the electronic filer affirms compliance with these rules. 5. Time for Service and Filing of Pleadings, Documents, and Motions; Judge’s Copies, Hearings on Motions; Fees (a) All times for filing and serving e-filings shall be governed by the applicable statute, the MCR and the LAO as if the e-filings were hand delivered. (b) The electronic submission of a motion and brief through this pilot program satisfies the requirements of filing a judge’s copy under MCR 2.119(A)(2). Upon request by the court, the filing party shall promptly provide a traditional judge’s copy to chambers. (c) Applicable fees, including e-filing fees and service fees, shall be paid electronically through procedures established by the clerk’s office at the same time and in the same amount as required by statute, court rule, or administrative order. (i) Each e-filing is subject to the following e-filing fees. Type of Filing Fee EFO (e-filing only) $5 EFS (e-filing with service) $8 SO (service only) $5 (ii) Users who use credit cards for payment are also responsible for a 3% user fee. 6. ServiceAdministrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 (a) All parties shall provide the court and opposing parties with one e-mail address with the functionality required for the pilot program. All service shall originate from and be perfected upon this e-mail address. (b) Unless otherwise agreed to by the court and the parties, all efilings must be served electronically to the e-mail addresses of all parties. The subject matter line for the transmittal of document served by e-mail shall state: “Service of e-filing in case [insert caption of case].” (c) The parties and the court may agree that, instead of e-mail service, e-filings may be served to the parties (but not the court) by facsimile or by traditional means. For those choosing to accept facsimile service: (i) the parties shall provide the court and the opposing parties with one facsimile number with appropriate functionality, (ii) the facsimile number shall serve as the number to which service may be made, (iii) the sender of the facsimile should obtain a confirmation delivery, and (iv) parties shall comply with the requirements of MCR 2.406 on the use of facsimile communication equipment. (d) Proof of Service shall be submitted to the 13 th Circuit Court according to MCR 2.104 and these rules. 7. Format and Form of E-filing Service (a) A party may only e-file documents for one case in each transaction.Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 (b) All e-filings shall comply with MCR 1.109 and the technical requirements of the court’s vendor. (c) Any exhibit or attachment that is part of an e-filing must be clearly designated and identified as an exhibit or attachment. (d) All e-filings, subject to subsection 6(c) above, shall be served on the parties in the same format and form as submitted to the court. 8. Pleadings, Motions and Documents not to be E-filed The following documents shall not be e-filed during the pilot program and must be filed by the traditional methods provided in the MCR and the LAO: (a) documents to be filed under seal (pursuant to court order), (b) initiating documents, and (c) documents for case evaluation proceedings. 9. Official Court Record; Certified Copies (a) For purposes of this pilot program, e-filings are the official court record. An appellate record shall be certified in accordance with MCR 7.210(A)(1). (b) Certified copies or true copies of e-filed documents shall be issued in the conventional manner by the clerk’s office in compliance with the Michigan Trial Court Case File Management Standards. (c) At the conclusion of the pilot program, if the program does not continue as a pilot project or in some other format, the clerk shall convert all e-filings to paper format, the clerk shall convert all e-filings to paper form in accordance with MCR Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 8.119(D)(1)(d). Participating attorneys shall provide reasonable assistance in constructing the paper record. (d) At the conclusion of the pilot program, if the program continues as a pilot project or in another format, the clerk shall provide for record retention and public access in a manner consistent with the instructions of the court and the court rules. 10. Court Notices, Orders, and Judgments At the court’s discretion, the court may issue, file, and serve orders, judgments and notices as e-filings. Pursuant to a stipulation and order, the parties may agree to accept service from the court via facsimile pursuant to the procedures set forth in Rule 6(c). 11. Technical Malfunctions (a) A party experiencing a technical malfunction with the party’s equipment (such as Portable Document Format [PDF] conversion problems or inability to access the pilot sites), another party’s equipment (such as an inoperable e-mail address), or an apparent technical malfunction of the court’s pilot equipment, software, or server shall use reasonable efforts to timely file or receive service by traditional methods and shall provide prompt notice to the court and the parties of any such malfunction. (b) If a technical malfunction has prevented a party from timely filing, responding to, or otherwise perfecting or receiving service of an e-filing, the affected party may petition the 13 th Circuit Court for relief. Such petition shall contain an adequate proof of the technical malfunction and set forth good cause for failure to use nonelectronic means to timely file or serve a document. The Court shall liberally consider proof of the technical malfunction and use its discretion in determining whether such relief is warranted. 12. Privacy Considerations (a) With respect to any e-filing, the following requirements for personal information shall apply:Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 (i) Social Security Numbers. Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2006-2, full social security numbers shall not be included in e-filings. If an individual’s social security number must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of that number may be used and the number specified in substantially the following format: XXX-XX-1234. (ii) Names of Minor Children. Unless named as a party, the identity of minor children shall not be included in e-filings. If a nonparty minor child must be mentioned, only the initials of that child’s name may be used. (iii) Dates of Birth. An individual’s full birthdate shall not be included in e-filings. If an individual’s date of birth must be referenced in an e-filing, only the year may be used and the date specified in substantially the following format: XX/XX/1998. (iv) Financial Account Numbers. Full financial account numbers shall not be included in e-filings unless required by statute, court rule, or other authority. If a financial account number must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of these numbers may be used and the number specified in substantially the following format: XXXXX1234. (v) Driver’s License Numbers and State-Issued Personal Identification Card Numbers. A person’s full driver’s license number and state-issued personal identification number shall not be included in e-filings. If an individual’s driver’s license number or state-issued personal identification card number must be referenced in e-filing, only the last four digits of that number should be used and the number specified in substantially the following format X-XX-XXX-XX1-234. (vi) Home Addresses. With the exception of a selfrepresented party, full home addresses shall not be included in e-filings. If an individual’s home Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 address must be referenced in an e-filing, only the city and state should be used. (b) Parties wishing to file a complete personal data identifier listed above may: (i) Pursuant to and in accordance with the MCR and the LAO, file a motion to file a traditional paper version of the document under seal. The court, in granting the motion to file the document under seal, may still require that an e-filing that does not reveal the complete personal data identifier be filed for the public files. or (ii) Pursuant to and in accordance with the applicable MCR and LAO, obtain a court order to file a traditional paper reference list under seal. The reference list shall contain the complete personal data identifiers and the redacted identifiers used in the e-filing. All references in the case to the redacted identifiers included in the reference list shall be construed to refer to the corresponding complete personal data identifiers. The reference list must be filed under seal, and may be amended as of right. (c) Parties should exercise caution when filing papers that contain private or confidential information, including, but not limited to, the information covered above and listed below: (i) Medical records, treatment and diagnosis; (ii) Employment history; (iii) Individual financial information; (iv) Insurance information (v) Proprietary or trade secret information;Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 (vi) Information regarding an individual’s cooperation with the government; and (vii) Personal information regarding the victim of any criminal activity. 13. Records and Reports: Further, the 13 th Circuit Court shall file an annual report with the Supreme Court covering the project to date by January 1 of each year (or more frequently or on another date as specified by the Court) that outlines the following: (a) Detailed financial data that show the total amount of money collected in fees for documents filed or served under the pilot project to date, the original projections for collections of fees, and whether the projections have been met or exceeded. (b) Detailed financial information regarding the distribution or retention of collected fees, including the amount paid to each vendor per document and in total for the subject period, the amount retained by the Court per document and in total for the period, and whether the monies retained by the Court are in a separate account or commingled with other monies. (c) A detailed itemization of all costs attributed to the project to date and a statement of whether and when each cost will recur. (d) A detailed itemization of all cost savings to the Court whether by reduced personnel or otherwise and a statement of whether any cost savings to the Court are reflected in the fee structure charged to the parties. (e) Information regarding how the filing and service fees were calculated and whether it is anticipated that those fees will be necessary and continued after the conclusion of the pilot program. (f)A statement of projections regarding anticipated e-filing and service-fee collections and expenditures for the upcoming periods.Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 14. Amendment These rules may be amended upon the recommendation of the participating judges, the approval of the chief judge, and authorization by the State Court Administrator. 15. Expiration Unless otherwise directed by the Michigan Supreme Court, this pilot program, requiring parties to electronically file documents in cases assigned to participating judges, shall continue until July 1, 2015. Administrative Order No. 2010-5 29th Judicial Circuit Court Pilot Project No. 1 (Family Division Informal Docket for Low Conflict Domestic Relations Cases) On order of the Court, the 29 th Judicial Circuit Court is authorized to implement a domestic relations pilot project to test the effectiveness of an informal docket for selected domestic relations cases. The pilot project shall begin September 1, 2010, or as soon as an evaluator has been selected to evaluate the project, and shall continue for three years, or until further order of this Court. If this Court adopts generally applicable Michigan Court Rules for informal dockets during the pendency of the pilot project, the 29 th Judicial Circuit Court must, within 60 days of the effective date of the adopted rules, modify its procedures to comply with those new rules. The 29 th Judicial Circuit Court must collect and provide statistics and other information to the State Court Administrative Office and its retained evaluator to assist in evaluating the effectiveness of the project. 1. Purpose of the Pilot Project The purpose of the pilot project is to study the effectiveness of alternative, less formal procedures designed to help pro se domestic relations litigants use the judicial system more effectively, foster a cooperative ongoing relationship between the parties, and improve the court’s processing of domestic relations cases. 2. Participation (a) The 29 th Judicial Circuit Court shall issue a local administrative order that specifies one of the following criteria for creating a pool of pilot project cases and a Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 separate pool of comparison group cases: (i) selection based on case filing dates, (ii) selection of a specific number of filed cases that satisfy all the other project criteria, or (iii) selection by the presiding judge. (b) The court shall select cases for participation as soon as possible after the filing and service of each complaint. (c) This is a voluntary project. The court will not require parties to participate, but will offer the opportunity to all those who qualify. 3. Friend of the Court Settlement Conference After service of the complaint, the answer to complaint, and the summons, the court will refer pro se parties to the Friend of the Court Office for a settlement conference and the subsequent preparation of a recommended order for custody, parenting time, and child support. During the conference, an FOC staff person will provide information about the pilot project and verify that the case meets all the selection criteria. Eligible parties who agree to participate must sign a consent form. 4. Hearings With the Assigned Family Division Judge After the assignment clerk receives copies of both parties’ consent forms, the clerk will schedule the parties for an initial hearing with the presiding judge within 30 days. If either party objects to the FOC settlement conference recommended order, the objection will be heard at the initial hearing, provided that the objecting party has filed a written statement of those reasons and sent copies to the other party, the judge’s assignment clerk, the judge’s office, and the Friend of the Court. During the initial hearing, the judge and the parties must discuss the following issues, as applicable to each case: • Unresolved disputes. • Possible evidence. • Possible witnesses. • The schedule for subsequent hearings. 1 • Any property settlement agreements. If the parties have not yet agreed on the division of all the marital property, the court may grant an extension. • The procedure for preparing and entering a judgment of divorce, including which party will prepare the judgment. The Assigned Family Division Judge will explain the conference-style hearing to both parties at the initial hearing. Both parties must agree in court on the record to the use of the conference-style hearing. If the parties do not agree to use conference-style hearing, the parties may still participate in the informal docket project and use informal evidentiary rules and procedures 1 At the initial settlement conference with the Friend of the Court, parties will receive motion forms, including a form to request removal of the domestic relations case from the project, and a judgment of divorce form. Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 For pilot project cases, conference-style hearings will be conducted. Both parties and all witnesses will be sworn in. The hearings will be recorded. Either party may present evidence. Either party or the judge may ask questions. If there is more than one unresolved issue, the judge will instruct the parties to discuss each issue individually and then facilitate the parties’ discussions. Although parties will have an opportunity to question each other, the parties may ask only issue-clarifying questions. The judge may allow or reject each question. All witnesses must testify in a similar manner. They may provide narrative testimony. The parties and the judge may question the witnesses. The judge may allow conversations between the parties and the witnesses. If the court determines the case should be removed from the pilot project for any reason, the court will state the reasons on the record. Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 Administrative Order No. 2010-6 E-filing Pilot Project in the 16 th Circuit Court (Macomb County) On order of the Court, the 16th Circuit Court is authorized to implement an Electronic Document Filing Pilot Project. The pilot project is established to study the effectiveness of electronically filing court documents in lieu of traditional paper filings. The pilot project shall begin on January 1, 2011, or as soon thereafter as is possible, and shall remain in effect until December 31, 2012, or further order of this Court. The 16th Circuit Court is aware that rules regarding electronic filing have been published for comment by this Court. If this Court adopts electronic-filing rules during the pendency of the 16th Circuit Court Electronic Document Filing Pilot Project, the 16th Circuit Court will, within 60 days of the effective date of the rules, comply with the requirements of those rules. The 16th Circuit Court will track the participation and effectiveness of this pilot program and shall report to and provide information as requested by the State Court Administrative Office. 1. Construction The purpose of the pilot program is to study the effectiveness of electronically filing court documents in connection with the just, speedy, and economical determination of the actions involved in the pilot program. The Sixteenth Circuit Court may exercise its discretion to grant necessary relief to avoid the consequences of error so as not to affect the substantial rights of the parties. Except for matters related to electronically filing documents during the pilot program, the Michigan Rules of Court govern all other aspects of the cases involved in the pilot. 2. Definitions a. “Clerk” means the Macomb County Clerk. b. “E-filing” means any court pleading, motion, brief, response, list, order, judgment, notice, or other document filed electronically pursuant to the pilot program. c. “LAO” means all local administrative orders governing the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Court. d. “MCR” means the Michigan Rules of Court. e. “Pilot program” means the initiative by the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Court, the Macomb County Clerk/Register of Deeds, and the Macomb County Information Technology Department in conjunction with Vista Solutions Group, LP, and under the supervision of the State Court Administrative Office. This e-filing application facilitates the electronic filing of pleadings, motions, briefs, responses, lists, orders, judgments, notices, and other documents. All state courts in Michigan are envisioned as eventually permitting e-filing (with appropriate modifications and improvements). The Macomb County pilot program will begin testing with two circuit judges with “C” and “N” type civil cases. The court plans to expand the pilot program to all circuit judges. The pilot program is expected to last approximately two Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 years, beginning on January 1, 2011, and will be implemented in phases as described below. f. “Technical malfunction” means any hardware, software, or other malfunction that prevents a user from timely filing a complete e-filing or sending or receiving service of an e-filing. 3. Participation in the Pilot Program a. Participation in the pilot program shall be mandatory in all pending “C” or “N” case types assigned to participating circuit judges. Participation shall be assigned following the filing and service of the initial complaint or other initial filing and assignment of the case to a participating judge. At the discretion of the judge, participation may also include post-disposition proceedings in qualifying case types assigned to participating judges. The pilot will be implemented in phases as follows: i.Phase 1: The Macomb County pilot program will begin with Civil/Criminal Division civil cases wherein the case suffix begins with a “C” or an “N” with two judges. ii. Phase 2: Three additional Civil/Criminal Division judges will be added to the pilot within six months after the pilot has begun. iii. Phase 3: The remaining Civil/Criminal Division judges will be added within three months after Phase 2 has begun. iv. Phase 4: The remaining civil cases will be added to the pilot within three months after Phase 3 has begun upon approval by the Michigan Supreme Court. b. This is a mandatory e-filing project. It is presumed that all documents will be filed electronically. However, the Court recognizes that circumstances may arise that will prevent a party from e-filing. To ensure that all parties retain access to the courts, parties that demonstrate good cause will be permitted to file their documents with the Clerk, who will then file the documents electronically. Among the factors that the Sixteenth Circuit Court will consider in determining whether good cause exists to excuse a party from mandatory e-filing are a party’s access to the Internet and indigency. A selfrepresented party is not excused from the project merely because the individual does not have counsel. 4. E-filings Submission, Acceptance, and Time of Service with the Court; Signature a. In an effort to facilitate uniform service within the scope of this project, the Sixteenth Circuit Court strongly recommends electronic service. b. Program participants must submit e-filings pursuant to these rules and the pilot program’s technical requirements. The Clerk may, in accordance with MCR 8.119(C), reject documents submitted for filing that do not comply with MCR 2.113(C)(1), are not accompanied by the proper fees, clearly violate Administrative Order No. 2006-2, do not conform to the technical requirements of this pilot project, or are otherwise submitted in violation of a statute, an MCR, an LAO, or the program rules.Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 c. E-filings may be submitted to the Court around the clock (with the exception of periodic maintenance). E-filings submitted after the close of normal business hours (which is currently 4:30 p.m.) shall be deemed filed on the next business day. Although the system may be used on a 24-hour basis, technical support will generally only be available during regular business hours. d. E-filings shall be treated as if they were hand-delivered to the court for all purposes under statute, the MCR, and the LAO. e. A pleading, document, or instrument e-filed or electronically served under this rule shall be deemed to have been signed by the judge, court clerk, attorney, party, or declarant. i.Signatures submitted electronically shall use the following form: /s/ John L. Smith. ii. A document that requires a signature under the penalty of perjury is deemed signed by the declarant if, before filing, the declarant has signed a printed form of the document. iii. An e-filed document that requires a signature of a notary public is deemed signed by the notary public if, before filing, the notary public has signed a printed form of the document. f. The original of a sworn or verified document that is an e-filing (e.g., a verified pleading) or part of an e-filing (e.g., an affidavit, notarization, or bill of costs) must be maintained by the filing attorney and made available upon reasonable request of the court, the signatory, or opposing party. g. Proposed orders shall be submitted to the court in accordance with the provisions of the pilot program. The court and the clerk shall exchange the documents for review and signature pursuant to MCR 2.602(B). h. By electronically filing the document, the electronic filer indicates compliance with these rules. 5. Time for Service and Filing of Pleadings, Documents, and Motions; Judge’s Copies; Hearings on Motions; Fees a. All times for filing and serving e-filings shall be governed by the applicable statute, the MCR and the LAO as if the e-filings were hand-delivered. b. Where a praecipe is required, it must be e-filed along with the documents that require the praecipe, unless another court-approved mechanism is approved and used by the filer. c. The electronic submission of a motion and brief through this pilot program satisfies the requirements of filing a judge’s copy under MCR 2.119(A)(2). Upon request by the Court, the filing party shall promptly provide a traditional judge’s copy to chambers. d. Applicable fees, including e-filing fees and service fees, shall be paid electronically through procedures established by the Macomb County Clerk’s Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 Office at the same time and in the same amount as required by statute, court rule, or administrative order. i.Each e-filing is subject to the following e-filing fees: (1)EFO (e-filing only) $5.00 (2)EFS (e-filing with service) $8.00 (3)SO (service only) $5.00 ii. Users who use credit cards for payment may also be responsible for a user fee not to exceed 3 percent. 6. Service a. All parties shall provide the court and opposing parties with one e-mail address with the functionality required for the pilot program. All service shall originate from and be perfected upon this e-mail address. b. Unless otherwise agreed to by the court and the parties, all e-filings must be served electronically to the e-mail addresses of all parties. The subject matter line for the transmittal of document served by e-mail shall state: “Service of e-filing in case [insert caption of case].” c. The parties and the court may agree that, instead of e-mail service, e-filings may be served to the parties (but not the court) by facsimile or by traditional means. For those choosing to accept facsimile service: i.the parties shall provide the court and the opposing parties with one facsimile number with appropriate functionality, ii. the facsimile number shall serve as the number to which service may be made, iii. the sender of the facsimile should obtain a confirmation of delivery, and iv. parties shall comply with the requirements of MCR 2.406 on the use of facsimile communication equipment. d. Proof of Service shall be submitted to the 16th Circuit Court according to MCR 2.107(D) and these rules. 7. Format and Form of E-filing and Service a. A party may only e-file documents for one case in each transaction. b. All e-filings shall comply with MCR 1.109 and the technical requirements of the court’s vendor. c. Any exhibit or attachment that is part of an e-filing must be clearly designated and identified as an exhibit or attachment. d. All e-filings, subject to subsection 6(c) above, shall be served on the parties in the same format and form as submitted to the court. 8. Pleadings, Motions, and Documents not to be E-filedAdministrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 The following documents shall not be e-filed during the pilot program and must be filed by the traditional methods provided in the MCR and the LAO: a. initiating documents, and b. documents to be filed under seal (pursuant to court order). 9. Official Court Record; Certified Copies a. For purposes of this pilot program, e-filings are the official court record. An appellate record shall be certified in accordance with MCR 7.210(A)(1). b. Certified or true copies of e-filed documents shall be issued in the conventional manner by the Macomb County Clerk’s Office in compliance with the Michigan Trial Court Case File Management Standards. c. At the conclusion of the pilot program, if the program does not continue as a pilot project or in some other format, the clerk shall convert all e-filings to paper form in accordance with MCR 8.119(D)(1)(d). Participating attorneys shall provide reasonable assistance in constructing the paper record. d. At the conclusion of the pilot program, if the program continues as a pilot project or in another format, the Clerk shall provide for record retention and public access in a manner consistent with the instructions of the court and the court rules. 10. Court Notices, Orders, and Judgments At the court’s discretion, the court may issue, file, and serve orders, judgments, and notices as e-filings. Pursuant to a stipulation and order, the parties may agree to accept service from the court via facsimile pursuant to the procedures set forth in Rule 6(c). 11. Technical Malfunctions a. A party experiencing a technical malfunction with the party’s equipment (such as Portable Document Format [PDF] conversion problems or inability to access the pilot sites), another party’s equipment (such as an inoperable email address), or an apparent technical malfunction of the court’s pilot equipment, software, or server shall use reasonable efforts to timely file or receive service by traditional methods and shall provide prompt notice to the court and the parties of any such malfunction. b. If a technical malfunction has prevented a party from timely filing, responding to, or otherwise perfecting or receiving service of an e-filing, the affected party may petition the 16 th Circuit Court for relief. Such petition shall contain an adequate proof of the technical malfunction and set forth good cause for failure to use non-electronic means to timely file or serve a document. The court shall liberally consider proof of the technical malfunction and use its discretion in determining whether such relief is warranted. 12. Privacy Considerations (Personal Identifiers) a. With respect to any e-filing, the following requirements for personal information shall apply for the following personal identifiers:Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 i.Social Security Numbers: Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2006-2, full social security numbers shall not be included in e-filings. If an individual’s social security number must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of that number may be used and the number specified in the following format: XXX-XX-1234. ii. Names of Minor Children: Unless named as a party, the identity of minor children shall not be included in e-filings. If a non-party minor child must be mentioned, only the initials of that child’s name may be used. iii. Dates of Birth: An individual’s full birth date shall not be included in efilings. If an individual’s date of birth must be referenced in an e-filing, only the year may be used and the date specified in the following format: XX/XX/1998. iv. Financial Account Numbers: Full financial account numbers shall not be included in e-filings unless required by statute, court rule, or other authority. If a financial account number must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of these numbers may be used and the number specified in substantially the following format: XXXXX1234. v. Driver’s License Numbers and State-Issued Personal Identification Card Numbers: A person’s full driver’s license number and state issued personal identification number shall not be included in e-filings. If an individual’s driver’s license number or state-issued personal identification card number must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of that number should be used and the number specified in substantially the following format: X-XXXXXX-XX1-234. vi. Home Addresses: With the exception of a self-represented party, full home addresses shall not be included in e-filings. If an individual’s home address must be referenced in an e-filing, only the city and state should be used. b. Parties wishing to file a pleading containing a complete personal data identifier as listed above may: i.Pursuant to and in accordance with the MCR and the LAO, file a motion to file a traditional paper version of the document under seal. The court, in granting the motion to file the document under seal, may still require that an e-filing that does not reveal the complete personal data identifier be filed for the public files; or, ii. Pursuant to and in accordance with the applicable MCR and LAO, obtain a court order to file a traditional paper reference list under seal. The reference list shall contain the complete personal data identifiers and the redacted identifiers used in the e-filing. All references in the case to the redacted identifiers included in the reference list shall be construed to refer to the corresponding complete personal data identifiers. The reference list must be filed under seal, and may be amended as of right.Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 c. Parties should exercise caution when filing papers that contain private or confidential information, including, but not limited to, the information covered above and listed below: i.Medical records, treatment and diagnosis; ii. Employment history; iii. Individual financial information; iv. Insurance information; v. Proprietary or trade secret information vi. Information regarding an individual’s cooperation with the government; and, vii. Personal information regarding the victim of any criminal activity. 13. Records and Reports: Further, the 16 th Circuit Court shall file an annual report with the Supreme Court covering the project to date by January 1 of each year (or more frequently or on another date as specified by the Court) that outlines the following: a. Detailed financial data that show the total amount of money collected in fees for documents filed or served under the pilot project to date, the original projections for collections of fees, and whether the projections have been met or exceeded. b. Detailed financial information regarding the distribution or retention of collected fees, including the amount paid to each vendor per document and in total for the subject period, the amount retained by the Court per document and in total for the period, and whether the monies retained by the Court are in a separate account or commingled with other monies. c. A detailed itemization of all costs attributed to the project to date and a statement of whether and when each cost will recur. d. A detailed itemization of all cost savings to the Court whether by reduced personnel or otherwise and a statement of whether any cost savings to the Court are reflected in the fee structure charged to the parties. e. Information regarding how the filing and service fees were calculated and whether it is anticipated that those fees will be necessary and continued after the conclusion of the pilot program. f. A statement of projections regarding anticipated e-filing and service-fee collections and expenditures for the upcoming periods. 14. Amendment These rules may be amended upon the recommendation of the participating judges, the approval of the Chief Judge, and authorization by the State Court Administrator. 15. ExpirationAdministrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 Unless otherwise directed by the Michigan Supreme Court, this pilot program, requiring parties to electronically file documents in cases assigned to participating judges, shall continue until December 31, 2012. Administrative Order No. 2011-1 [Entered February 1, 2011, amended June 28, 2011] E-filing Pilot Project in the 3 rd Circuit Court (Wayne County) On order of the Court, the 3rd Circuit Court is authorized to implement an Electronic Document Filing Pilot Project. The pilot project is established to study the effectiveness of electronically filing court documents in lieu of traditional paper filings. The pilot project shall begin January 1, 2011, or as soon thereafter as is possible, and shall remain in effect until July 1, 2015, or further order of this Court. The 3rd Circuit Court is aware that rules regarding electronic filing have been published for comment by this Court. If this Court adopts electronic-filing rules during the pendency of the 3rd Circuit Court Electronic Document Filing Pilot Project, the 3rd Circuit Court will, within 60 days of the effective date of the rules, comply with the requirements of those rules. The 3rd Circuit Court will track the participation and effectiveness of this pilot program and shall report to and provide information as requested by the State Court Administrative Office. 1. Construction The purpose of the pilot program is to study the effectiveness of electronically filing court documents in connection with the just, speedy, and economical determination of the actions involved in the pilot program. The 3rd Circuit Court may exercise its discretion to grant necessary relief to avoid the consequences of error so as not to affect the substantial rights of the parties. Except for matters related to electronically filing or service of documents during the pilot program, the Michigan Rules of Court govern all other aspects of the cases involved in the pilot. 2. Definitions (a) "Clerk" means the Wayne County Clerk. (b) "E-filing" means any court pleading, motion, brief, response, list, order, judgment, notice, or other document filed electronically pursuant to the pilot program. Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 (c) "LAO" means all local administrative orders governing the 3rd Judicial Circuit Court. (d) "MCR" means the Michigan Court Rules. (e) "Pilot Program" means the initiative by the 3rd Judicial Circuit Court, and the Wayne County Clerk in conjunction with Tyler Technologies, Inc., and under the supervision of the State Court Administrative Office to facilitate the electronic filing of pleadings, motions, briefs, responses, lists, orders, judgments, notices, and other documents. The Pilot Program will begin testing with all pending cases in the “CK” case type. The 3rd Circuit Court and the Wayne County Clerk plan to expand the testing into the remainder of case types in the Civil Division upon approval by the Supreme Court. (f) “Technical malfunction” means any hardware, software, or other malfunction that prevents a user from timely filing a complete e-filing or sending or receiving service of an e-filing. 3. Participation in the Pilot Program (a) Participation in the pilot project shall be mandatory in all pending “CK” type cases. All judges in the 3 rd Circuit Court’s Civil Division shall participate. Expansion into the other Civil Division case types will occur after approval by the Supreme Court. (b) This is a mandatory e-filing project. It is presumed that all documents will be filed electronically. However, the Court recognizes that circumstances may arise that will prevent one from e-filing. To ensure that all parties retain access to the courts, parties that demonstrate good cause will be permitted to file their documents with the clerk, who will then file the documents electronically. Among the factors that the 3rd Circuit Court will consider in determining whether good cause exists to excuse a party from mandatory e-filing is a party's access to the Internet and indigency. A self-represented party is not excused from the project merely because the individual does not have counsel. 4. E-filings Submission, Acceptance and Time of Service with the Court; Signature (a) Program participants must submit e-filings pursuant to these rules and the pilot project’s technical requirements. The clerk may, in accordance with MCR 8.119(C), reject documents submitted for filing that do not comply with MCR 2.113(C)(1), are not accompanied by the proper fees, do not conform to the technical requirements of this pilot project, or are otherwise submitted in violation of a statute, an MCR, an LAO, or the program rules.Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 (b) E-filings may be submitted to the court at any time, but shall only be reviewed and accepted for filing by the clerk's office during the normal business hours of 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. E-filings submitted after business hours shall be deemed filed on the business day the e-filing is accepted (usually the next business day). The clerk shall process e-filings on a first-in, first-out basis. (c) E-filings shall be treated as if they were hand-delivered to the court for all purposes under statute, the MCR, and the LAO. (d) A pleading, document, or instrument e-filed or electronically served under this rule shall be deemed to have been signed by the judge, court clerk, attorney, party, or declarant. (i) Signatures submitted electronically shall use the following form: /s/ John L. Smith. (ii) A document that requires a signature under penalty of perjury is deemed signed by the declarant if, before filing, the declarant has signed a printed form of the document. (iii) An e-filed document that requires a signature of a notary public is deemed signed by the notary public if, before filing, the notary public has signed a printed form of the document. (e) The original of a sworn or verified document that is an e-filing (e.g., a verified pleading) or part of an e-filing (e.g., an affidavit, notarization, or bill of costs) must be maintained by the filing attorney and made available upon reasonable request of the court, the signatory, or opposing party. (f) Proposed orders shall be submitted to the court in accordance with the provisions of the pilot project. The court and the clerk shall exchange the documents for review and signature pursuant to MCR 2.602(B). (g) By electronically filing the document, the electronic filer affirms compliance with these rules. 5. Time for Service and Filing of Pleadings, Documents, and Motions; Judge's Copies, Hearings on Motions; Fees Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 (a) All times for filing and serving e-filings shall be governed by the applicable statute, the MCR, and the LAO as if the e-filings were hand-delivered. (b) The electronic submission of a motion and brief through this pilot project satisfies the requirements of filing a judge’s copy under MCR 2.119(A)(2). Upon request by the court, the filing party shall promptly provide a traditional judge’s copy to chambers. (c) Applicable fees, including e-filing fees and service fees, shall be paid electronically through procedures established by the clerk at the same time and in the same amount as required by statute, court rule, or administrative order. (i) Each e-filing is subject to the following e-filing fees: Type of Filing Fee EFO (e-filing only) $5.00 EFS (e-filing with service)$8.00 SO (service only) $5.00 (ii) Users who use credit cards for payment are also responsible for a 3% user fee. 6. Service (a) All parties shall provide the court and opposing parties with one e-mail address with the functionality required for the pilot project. All service shall originate from and be perfected upon this e-mail address. (b) Unless otherwise agreed to by the court and the parties, all e-filings must be served electronically to the e-mail addresses of all parties. The subject matter line for the transmittal of document served by e-mail shall state: “Service of e-filing in case [insert caption of case].” (c) The parties and the court may agree that, instead of e-mail service, e-filings may be served to the parties (but not the court) by facsimile or by traditional means. For those choosing to accept facsimile service: (i) the parties shall provide the court and the opposing parties with one facsimile number with appropriate functionality,Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 (ii) the facsimile number shall serve as the number to which service may be made, (iii) the sender of the facsimile should obtain a confirmation of delivery, and (iv) parties shall comply with the requirements of MCR 2.406 on the use of facsimile communication equipment. (d) Proof of service shall be submitted to the 3rd Circuit Court according to MCR 2.107(D) and this administrative order. (e) Service of the complaint or third party complaint must be performed in accordance with the MCR and statutes. 7. Format and Form of E-filing and Service (a) A party may only e-file documents for one case in each transaction. (b) All e-filings shall comply with MCR 1.109 and the technical requirements of the court’s vendor. (c) Any exhibit or attachment that is part of an e-filing must be clearly designated and identified as an exhibit or attachment. (d) All e-filings, subject to subsection 6(c) above, shall be served on the parties in the same format and form as submitted to the court. (e) All documents filed electronically shall be in electronically generated text format (such as native portable digital format (PDF)) so that the text of the submission is searchable and taggable. Any attachments and exhibits that are not available as electronically generated text may be scanned. (f) When a filing includes grouped documents (i.e., a motion and accompanying exhibits or attachments) each such document shall be separately bookmarked by an identifying tab. 8. Pleadings, Motions, and Documents not to be E-filedAdministrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 The following documents shall not be e-filed during the pilot project and must be filed by the traditional methods provided in the MCR and the LAO: (a) documents to be filed under seal (pursuant to court order), and (b) documents for case evaluation proceedings. 9. Official Court Record; Certified Copies (a) For purposes of this pilot project, e-filings are the official court record. An appellate record shall be certified in accordance with MCR 7.210(A)(1). (b) Certified or true copies of e-filed documents shall be issued in the conventional manner by the clerk in compliance with the Michigan Trial Court Case File Management Standards. (c) At the conclusion of the pilot project, if the program does not continue as a pilot project or in some other format, the clerk shall convert all e-filings to paper form in accordance with MCR 8.119(D)(1)(d). Participating attorneys shall provide reasonable assistance in constructing the paper record. (d) At the conclusion of the pilot project, if the program continues as a pilot project or in another format, the clerk shall provide for record retention and public access in a manner consistent with the instructions of the Court and the court rules. 10. Court Notices, Orders, and Judgments At the court’s discretion, the court may issue, file, and serve orders, judgments, and notices as e-filings. Pursuant to a stipulation and order, the parties may agree to accept service from the court via facsimile pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 6(c) above. 11. Technical Malfunctions (a) A party experiencing a technical malfunction with the party’s equipment (such as format or conversion problems or inability to access the pilot sites), another party’s equipment (such as an inoperable e-mail address), or an apparent technical malfunction of the court’s pilot equipment, software, or server shall use reasonable efforts to timely file or receive service by traditional methods and shall provide prompt notice to the court and the parties of any such malfunction.Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 (b) If a technical malfunction has prevented a party from timely filing, responding to, or otherwise perfecting or receiving service of an e-filing, the affected party may petition the 3rd Circuit Court for relief. Such petition shall contain an adequate proof of the technical malfunction and set forth good cause for failure to use nonelectronic means to timely file or serve a document. The court shall liberally consider proof of the technical malfunction and use its discretion in determining whether such relief is warranted. 12. Privacy Considerations (a) With respect to any e-filing, the following requirements for personal information shall apply: (i) Social Security Numbers. Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2006-2, full social security numbers shall not be included in e-filings. If an individual’s social security number must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of that number may be used and the number specified in substantially the following format: XXX-XX-1234. (ii) Names of Minor Children. Unless named as a party, the identity of a minor child shall not be included in e-filings. If a nonparty minor child must be mentioned, only the initials of that child’s name may be used. (iii) Dates of Birth. An individual’s full birth date shall not be included in e-filings. If an individual’s date of birth must be referenced in an e-filing, only the year may be used and the date specified in substantially the following format: XX/XX/1998. (iv) Financial Account Numbers. Full financial account numbers shall not be included in e-filings unless required by statute, court rule, or other authority. If a financial account number must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of these numbers may be used and the number specified in substantially the following format: XXXXX1234. (v) Driver’s License Numbers and State-Issued Personal Identification Card Numbers. A person’s full driver’s license number and state-issued personal identification number shall not be included in e-filings. If an individual’s driver’s license number or state-issued personal identification card number must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of that number should be used and the number specified in substantially the following format: X-XXX-XXX-XX1-234.Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 (vi) Home Addresses. With the exception of a self-represented party, full home addresses shall not be included in e-filings. If an individual’s home address must be referenced in an e-filing, only the city and state shall be used. (b) Parties wishing to file a complete personal data identifier listed above may: (i) Pursuant to and in accordance with the MCR and/or the LAO, file a motion to file a traditional paper version of the document under seal. The court, in granting the motion to file the document under seal, may still require that an e-filing that does not reveal the complete personal data identifier be filed for the public files, or (ii) Pursuant to and in accordance with the applicable MCR and LAO, obtain a court order to file a traditional paper reference list under seal. The reference list shall contain the complete personal data identifiers and the redacted identifiers used in the e-filing. All references in the case to the redacted identifiers included in the reference list shall be construed to refer to the corresponding complete personal data identifiers. The reference list must be filed under seal, and may be amended as of right. (c) Parties should exercise caution when filing papers that contain private or confidential information, including, but not limited to, the information covered above and listed below: (i) Medical records, treatment and diagnosis; (ii) Employment history; (iii) Individual financial information; (iv) Insurance information; (v) Proprietary or trade secret information; (vi) Information regarding an individual’s cooperation with the government; and (vii) Personal information regarding the victim of any criminal activity.Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 13. Records and Reports The 3rd Circuit Court shall file an annual report with the Supreme Court covering the project to date by January 1 of each year (or more frequently or on another date as specified by the Court) that outlines the following: (a) Detailed financial data that show the total amount of money collected in fees for documents filed or served under the pilot project to date, the original projections for collections of fees, and whether the projections have been met or exceeded. (b) Detailed financial information regarding the distribution or retention of collected fees, including the amount paid to Tyler per document and in total for the subject period, the amount retained by the court per document and in total for the period, and whether the monies retained by the court are in a separate account or commingled with other monies. (c) A detailed itemization of all costs attributed to the project to date and a statement of whether and when each cost will recur. (d) A detailed itemization of all cost savings to the court whether by reduced personnel or otherwise and a statement of whether any cost savings to the court are reflected in the fee structure charged to the parties. (e) Information regarding how the filing and service fees were calculated and whether it is anticipated that those fees will be necessary and continued after the conclusion of the pilot program. (f) A statement of projections regarding anticipated e-filing and service-fee collections and expenditures for the upcoming periods. 14. Amendment Procedural aspects of these rules may be amended upon the recommendation of the participating judges, the approval of the chief judge, and authorization by the State Court Administrator. Proposed substantive changes, including, for example, a proposed expansion of the program to permit additional case types and a proposed change in fees, must be submitted to the Supreme Court for approval. 15. ExpirationAdministrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 Unless otherwise directed by the Michigan Supreme Court, this pilot project, requiring parties to electronically file documents in cases assigned to participating judges, shall continue until July 15, 2015. Administrative Order No. 2011-2 [Entered June 30, 2011] Rescission of Administrative Order No. 2002-1 (Dissolution of the Child Support Leadership Council) On order of the Court, Administrative Order No. 2002-1 is rescinded, effective immediately. Administrative Order No. 2011-3 [Entered August 17, 2011] Rescission of Administrative Order No. 2003-7 and Adoption of Administrative Order No. 2011-3 (Caseflow Management Guidelines) On order of the Court, notice of the proposed changes and an opportunity for comment in writing and at a public hearing having been provided, and consideration having been given to the comments received, Administrative Order No. 2003-7 is rescinded and the following administrative order is adopted, effective September 1, 2011. The management of the flow of cases in the trial court is the responsibility of the judiciary. In carrying out that responsibility, the judiciary must balance the rights and interests of individual litigants, the limited resources of the judicial branch and other participants in the justice system, and the interests of the citizens of this state in having an effective, fair, and efficient system of justice. Accordingly, on order of the Court, A. The State Court Administrator is directed, within available resources, to: 1. assist trial courts in implementing caseflow management plans that incorporate case processing time guidelines established pursuant to this order; 2. gather information from trial courts on compliance with caseflow management guidelines; and 3. assess the effectiveness of caseflow management plans in achieving the guidelines established by this order. B. Trial courts are directed to: 1. maintain current caseflow management plans consistent with case processing time guidelines established in this order, and in cooperation with the State Court Administrative Office;Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 2. report to the State Court Administrative Office caseflow management statistics and other caseflow management data required by that office; and 3. cooperate with the State Court Administrative Office in assessing caseflow management plans implemented pursuant to this order. On further order of the Court, the following time guidelines for case processing are provided as goals for the administration of court caseloads. These are only guidelines and are not intended to supersede procedural requirements in court rules or statutes for specific cases, or to supersede reporting requirements in court rules or statutes. The trial courts shall not dismiss cases for the sole reason that the case is likely to exceed the guideline. In addition, these guidelines do not supplant judicial discretion if, for good cause, a specific case of any type requires a time line that extends beyond the maximum permitted under these guidelines. Note: The phrase "adjudicated" refers to the date a case is reported in Part 2 of the caseload report forms and instructions. Aging of a case is suspended for the time a case is inactive as defined in Parts 2 and 4 of the caseload report forms and instructions. Refer to these specific definitions for details. Matters Submitted to the Judge. Matters under submission to a judge or judicial officer should be promptly determined. Short deadlines should be set for presentation of briefs and affidavits and or production of transcripts. Decisions, when possible, should be made from the bench or within a few days of submission; otherwise a decision should be rendered no later than 35 days after submission. Probate Court Guidelines. 1. Estate, Trust, Guardianship, and Conservatorship Proceedings. 75% of all contested matters should be adjudicated within 182 days from the date of the filing of objection and 100% within 364 days. 2. Mental Illness Proceedings; Judicial Admission Proceedings. 90% of all petitions should be adjudicated within 14 days from the date of filing and 100% within 28 days. 3. Civil Proceedings. 75% of all cases should be adjudicated within 364 days from the date of case filing and 100% within 728 days. District Court Guidelines. 1. Civil Proceedings. a. General Civil. 90% of all general civil and miscellaneous civil cases should be adjudicated within 273 days from the date of case filing and 100% within 455 days. b. Summary Civil. 100% of all small claims, landlord/tenant, and land contract actions should be adjudicated within 126 days from the date of case filing except, in those cases where a jury is demanded, actions should be adjudicated within 154 days from the date of case filing. 2. Felony, Misdemeanor, and Extradition Detainer Proceedings.Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 a. Misdemeanor. 90% of all statute and ordinance misdemeanor cases, including misdemeanor drunk driving and misdemeanor traffic, should be adjudicated within 63 days from the date of first appearance and 100% within 126 days. b. Felony and Extradition/Detainer. 80% of all preliminary examinations in felony, felony drunk driving, felony traffic, and extradition/detainer cases should be concluded within 14 days of arraignment and 100% within 28 days. 3. Civil Infraction Proceedings. 90% of all civil infraction cases, including traffic, nontraffic, and parking cases, should be adjudicated within 35 days from the date of filing and 100% within 84 days. Circuit Court Guidelines. 1. Civil Proceedings. 75% of all cases should be adjudicated within 364 days from the date of case filing and 100% within 728 days. 2. Domestic Relations Proceedings. a. Divorce Without Children. 90% of all divorce cases without children should be adjudicated within 182 days from the date of case filing and 100% within 364 days. b. Divorce With Children. 90% of all divorce cases with children should be adjudicated within 301 days from the date of case filing and 100% within 364 days. c. Paternity. 90% of all paternity cases should be adjudicated within 147 days from the date of case filing and 100% within 238 days. d. Responding Interstate Establishment. 90% of all incoming interstate actions to establish support should be adjudicated within 147 days from the date of case filing and 100% within 238 days. e. Child Custody Issues, Other Support, and Other Domestic Relations Matters. 90% of all child custody, other support, and other domestic relations issues not listed above should be adjudicated within 147 days from the date of case filing and 100% within 238 days. 3. Delinquency Proceedings. Where a minor is being detained or is held in court custody, 90% of all original petitions or complaints should have adjudication and disposition completed within 84 days from the authorization of the petition and 100% within 98 days. Where a minor is not being detained or held in court custody, 75% of all original petitions or complaints should have adjudication and disposition completed within 119 days from the authorization of the petition and 100% within 210 days. 4. Child Protective Proceedings. Where a child is in out-of-home placement (foster care), 90% of all original petitions should have adjudication and disposition completed within 84 days from the authorization of the petition and 100% within 98 days. Where a child is not in out-of-home placement (foster care), 75% of all original petitions should have adjudication and disposition within 119 days from the authorization of the petition and 100% within 210 days.Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 5. Designated Proceedings. 90% of all original petitions should be adjudicated within 154 days from the designation date and 100% within 301 days. Minors held in custody should be afforded priority for trial. 6. Juvenile Traffic and Ordinance Proceedings. 90% of all citations should have adjudication and disposition completed within 63 days from the date of first appearance and 100% within 126 days. 7. Adoption Proceedings. a. Petitions for Adoption. 90% of all petitions for adoption should be finalized or otherwise concluded within 287 days from the date of filing and 100% within 364 days. b. Petitions to Rescind Adoption. 100% of all petitions to rescind adoption should be adjudicated within 91 days from the date of filing. 8. Miscellaneous Family Proceedings. a. Name Change. 100% of all petitions should be adjudicated within 126 days from the date of filing. b. Safe Delivery. 100% of all petitions should be adjudicated within 273 days from the date of filing. c. Personal Protection. 100% of all petitions filed ex parte should be adjudicated within 24 hours of filing. 90% of all petitions not filed ex parte should be adjudicated within 14 days from the date of filing and 100% within 21 days. d. Emancipation of Minors. 100% of all petitions should be adjudicated within 91 days from the date of filing. e. Infectious Diseases. 100% of all petitions should be adjudicated within 91 days from the date of filing. f. Parental Waiver. 100% of all petitions should be adjudicated within 5 days from the date of filing. 9. Ancillary Proceedings. a. Guardianship and Conservatorship Proceedings. 75% of all contested matters should be adjudicated within 182 days from the date of filing and 100% within 364 days. b. Mental Illness Proceedings; Judicial Admission. 90% of all petitions should be adjudicated within 14 days from the date of filing and 100% within 28 days. 10. Criminal Proceedings. 90% of all felony cases should be adjudicated within 91 days from the date of entry of the order binding the defendant over to the circuit court; 98% within 154 days; and 100% within 301 days. Incarcerated persons should be afforded priority for trial. With SCAO approval, circuit courts may establish by local administrative order an alternative guideline for criminal proceedings that would provide that 90% of all felony cases should be adjudicated within 154 days from the date of entry of the order binding the defendant over to the circuit court and 100% within 301 days. Incarcerated persons should be afforded priority for trial. Courts requesting the Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 alternative guideline must give the sheriff the opportunity to comment on the proposed order. 11. Appellate, Administrative Review, and Extraordinary Writ Proceedings. a. Appeals from Courts of Limited Jurisdiction. 100% of all appeals to circuit court from courts of limited jurisdiction should be adjudicated within 182 days from the filing of the claim of appeal. b. Appeals from Administrative Agencies. 100% of all appeals to the circuit court from administrative agencies should be adjudicated within 182 days from the filing of the claim of appeal. c. Extraordinary Writs. 98% of all extraordinary writ requests should be adjudicated within 35 days from the date of filing and 100% within 91 days. Administrative Order No. 2011-4 [Entered September 22, 2011] E-filing Pilot Project in the 20 th Circuit Court, the Ottawa County Probate Court, and the 58 th District Court (Ottawa County) On order of the Court, the 20 th Circuit Court, the Ottawa County Probate Court, and the 58 th District Court (hereafter Ottawa County or participating courts) are authorized to implement an Electronic Document Filing Pilot Project. The pilot project is established to study the effectiveness of electronically filing court documents in lieu of traditional paper filings. The pilot project shall begin October 1, 2011, or as soon thereafter as is possible, and shall remain in effect until December 31, 2016, or further order of this Court. The participating courts are aware that rules regarding electronic filing have been published for comment by this Court. If this Court adopts electronic filing rules during the pendency of Ottawa County’s Electronic Document Filing Pilot Project, the participating courts will, within 60 days of the effective date of the rules, comply with the requirements of those rules. The participating courts will track the participation and effectiveness of this pilot program and shall report to and provide relevant information as requested by the State Court Administrative Office. 1. Construction The purpose of the pilot program is to study the effectiveness of electronically filing court documents in connection with the just, speedy, and economical determination of the actions involved in the pilot program. The participating courts may exercise discretion to grant necessary relief to avoid the consequences of error so as not to affect the substantial rights of the parties. Except for matters related to electronically filing documents during the pilot program, the Michigan Rules of Court govern all other aspects of the cases involved in the pilot project. 2. DefinitionsAdministrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 a. “Clerk” means the Ottawa County Clerk and clerks of the participating courts. b. “E-Filing” means any court pleading, motion, brief, response, list, order, judgment, notice, or other document filed electronically pursuant to the pilot program. c. “LAO” means all local administrative orders governing the participating courts. d. “MCR” means the Michigan Court Rules. e. “Pilot program” means the e-filing initiative of the participating courts, the County Clerk, and the Ottawa County Information Technology Department in conjunction with ImageSoft, Inc., and under the supervision of the State Court Administrative Office. This e-filing application facilitates the electronic filing of pleadings, motions, briefs, responses, lists, orders, judgments, notices, and other documents. The 20 th Circuit pilot program will begin testing with civil case types ND, NF, NH, NI, NM, NO, NP, NS, NZ, CB, CC, CD, CE, CF, CH, CK, CL, CP, CR, CZ, PC, PD, PR, PS, PZ and domestic relations case types DC, DM, DO, DP, DS, DZ, UD, UE, UF, UI, UM, UN, UT, UW; the Ottawa County Probate Court will begin testing with civil case type CZ; and the 58 th District Court will begin testing with general civil case type GC. f. “Technical malfunction” means any hardware, software, or other malfunction that prevents a user from timely filing a complete e-filing or sending or receiving service of an e-filing. g. “Web-based portal” means a website provided by ImageSoft where electronic filings may be submitted and delivered to the participating courts’ OnBase workflow. 3. Participation in the Pilot Program a. Participation in Ottawa County’s pilot program is elective for all case types identified in Section 2.e., above. Participation may be initiated with new case filings or existing case files. At the discretion of the judge, participation may also include postdisposition proceedings in qualifying case types. b. This is a voluntary e-filing project; however, once a case is designated as part of the e-filing project, it is presumed that all further documents will be filed electronically. Ottawa County recognizes that circumstances may arise preventing one from e-filing. To ensure all parties retain access to the participating courts, parties that demonstrate good cause will be permitted to file documents with the clerk, who will then file the documents electronically. Among the factors the participating courts will consider in determining whether good cause exists to excuse a party from e-filing is a party’s access to the Internet. 4. E-filings Submission, Acceptance and Time of Service with the Court; Signature a. In an effort to facilitate uniform service within the scope of this project, the participating courts strongly recommend electronic service.Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 b. Program participants must submit e-filings pursuant to these rules and the pilot program’s technical requirements. The clerk may, in accordance with MCR 8.119(C) reject documents submitted for filing that do not comply with MCR 2.113(C)(1), are not accompanied by the proper fees, clearly violate Administrative Order No. 2006-2 (Privacy Policy), do not conform to the requirements of this pilot project, or are otherwise submitted in violation of a statute, MCR, LAO, or program rules. c. E-filings may be submitted to the participating courts at any time, but shall only be reviewed and accepted for filing by the clerk’s office during the normal business hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. E-filings submitted after business hours shall be deemed filed on the business day the e-filing is accepted (usually the next business day). The clerk shall process electronic submissions on a first-in, first-out basis. d. E-filings shall be treated as if they were hand-delivered to the participating courts for all purposes under statute, MCR, and LAO. e. A pleading, document, or instrument e-filed or electronically served under this order shall be deemed to have been signed by the judge, court clerk, attorney, party, or declarant. i. Signatures submitted electronically shall use the following form: /s/ John L. Smith. ii. A document that requires a signature under the penalty of perjury is deemed signed by the declarant if, before filing, the declarant has signed a printed form of the document. iii. An e-filed document that requires a signature of a notary public is deemed signed by the notary public if, before filing, the notary public has signed a printed form of the document. f. The original of a sworn or verified document that is an e-filing (e.g., a verified pleading) or part of an e-filing (e.g., an affidavit, notarization, or bill of costs) must be maintained by the filing attorney and made available upon reasonable request of the participating courts, the signatory, or opposing party. g. Proposed orders shall be submitted to the participating courts in accordance with the provisions of the pilot program. The participating courts and the clerk shall exchange the documents for review and signature pursuant to MCR 2.602(B). h. By electronically filing the document, the electronic filer affirms compliance with these rules. 5. Time for Service and Filing of Pleadings, Documents, and Motions; Judge’s Copies, Hearings on Motions; Fees a. All times for filing and serving e-filings shall be governed by the applicable statute, MCR, and LAO as if the e-filings were hand-delivered. b. The electronic submission of a motion and brief through this pilot program satisfies the requirements of filing a judge’s copy under MCR 2.119(A)(2). Upon Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 request by the participating courts, the filing party shall promptly provide a traditional judge’s copy to chambers. c. Applicable fees, including e-filing fees and service fees, shall be paid electronically through procedures established by the clerk’s office at the same time and in the same amount as required by statute, MCR, or LAO. i. Each e-filing is subject to the following e-filing fees: 1. EFO (e-filing only) $4.00 2. EFS (e-filing with service)$7.00 3. SO (service only) $4.00 d. Users who use credit cards for payment are also responsible for a 3% user fee to reimburse the participating courts for credit card transaction costs. 6. Service a. All parties shall provide the participating courts and opposing parties with one e-mail address with the functionality required for the pilot program. All service shall originate from and be perfected upon this e-mail address. b. Alternatively, all parties shall register their e-mail addresses within the webbased portal and all documents filed within the web-based portal relating to the case will be served to the registered e-mail address. c. Unless otherwise agreed to by the participating courts and the parties, all efilings must be served electronically to the e-mail addresses of all parties. The subject matter line for the transmittal of the document served by e-mail shall state: “Service of e-filing in case [insert caption of case].” d. The parties and the participating courts may agree that, instead of e-mail service, e-filings may be served to the parties (but not the participating courts) by facsimile or by traditional means. For those choosing to accept facsimile service: i. the parties shall provide the participating courts and the opposing parties with one facsimile number with appropriate functionality, ii. the facsimile number shall serve as the number to which service may be made, iii. the sender of the facsimile should obtain a confirmation delivery, and iv. parties shall comply with the requirements of MCR 2.406 on the use of facsimile communication equipment. e. Proof of service shall be submitted to the participating courts according to MCR 2.107(D) and this order. 7. Format and Form of E-filing Service a. A party may only e-file documents for one case in each transaction.Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 b. All e-filings shall comply with MCR 1.109 and the technical requirements of the participating courts’ vendor. c. Any exhibit or attachment that is part of an e-filing must be clearly designated and identified as an exhibit or attachment. d. All e-filings, subject to subsection 6(d) above, shall be served on the parties in the same format and form as submitted to the participating courts. 8. Pleadings, Motions, and Documents not to be E-filed The following documents shall not be e-filed during the pilot program and must be filed by the traditional methods provided in the MCR and the LAO: a. documents to be filed under seal (pursuant to court order) and b. documents for case evaluation proceedings. 9. Official Court Record; Certified Copies a. For purposes of this pilot program, e-filings are the official court record. An appellate record shall be certified in accordance with MCR 7.210(A)(1). b. Certified copies or true copies of e-filed documents shall be issued in the conventional manner by the clerk’s office in compliance with the Michigan Trial Court Case File Management Standards. c. At the conclusion of the pilot program, if the program does not continue as a pilot project or in some other format, the clerk shall convert all e-filings to paper format in accordance with MCR 8.119(D)(1)(d). Participating attorneys shall provide reasonable assistance in constructing the paper record. d. At the conclusion of the pilot program, if the program continues as a pilot project or in another format, the clerk shall provide for record retention and public access in a manner consistent with the instructions of the participating courts and the MCR. 10. Court Notices, Orders, and Judgments At the participating court’s discretion, the participating court may issue, file, and serve orders, judgments, and notices as e-filings. Pursuant to a stipulation and order, the parties may agree to accept service from the participating courts via facsimile pursuant to the procedures set forth in Rule 6(d) of this order. 11. Technical Malfunction a. A party experiencing a technical malfunction with the party’s equipment (such as a Portable Document Format [PDF] conversion problems or inability to access the pilot sites), another party’s equipment (such an inoperable e-mail address), or an apparent technical malfunction of the participating court’s pilot equipment, Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 software, or server shall use reasonable efforts to timely file or receive service by traditional methods and shall provide prompt notice to the participating courts and the parties of any such malfunction. b. If a technical malfunction has prevented a party from timely filing, responding to, or otherwise perfecting or receiving service of an e-filing, the affected party may petition the participating courts for relief. Such petition shall contain adequate proof of the technical malfunction and set forth good cause for failure to use nonelectronic means to timely file or serve a document. The participating courts shall liberally consider proof of the technical malfunction and use discretion in determining whether such relief is warranted. 12. Privacy Considerations a. With respect to any e-filing, the following requirements for personal information shall apply: i. Social Security Numbers. Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2006-2, full social security numbers shall not be included in e-filings. If an individual’s social security number must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of that number may be used and the number specified in substantially the following format: XXX-XX-1234. ii. Names of Minor Children. Unless named as a party, the identity of minor children shall not be included in e-filings. If a non-party minor child must be mentioned, only the initials of the child’s name may be used. iii. Dates of Birth. An individual’s full birthdate shall not be included in efilings. If an individual’s date of birth must be referenced in an e-filing, only the year may be used and the date specified in substantially the following format: XX/XX/1998. iv. Financial Account Numbers. Full financial account numbers shall not be included in e-filings unless required by statute, MCR, or other authority. If a financial account number must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of the number may be used and the number specified in substantially the following format: XXXXX1234. v. Driver’s License Numbers and State-Issued Personal Identification Card Numbers. A person’s full driver’s license number and state-issued personal identification number shall not be included in e-filings. If an individual’s driver’s license number or state-issued personal identification card number must be reference in e-filing, only the last four digits of that number should be used and the number specified in substantially the following format X-XXX-XXX-XX1-234. vi. Home Addresses. With the exception of a self-represented party, full home addresses shall not be included in e-filings. If an individual’s home address must be referenced in an e-filing, only the city and state shall be used. b. Parties wishing to file a complete personal data identifier listed above may: i. Pursuant to and in accordance with the MCR and the LAO, file a motion to file a traditional paper version of the document under seal. The participating Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 courts, in granting the motion to file the document under seal, may still require that an e-filing that does not reveal the complete personal data identifier be filed for the public files, or ii. Pursuant to and in accordance with the applicable MCR and LAO, obtain a court order to file a traditional paper reference list under seal. The reference list shall contain the complete personal data identifiers and the redacted identifiers included in the reference list shall be construed to refer to the corresponding complete personal data identifiers. The reference list must be filed under seal, and may be amended as of right. c. Parties should exercise caution when filing papers that contain private or confidential information, including, but not limited to, the information covered above and listed below: i. Medical records, treatment and diagnosis; ii. Employment history; iii. Individual financial information; iv. Insurance information; v. Proprietary or trade secret information; vi. Information regarding an individual’s cooperation with the government; and vii. Personal information regarding the victim of any criminal activity. 13. Records and Reports Further, the participating courts will file a joint annual report covering the annual project progress by January 1 of each year (or more frequently or on another date as specified by the Court), that outlines the following: a. Detailed financial data that show the total amount of money collected in fees for documents filed or served under the pilot project to date, the original projections for collections of fees, and whether the projections have been met. b. Detailed financial information regarding the distribution or retention of collected fees, including the amount paid to each vendor per document and in total for the subject period and the amount retained by the participating courts or funding unit per document and in total for the period. c. Detailed information regarding whether the monies retained by the participating courts are in a separate account or commingled with other monies.Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 d. A detailed itemization of all costs attributed to the project to date and a statement of whether and when each cost will recur. e. A detailed itemization of all cost savings to the participating courts whether by reduced personnel or otherwise and a statement of whether any cost savings to the participating courts are reflected in the fee structure charged to the parties. f. Information regarding how the filing and service fees were calculated and whether it is anticipated that those fees will be necessary and continued after the conclusion of the pilot program. g. A statement of projections regarding anticipated e-filing and service-fee collections and expenditures for the upcoming periods. 14. Amendments Procedural aspects of these rules may be amended upon the recommendation of the participating judges, the approval of the chief judge, and authorization by the State Court Administrator. Proposed substantive changes, including, for example, a proposed expansion of the program to permit additional case types and a proposed change in fees, must be submitted to the Supreme Court for approval. 15. Expiration Unless otherwise directed by the Michigan Supreme Court, this pilot program, allowing parties to electronically file documents in cases assigned to participating judges, shall continue until December 31, 2016. Administrative Order 2011-6 [Entered October 20, 2011] E-Filing Project in Oakland Probate Court On order of the Court, the Oakland County Probate Court is authorized to implement an Electronic Document Filing Pilot Project. The pilot project is established to study the effectiveness of electronically filing court documents in lieu of traditional paper filings in certain instances. The pilot project shall begin September 1, 2011, or as soon thereafter as is possible, and shall remain in effect until July 31, 2013, or further order of this Court. The Oakland County Probate Court is aware that rules regarding electronic filing have been published for comment by this Court. If this Court adopts electronic-filing rules during the pendency of the Oakland County Probate Court Electronic Document Filing Pilot Project, the Oakland County Probate Court will, within 60 days of the effective date of the rules, comply with the requirements of those rules.Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 The Oakland County Probate Court will track the participation and effectiveness of this pilot program and shall report to and provide information as requested by the State Court Administrative Office. 1. Construction The purpose of the pilot program is to study the effectiveness of electronically filing court documents in connection with the just, speedy, and economical determination of the actions involved in the pilot program. The Oakland County Probate Court may exercise its discretion to grant necessary relief to avoid the consequences of error so as not to affect the substantial rights of the parties. Except for matters related to electronically filing documents during the pilot program, the Michigan Rules of Court govern all other aspects of the cases involved in the pilot. 2. Definitions (a) “Register” means the Oakland County Probate Register. (b) “E-filing” means any court pleading, motion, brief, response, list, order, judgment, notice, claims, inventories, accounts, reports, or other documents filed electronically pursuant to the pilot program. (c) “LAO” means all local administrative orders governing the Oakland County Probate Court. (d) “MCR” means the Michigan Rules of Court. (e) “Pilot program” means the initiative by the Oakland County Probate Court in conjunction with the Oakland County Department of Information Technology, and in part with Tyler, Inc. (Wiznet), and under the supervision of the State Court Administrative Office. This efiling application facilitates the electronic filing of pleadings, motions, briefs, responses, lists, orders, judgments, notices, claims, inventories, accounts, reports, and other documents. The Oakland County pilot program will begin testing with one probate judge with “DE”, “DA,” “TV,” and “CZ” case types. The court plans to expand the pilot program to all probate judges as soon as practicable. (f) “Technical malfunction” means any hardware, software, or other malfunction that prevents a user from timely filing a complete e-filing or sending or receiving service of an e-filing. (g) “Wiznet envelope” means an electronic submission that contains one or more Wiznet transactions. (h) “Wiznet transaction” means the submission of one or more related documents which results in a single register of actions entry. 3. Participation in the Pilot Program (a) Participation in the pilot program shall be mandatory in all newly filed DE, DA, TV or CZ case types assigned to the participating probate judges. Participation shall begin following the filing of the initial petition, complaint or other initiating document, and assignment of the case to a participating judge pursuant to the court’s LAO. At the Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 discretion of the judge, participation may also include post-disposition proceedings in qualifying case types assigned to participating judges. (b) This is a mandatory e-filing project. It is presumed that all documents will be filed electronically. However, the Court recognizes that circumstances may arise that will prevent a party from e-filing. To ensure that all parties retain access to the Courts, parties that demonstrate good cause will be permitted to file their documents with the register’s office, who will then file the documents electronically. Among the factors that the Oakland County Probate Court will consider in determining whether good cause exists to excuse a party from mandatory e-filing are a party’s access to the Internet and indigency. A self-represented party is not excused from the project merely because the individual does not have counsel. 4. E-filings Submission, Acceptance, and Time of Service with the Court; Signature (a) Program participants must submit e-filings pursuant to these rules and the pilot program’s technical requirements. The register may, in accordance with MCR 8.119(C), reject documents submitted for filing that do not comply with MCR 5.113 or MCR 2.113(C)(2), are not accompanied by the proper fees, clearly violate Administrative Order No. 2006-2, do not conform to the technical requirements of this pilot project, or are otherwise submitted in violation of a statute, an MCR, an LAO, or the program rules. (b) E-filings may be submitted to the court at any time, but shall only be reviewed and accepted for filing by the Oakland County Probate Court during the normal business hours of the register’s office. E-filings submitted after business hours shall be deemed filed on the business day the e-filing is accepted for filing. The register’s office shall process electronic submissions on a first-in, first-out basis. (c) E-filings shall be treated as if they were hand delivered to the court for all purposes under statute, court rule, and administrative order. (d) A pleading, document, or instrument e-filed or electronically served under this rule shall be deemed to have been signed by the judge, register, attorney, party, or declarant. (i)Signatures submitted electronically shall be scanned copies of the actual signed document, or shall use the following form for the signature: /s/John L. Smith. (ii) A document that requires a signature under the penalty of perjury, or is required to be signed by the fiduciary or trustee under MCR 5.114(A)(3), is deemed signed by the declarant or fiduciary if, before filing, the declarant or fiduciary has signed a printed form of the document. (iii) An e-filed document that requires a signature of a notary public is deemed signed by the notary public if, before filing, the notary public has signed a printed form of the document.Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 (e) The original of a sworn or verified document that is an e-filing (e.g., a verified pleading) or part of an e-filing (e.g. an affidavit, notarization, or bill of costs) must be maintained by the filing attorney or selfrepresented litigant and made available upon reasonable request of the court, the signatory, or opposing party. (f) Proposed orders shall be submitted to the court in accordance with the provisions of the pilot program. The court and the register shall exchange the documents for review and signature pursuant to MCR 2.602(B). (g) By electronically filing the document, the electronic filer indicates compliance with these rules. 5. Time for Service and Filing of Pleadings, Documents, and Motions; Judge’s Copies; Hearings on Motions; Fees (a) All times for filing and serving filings shall be governed by the applicable statute, the MCR and the LAO as if the e-filings were hand delivered. (b) The electronic submission of a motion and brief through this pilot program satisfies the requirements of filing a judge’s copy where applicable under the MCR. Upon request by the court, the filing party shall promptly provide a traditional judge’s copy to chambers. (c) Applicable fees, including e-filing fees and service fees, shall be paid electronically through procedures established by the Oakland County Probate Court at the same time and in the same amount as required by statute, court rule, or administrative order. Inventory fees shall be paid according to procedures established by the court. (i) Each e-filing is subject to the following e-filing fees: Type of Filing Fee EFO (e-filing) $5.00 EFS (e-filing with service) $8.00 SO (service only) $5.00 (ii) Users who use credit cards for payment are also responsible for a 3% user fee. 6. Service (a) All parties shall register as a service contact with the Tyler (Wiznet) application which will provide the court and opposing parties with one e-mail address with the functionality required for the pilot program. All service shall originate from and be perfected upon this e-mail address. (b) Unless otherwise agreed to by the court and the parties, all e-filings must be served electronically to the e-mail address of all interested Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 parties. The subject matter line for the transmittal of document served by e-mail shall state: “Service of e-filing in case [insert caption of case].” (c) The parties and the court may agree that, instead of e-mail service, efilings may be served to the parties (but not the court) by other appropriate means under the MCR. For those choosing to accept facsimile service: (i) the parties shall provide the court and the opposing parties with one facsimile number with appropriate functionality, (ii) the facsimile number shall serve as the number to which service may be made, (iii) the sender of the facsimile should obtain a confirmation of delivery, and (iv) parties shall comply with the requirements of the MCR on the use of facsimile communication equipment. (d) The court reserves the right to serve parties by traditional means, including facsimile, when necessary to ensure appropriate service of notices, opinions and orders, and other official court documents. (e) Proof of Service shall be submitted to the Oakland County Probate Court according to the MCR and these rules. 7. Format and Form of E-filing and Service (a) A party may only e-file documents for one case in each transaction. (b) All e-filings shall comply with MCR 1.109 and the technical requirements of the court’s vendor. (c) Any exhibit or attachment that is part of an e-filing must be clearly designated and identified as an exhibit or attachment. (d) All e-filings, subject to subsection 6(c) above, shall be served on the parties in the same format and form as submitted to the court. 8. Pleadings, Motions, and Documents Not to Be E-Filed The following documents shall not be e-filed during the pilot program and must be filed by the traditional methods provided in the MCR and the LAO: (a) documents to be filed under seal (pursuant to court order), (b) initiating documents, (c) original documents which are required by statute to be filed with the court, such as wills submitted for probate. In such case, the document shall be e-filed using a copy of the document and the original shall be delivered to the court for filing within 14 days of the e-filing date, (d) inventories that are being presented pursuant to MCL 700.3706, (e) documents for case evaluation proceedings.Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 9. Official Court Record; Certified Copies (a) For purposes of this pilot program, the electronic version of all documents filed with the Court, with the exception of documents filed under seal, is the official court record. An appellate record for the Court of Appeals shall be certified in accordance with MCR 7.210(A)(1). (b) Certified copies of e-filed documents shall be issued in the conventional manner by the Oakland County Probate Register in compliance with the Michigan Trial Court Case File Management Standards. (c) At the conclusion of the pilot program, if the program does not continue as a pilot project or in some other format, the register shall convert all e-filings to paper form in accordance with MCR 8.119(D)(1)(d). Participating attorneys shall provide reasonable assistance in constructing the paper record. (d) At the conclusion of the pilot program, if the program continues as a pilot project or in another format, the register shall provide for record retention and public access in a manner consistent with the instructions of the court and the court rules. 10. Court Notices, Orders, and Judgments At the court’s discretion, the court and register may issue, file and serve orders, judgments, and notices as e-filings. 11. Technical Malfunctions (a) A party experiencing a technical malfunction with the party’s equipment (such as Portable Document Format [PDF] conversion problems or inability to access the pilot sites), another party’s equipment (such as an inoperable e-mail address), or an apparent technical malfunction of the court’s pilot equipment, software, or server shall use reasonable efforts to timely file or receive service by traditional methods and shall provide prompt notice to the court and the parties of any such malfunction. (b) If a technical malfunction has prevented a party from timely filing, responding to, or otherwise perfecting or receiving service of an efiling, the affected party may petition the Oakland County Probate Court for relief. Such petition shall contain an adequate proof of the technical malfunction and set forth good cause for failure to use nonelectronic means to timely file or serve a document. The court shall liberally consider proof of the technical malfunction and use its discretion in determining whether such relief is warranted. 12. Privacy Considerations (a) Social Security Numbers. Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2006-2, full social security numbers shall not be included in e-filings. If an individual’s social security number must be referenced in an e-filing, only the last four digits of that Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 number may be used and the number specified in substantially the following format: XXX-XX-1234. (b) Parties should exercise caution when filing papers that contain private or confidential information, including, but not limited to, the information covered above and listed below: 1. Medical records, treatment and diagnosis; 2. Employment history; 3. Individual financial information; 4. Insurance information; 5. Proprietary or trade secret information; 6. Information regarding an individual’s cooperation with the government; and 7. Personal information regarding the victim of any criminal activity. 13. The Oakland Probate Court shall file an annual report with the Supreme Court covering the project to date by January 1 of each year (or more frequently or on another date as specified by the Court) that outlines the following: (a) Detailed financial data that show the total amount of money collected in fees for documents filed or served under the pilot project to date, the original projections for collections of fees, and whether the projections have been met or exceeded. (b) Detailed financial information regarding the distribution or retention of collected fees, including the amount paid to Tyler per document and in total for the subject period, the amount retained by the court per document and in total for the period, and whether the monies retained by the court are in a separate account or commingled with other monies. (c) A detailed itemization of all costs attributed to the project to date and a statement of whether and when each cost will recur. (d) A detailed itemization of all cost savings to the court whether by reduced personnel or otherwise and a statement of whether any cost savings to the court are reflected in the fee structure charged to the parties. (e) Information regarding how the filing and service fees were calculated and whether it is anticipated that those fees will be necessary and continued after the conclusion of the pilot program. (f) A statement of projections regarding anticipated e-filing and service-fee collections and expenditures for the upcoming periods. 14. Amendment Procedural aspects of these rules may be amended upon the recommendation of the participating judges, the approval of the chief judge, and authorization by the State Court Administrator. Proposed substantive changes, including, for example, a proposed expansion of the program to permit additional case types and a proposed change in fees, must be submitted to the Supreme Court for approval.Administrative Orders Last Updated 10/28/2011 15. Expiration Unless otherwise directed by the Michigan Supreme Court, this pilot program, requiring parties to electronically file documents in cases assigned to participating judges, shall continue until July 31, 2013 |
State of Michigan Constitutions, Laws, Statutes, Codes, Rules > Michigan Administrative Orders >