Vt. R. Elec. Filing. 3
Vt. R. Elec. Filing. 3
Reporter's Notes-2023 Amendment
Paragraph 3(c) is amended to add statutes as among those sources of law that could require filing a document nonelectronically.
Reporter's Notes-2020
Rule 3 provides the specific rules governing when electronic filing is required and permitted and when nonelectronic filing is required. Subdivision (a) states the general policy that on or after the effective date of efiling, everyone must efile unless a specific authorization or requirement applies and specifies otherwise.
Subdivision (b) recognizes only two categories of filers as exempt from the general policy. The first, in Rule 3(b)(1), is a self-represented litigant, who has not registered to efile or has chosen not to efile in a specific case. Persons who do not fit within this category-for example, a nonlawyer who is authorized by the court to represent a nonprofit corporation because of the lack of money to hire a lawyer-must efile unless excused by court order under another part of subdivision (b).
Also not fitting within the exemption are persons who have specified functions in court proceedings by law or court rules. These include masters, receivers, parent coordinators, and neutrals required to file a report. These are not self-represented litigants and thus must efile under Rule 3(a).
Rule 3(b)(2) provides that guardians ad litem are exempt from efiling when filing pursuant to the duties of their position. See, e.g., V.R.C.P. 17(b); V.R.F.P. 6.1(e). As with self-represented litigants, guardians ad litem may choose not to register to efile at all or may chose not to efile in a particular case.
The remaining parts of subdivision (b) provide authorizations not to efile for particular cases or documents where the circumstances are such that the general policy should not apply. A motion to allow nonelectronic filing under (b)(3) and (4) can be made nonelectronically. The court may decide there is good cause not to require efiling of all or part of the documents being filed for good cause-for example, for nonlawyers representing a business. Although the rule indicates that nonelectronic filing may be permitted by the court to protect confidentiality, efilers can file confidential documents using the efiling system. The court may decide that in a case where a lawyer has a disability that "exceptional circumstances make electronic filing not feasible." Rule 3(b)(4).
Paragraphs (b)(5) and (6) provide two categorical exceptions based on the circumstances of the filing or case: nonelectronic filing is authorized by another rule in these rules, Rule 3(b)(5); and where electronic filing through scanning of an item is not reasonably possible because of the size, shape or condition of the item, Rule 3(b)(6). An example of the latter might be a CD containing a video of a shooting or an audio capture of testimony.
Finally, Rule 3(b)(7) allows a filer to nonelectronically file if the electronic filing system is unavailable when the filer seeks to use it despite reasonable efforts to make an electronic filing or in case of a preannounced outage. This exception does not require specific court approval, but the filer should explain the circumstances that caused unavailability. Note that Rule 5(c)(3) authorizes the court to extend a filing deadline in the case of system unavailability but only if the filer cannot with reasonable efforts file nonelectronically under Rule 3(b)(7).
Subdivision (c) specifies the circumstances where nonelectronic filing is required. These are where nonelectronic filing is expressly required by rule or where the court finds that the filer has abused the electronic filing system.
Subdivision (d) further explains the exemption for self-represented litigants. A self-represented litigant may register to efile but choose not to efile in a particular case. If a self-represented litigant commences efiling in a case, that litigant must continue to efile in that case unless relieved of that responsibility by the court.
The electronic filing system contains a component called guide and file which allows a self-represented litigant to prepare a document for filing by responding to a guided interview. See Rule 2(h) (definition of "Guide and File"). The system then puts the filer responses into the proper form for filing. The filer can electronically or nonelectronically file the document. Rule 3(d)(3) provides that efiling such a document without more does not create an obligation to efile thereafter in the case.
Reporter's Notes-2020 Amendments
Rule 3(b)(1) is amended to clarify that government agencies, which are required to submit reports and other case documents such as Department of Corrections (presentence investigation reports) and Department for Children and Families (disposition reports) and law enforcement entities must efile and are not excepted from efiling as self-represented litigants. The concluding phrase of paragraph 3(b)(1) is modified slightly to clarify that the provisions of subdivision 3(d) are applicable to responsibilities and rights of self-represented litigants who elect to efile in a specific case.
New paragraph 3(b)(4) is added to clarify that nonelectronic filing may be permitted by the court for documents such as a handwritten or edited stipulations, agreements, or other case documents that are created or finalized by parties and/or counsel who are present at court premises for related proceedings, including proceedings such as scheduled case-manager conferences. Such nonelectronic filings (which are then scanned into the electronic case record per V.R.E.F. 12) often provide the basis for court orders in final resolution of a case, or a significant issue therein, and immediate filing of the "paper" document is highly advisable to render the case outcome operative without delay. This amendment specifically authorizes such filings, subject to court approval, as in effect a variant of the "good cause" exception of the existing paragraph (b)(4). Existing paragraphs (4)-(7) are renumbered as (5)-(8).
Reporter's Notes-2021 Amendment
This amendment is made in connection with the introduction of efiling in the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Supreme Court is added to Rule 3(a).
As in the superior courts, a self-represented litigant has the option to efile in the Supreme Court but is not required to do so. Under paragraph (d)(3), if the self-represented litigant is appealing from a superior court case where the self-represented litigant is efiling, it is presumed that the self-represented litigant will continue to efile in the Supreme Court. The self-represented litigant who is presumed to continue efiling in the Supreme Court or has elected to efile in the Supreme Court may discontinue efiling by giving notice to the Court and serving that notice on all other parties. In contrast to the procedure prescribed for self-represented efilers to discontinue efiling in superior court proceedings under paragraph (d)(2) of these rules (requiring a court order of discontinuance issued for good cause shown), an order of the Supreme Court is not required for a self-represented litigant to discontinue efiling. Because the litigant is under an obligation to efile when the notice is given, the notice itself must be efiled.