Case Title: In Re: Amendments To Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.430

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC06-2040

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2008-01-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC06-2040 
____________ 
 
 
 
 
IN RE:  AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF JUDICIAL 
ADMINISTRATION 2.430. 
 
[January 17, 2008] 
 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
We have for consideration the Report and Recommendations of the Judicial 
Branch Records Management Workgroup (Workgroup).1  We approve the 
recommendations that will allow for the creation of a comprehensive judicial 
branch records management and retention program, which will be overseen by the 
newly established Judicial Branch Records Management Committee.  We also 
approve the majority of the Workgroup’s proposed amendments to Florida Rule of 
Judicial Administration 2.430, Retention of Court Records, but decline to remove 
the retention schedule for court records from the rule.   
 
                                          
 
 
1.  We have jurisdiction.  Art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. 
BACKGROUND 
 
In 1981, prior to the 1992 adoption of article 1, section 24(c), of the Florida 
Constitution, which addresses the maintenance and destruction of public records, 
the Court adopted Rule of Judicial Administration 2.075 (now rule 2.430), which 
governs the retention of court records and sets forth the retention schedule for court 
records.  See In re Florida Rules of Civil Procedure & Florida Rules of Jud. 
Admin.––Court Documents Disposal, 403 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1981).  In 2002, the 
Court adopted amendments to the Rules of Judicial Administration concerning 
judicial branch public records recommended by the Supreme Court Workgroup on 
Public Records.  In re Report of Supreme Court Workgroup on Public Records, 
825 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 2002).  At that time, as relevant here, the Court amended then 
rule 2.0752 and adopted rule 2.076 (now rule 2.440), Retention of Judicial Branch 
Administrative Records, and the Judicial Branch Records Retention Schedule for 
Administrative Records.  Unlike the retention schedule for court records currently 
set forth in rule 2.430, the retention schedule for administrative records is not a 
part of rule 2.440, although the schedule is referenced in subdivision (b), Retention 
Requirements, of the rule and is discussed in the rule commentary.  Rather, the 
retention schedule for administrative records was adopted as a freestanding 
                                          
 
 
2.  Minor amendments were also made to rule 2.075 in Amendments to the 
Rules of Jud. Admin.––Rule 2.090––Electronic Transmission & Filing of 
Documents, 681 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 1996). 
 
 
- 2 -
schedule that is currently included as an appendix to the Rules of Judicial 
Administration in Florida Rules of Court–State 236-53 (Thomson/West 2007).  
 
Administrative Order No. AOSC04-1, issued January 6, 2004, established 
the Judicial Branch Records Management Workgroup (Workgroup) to, among 
other things,3 assist the Court in implementing the new rule provisions and 
retention schedule.  See In re Judicial Branch Records Management Workgroup, 
                                          
 
 
3.  The Workgroup was specifically charged with the following duties:  
  
(1) Address and resolve questions from trial and appellate clerks of 
court and other court personnel concerning retention and destruction 
of judicial branch records.  
(2)  Develop procedures for adding record categories to the retention 
schedule and notifying trial and appellate clerks of court and other 
court personnel about changes to the retention schedule.  
(3) Create a protocol, including training of trial and appellate clerk of 
court and court personnel, to ensure that record categories are 
interpreted consistently and uniformly in all state courts.  
(4) Define responsibilities of the judicial branch records management 
liaison officer within the Office of the State Courts Administrator, and 
the responsibilities of records management liaison officers within the 
trial and appellate courts.  
(5) Recommend rule changes needed to implement retention schedule 
requirements. 
(6) Advise the chief justice and Supreme Court, the Office of the State 
Courts Administrator, and state trial and appellate courts about 
records management, retention, and destruction issues.  
In re Judicial Branch Records Management Workgroup, Fla. Admin. Order No. 
AOSC04-1 at 2.-3 (Jan. 6, 2004) (on file with Clerk, Fla. Sup. Ct.). 
 
 
- 3 -
Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC04-1 at 1-2 (Jan. 6, 2004) (on file with Clerk, Fla. 
Sup. Ct.).  The Workgroup met five times and submitted its report and 
recommendations to the Court in October 2006.  The Workgroup’s proposed 
amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration were published for 
comment in The Florida Bar News.  Several comments were received by the 
Court.4  Oral argument on the proposed amendments was held on May 8, 2007. 
NEW JUDICIAL BRANCH RECORDS MANAGEMENT AND 
RETENTION PROGRAM  
 
 
This Court has consistently recognized and exercised its exclusive authority 
over judicial branch records.  See, e.g., In re Amendments to Fla. Rule Jud. Admin. 
2.420––Sealing of Court Records & Dockets, 954 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 2007) (adopting 
emergency procedures governing sealing of court records to ensure public’s right 
of access to court records); In re Report of Supreme Court Workgroup on Public 
Records, 825 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 2002) (amending various rules governing court 
records and adopting rules governing administrative records); Amendments to the 
Rules of Jud. Admin.––Rule 2.090–Electronic Transmission & Filing of 
Documents, 681 So. 2d 698, 699 (Fla. 1996) (“As the head of the judicial branch, 
                                          
 
 
4.  Suggested amendments to rule 2.430 resubmitted by the Florida 
Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers were previously referred to the 
Rules of Judicial Administration Committee for consideration.  See In re 
Amendments to Fla. Rule of Jud. Admin. 2.420––Sealing of Court Records & 
Dockets, 954 So. 2d at 18, 19 n. 4 (Fla. 2007).   
 
 
- 4 -
this Court has the exclusive responsibility for determining how records in the court 
system are filed and maintained.”); Times Publ’g Co. v. Ake, 660 So. 2d 255, 257 
(Fla. 1995) (recognizing Court’s exclusive authority to oversee access to judicial 
records); In re Amendments to Rule of Jud. Admin. 2.051––Public Access to 
Judicial Records, 651 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 1995) (clarifying rules on public access to 
judicial branch records); In re Florida Rules of Civil Pro. & Florida Rules of Jud. 
Admin.––Court Documents Disposal, 403 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1981) (adopting 
retention of court records rule to relieve the document storage burden on court 
system while maintaining integrity of court records).  In furtherance of this Court’s 
longstanding goal to make the judicial branch fully responsible for the maintenance 
of its own records,5 the Workgroup proposes, and we approve, the creation of a 
formal judicial branch records management and retention program. 
 
According to the report, since the Workgroup’s creation, it has addressed 
numerous questions from clerks of court and court personnel concerning the 
retention and destruction of judicial branch records.  Based on this experience, the 
Workgroup recommends that a centralized body be created to address such 
questions and to oversee a new records management program.  Thus, a new 
Supreme Court committee, the Judicial Branch Records Management Committee 
                                          
 
 
5.  See, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC04-1 at 1 (recognizing “the Court’s 
decision to make the judicial branch fully responsible for maintenance of its own 
records”).  
 
 
- 5 -
(Committee), will be appointed by administrative order, issued by the Chief 
Justice, to oversee the new records management program envisioned by the 
Workgroup.6  As part of the new program, a Judicial Branch Records Management 
Officer within the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) will be 
appointed to advise and serve as a member of the new committee and to oversee 
the management of administrative records in this Court and OSCA.  The program 
                                          
 
 
 6.  The Judicial Branch Records Management Committee will have the 
following responsibilities:  
 
(1) Develop records management and retention policies and 
procedures for the judicial branch. 
(2) Recommend to The Florida Bar Rules of Judicial Administration 
Committee new records retention categories for court records and 
amendments to Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.430 and 
2.440.  
(3) Comment on proposed amendments to the retention rules 
submitted to the Court by the rules committee. 
(4) Propose to the Supreme Court new records retention categories for 
judicial branch administrative records and amendments to the judicial 
branch administrative records retention schedule, which will be 
approved by administrative order.  
(5) Recommend to the Supreme Court standards for an electronic 
record keeping system for permanently recording court records under 
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.430. 
(6) Oversee and coordinate training for judicial branch records 
management officers. 
(7) Provide guidance to records management officers through 
informal advisory opinions.   
 
- 6 -
also will include the appointment of records management officers in each appellate 
and trial court to oversee the administrative records management in those courts.  
The clerks of the various courts, or their designees, will serve as management 
officers for court records.  The new committee will oversee the training of the 
management officers and other judicial employees.  The Committee also will be 
available to respond to inquiries about records management and destruction 
through the issuance of  advisory opinions.  Most importantly, once in place, the 
new records management program will ensure proper oversight and maintenance 
of judicial branch records.     
RULE AMENDMENTS 
 
The Workgroup also recommends several amendments to Rule of Judicial 
Administration 2.430, Retention of Court Records.  First, the Workgroup 
recommends that in furtherance of the goal to make the judicial branch fully 
responsible for maintenance of its own records, all references to the Division of 
Library and Information Services of the Department of State (Division) should be 
removed from rule 2.430.7  The Workgroup also urges the Court to remove from 
the rules the retention schedule for court records currently contained in rule 2.430 
and make it a freestanding schedule, like the retention schedule for administrative 
                                          
 
 
7.  There are no similar references to the Division in rule 2.440, Retention of 
Judicial Branch Administrative Records.  
 
- 7 -
records, that would be amended administratively rather than through the formal 
rulemaking process set forth in rule 2.140.   
 
The Rules of Judicial Administration Committee (Rules Committee) agrees 
that references to the Division should be deleted from rule 2.430.  However, the 
Rules Committee urges that the retention schedule for court records remain in the 
rules.  As explained below, we adopt the Workgroup’s recommendation that 
references to the Division be removed from the rule, but we agree with the Rules 
Committee that the retention schedule should remain a part of rule 2.430.   
 
Deletion of References to the Division of Library and Information Services 
 
As recommended by the Workgroup, we delete current subdivision (b), 
Required Consent, from rule 2.430, which requires the obtaining of any consent 
required by law from the Division before court records can be disposed of under 
the rule, and renumber the remaining subdivisions accordingly.  We also amend 
subdivisions (a)(3), “Permanently recorded,” and renumbered subdivisions (b), 
Permanently Recorded Records, and (g), Disposition Other Than Destruction, of 
rule 2.430 to remove references to the Division.  However, rather than replacing 
the reference to the Division in subdivision (a)(3) with “judicial branch,” as 
suggested by the Workgroup, we amend that subdivision to define “permanently 
recorded,” for purposes of the rule, as a document that “has been microfilmed, 
optically imaged, or recorded onto an electronic record keeping system in 
 
- 8 -
accordance with standards adopted by the Supreme Court of Florida.”  This 
amendment is consistent with rule 2.525(a), Electronic Filing, Definition, which 
provides that a court’s electronic record keeping system used in connection with 
the electronic filing of documents must be “authorized by the Supreme Court of 
Florida.”  The new Judicial Branch Records Management Committee will 
recommend to the Court standards for permanently recording court records under 
rule 2.430. 
Retention Schedules and Procedures for Amending Rules and Schedules 
 
 
We decline to remove the retention schedule for court records from rule 
2.430.  We agree with the Rules Committee that court records are an integral part 
of the administration of justice, and rules governing the retention and destruction 
of those records should remain in the Rules of Judicial Administration.  We share 
the Rules Committee’s concern that there would not be adequate input on changes 
to the retention schedule from members of the Bar and clerks of court if the 
retention schedule were removed from the rules and the oversight of the Rules 
Committee.   
 
 
The only reason given by the Workgroup for removing the schedule from 
the rules is its belief that amendments to the judicial branch retention schedules 
should be addressed in a more efficient administrative process separate and 
independent from the more “cumbersome” procedures for amending rules.  Under 
 
- 9 -
the Workgroup’s proposal, the Judicial Branch Records Management Committee 
would recommend directly to the Court amendments to the judicial branch records 
retention schedules.  However, the Workgroup offers no specific administrative 
procedure for amending the retention schedules other than to suggest that the Court 
would accept, reject, or modify the proposed amendments, which would go into 
effect within ninety days after their submission to the Court if the Court failed to 
act on them within that time period.  At oral argument, the Chair of the Workgroup 
explained that the Workgroup also considered the option of requiring Court 
adoption of amendments to the retention schedules, and the Workgroup was not 
opposed to that requirement.   
 
However, after considering the positions of the Workgroup and the Rules 
Committee, we believe the retention schedule for court records should remain in 
the Rules of Judicial Administration, and amendments to that schedule as well as 
amendments to the retention rules should continue to be made in accordance with 
rule 2.140.  However, the retention schedule for administrative records will remain 
a freestanding schedule that will be amended administratively.  Changes to that 
retention schedule will be recommended directly to the Court by the new 
committee and, after consideration by the Court, will be approved by 
administrative order issued by the Chief Justice.    
 
- 10 -
 
We also have determined that rather than allowing the new committee to 
submit recommended changes to the retention rules and court records retention 
schedule directly to the Court, the committee should submit its recommendations 
to the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee for review and submission to 
the Court in accordance with rule 2.140.  See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.140(g)(2) 
(amendments to Part IV of the Rules of Judicial Administration, which contains 
rules 2.430 and 2.440, shall be referred to or proposed by the Rules of Judicial 
Administration Committee and adopted by the Court in accordance with rule 
2.140).  If expedited amendments to the rules or schedule are needed, the Rules 
Committee can submit out-of-cycle proposals under rule 2.140(e), Emergency 
Recommendations by Committee.  Placing this responsibility with the Rules 
Committee will ensure that a well-defined procedure that allows for formal input 
from the Bar and clerks of court and also encourages public comment is in place 
for amending these rules.  See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.140.  A well-established 
procedure that provides for public scrutiny is warranted here, because the 
destruction of court records that have not been otherwise preserved effectively 
destroys the public’s right to access to those records.8  Cf.  In re Amendments to 
Fla. Rule of Judicial Admin. 2.420–Sealing of Court Records & Dockets, 954 So. 
                                          
 
 
8.  An informal survey of the various circuit and district courts indicates that 
many of the courts currently preserve in some manner copies of court and 
administrative records that are destroyed under the retention schedules. 
 
- 11 -
2d 16, 17 (Fla. 2007) (“[T]he public's constitutional right of access to court records 
must remain inviolate, and this Court is fully committed to safeguarding this 
right.”).   
CONCLUSION 
 
We thank the Judicial Branch Records Management Workgroup for its 
thorough recommendations and especially for its efforts to ensure proper 
maintenance and oversight of judicial branch records by developing a 
comprehensive program to address the numerous issues surrounding the retention 
and destruction of these records.   
 
Accordingly, we amend the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration as 
reflected in the appendix to this opinion.  New language is indicated by 
underscoring; deletions are indicated by struck-through type.  The amendments 
shall become effective immediately upon the release of this opinion.    
 
It is so ordered. 
WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur. 
LEWIS, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
LEWIS, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
 
While I concur in the majority decision to adopt the proposed amendments 
to rule 2.430, and the decision not to remove the retention schedule for court 
 
- 12 -
records from the rule, I dissent to the majority decision to establish yet another 
committee, this one to oversee judicial branch records management and retention.  
In my view, this Court and the Bar currently have so many special committees, 
subcommittees, and committee variations that their assigned duties are beginning 
to overlap, and the substance and structure are becoming more confused.  This 
expansion of more committees produces efforts that are often duplicated.  
Moreover, with the proliferation of a new committee to address each and every 
nuance of practice and procedure, it is not only becoming increasingly difficult to 
understand, properly direct, and supervise the coordination of the efforts of this 
myriad of committees, but it is also becoming nearly impossible to avoid 
duplication of their activities.   
 
 
 
Original Proceeding – Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 
 
Honorable Robert K. Rouse, Jr., Chair, Judicial Branch Records Management 
Workgroup, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Deland, Florida,  
 
 
for Complainant 
 
C. Wharton Cole of Chandler, Lang, Haswell, and Cole, P.A., Gainesville, Florida; 
Fred W. Baggett, General Counsel, Florida Association of Court Clerks and 
Comptrollers, Tallahassee, Florida; Gary D. Fox, Past-Chair, Florida Rules of 
Judicial Administration Committee, Miami, Florida, and Honorable Kathryn S. 
Pecko, Lauderdale Lakes, Florida, 
 
 
Responding with comments 
 
 
- 13 -
APPENDIX 
 
RULE 2.430. RETENTION OF COURT RECORDS 
 
(a) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this rule: 
 
 
(1) – (2) 
[No Change] 
 
 
(3) “Permanently recorded” means that a document has been microfilmed, 
optically imaged, or recorded onto an electronic record keeping system in 
accordance with standards adopted by the Division of Library and Information 
Services of the Department of StateSupreme Court of Florida. 
 
(b) Required Consent. Disposal of court records under this rule is subject to 
obtaining any consent required by law from the Division of Library and 
Information Services of the Department of State. 
 
(c)(b) Permanently Recorded Records. Court records, except exhibits, that 
have been permanently recorded in accordance with standards adopted by the 
Division of Library and Information Services of the Department of State, may be 
destroyed or otherwise disposed of by the clerk at any time after a judgment has 
become final. 
 
(d)(c) Records Not Permanently Recorded. 
[No Change] 
 
(e)(d) Records to Be Retained Permanently. 
[No Change] 
 
(f)(e) Court Reporters’ Notes. 
[No Change]  
 
(g)(f) Exhibits. [No Change] 
 
(h)(g) Disposition Other Than Destruction. Before destruction or disposition 
of court records under this rule, any person may apply to the court for an order 
requiring the clerk to deliver to the applicant the court records that are to be 
destroyed or disposed of. All parties and the Division of Library and Information 
Services of the Department of State shall be given notice of the application.by the 
applicant. The court shall dispose of that court record as appropriate. 
 
(i)(h) Release of Court Records. 
[No Change] 
 
 
- 14 -
 
- 15 -
(j)(i) Right to Expunge Records. [No Change] 
 
(k)(j) Sealed Records.      [No Change] 
 
(l)(k) Destruction of Jury Notes. [Effective January 1, 2008; No Change]