Effective October 30, 2017 Mandatory Electronic Filing Through TrueFiling Begins in the Second District, with New, Unique Preferred Formatting.
Beginning October 30, the Second Appellate District, California Court of Appeal will require mandatory electronic filing through the TrueFiling system, pursuant to California Rule of Court (CRC) Rule 8.71.
Electronic filing is the electronic transmission of a document in electronic form to a court. (CRC Rule 8.70(c)(8).) All attorneys filing in the Second District must register with TrueFiling both for filing and for receiving documents issued by the court. A valid credit or debit card must be added to the user’s TrueFiling account to pay the transaction fees of the system for processing the filing and for payment of filing fees. Self-represented parties may, but are not required to, register for electronic filing, but must comply with this rule and the requirements of TrueFiling if they elect to register.
Training for using the TrueFiling system will be available on October 24, 2017 at 1 p.m. Pacific time. You may register for the training on the court’s website HERE.
Also, starting on October 30, there will be both mandatory and preferred formatting requirements for the Second District filings. The mandatory requirements include the following:
- All documents must be text searchable, with pagination beginning with the first page or cover as page 1, using only Arabic numbers.
- All briefs, original proceedings, motions and applications with attachments must include electronic bookmarks to each heading, subheading and component of the document. Each bookmark must include the Letter or number of the tabbed exhibits and a description of the item.
- If Exhibits or attachments are submitted in multi-part electronic files, each electronic file must include a cover and a chronological & alphabetical index with bookmarks of the contents of each file.
- No single pdf may exceed 25 megabytes. If the file is larger than 25 megabytes, the filer may submit the electronic file in multiple parts or send the file to the court on CD or disc. Any audio files must be in .wav or mp3 format. Any video files must be in.avi or .mp4 format.
- All filers must exclude or redact personal identifiers per CRC rule 1.201.
The Court’s preferred formatting include unique, new provisions. The Court’s Guidelines state, “Filers are encouraged, but not required, to follow these guidelines which are designed to improve the functionality and readability of documents filed with the court.” The preferred formatting guidelines are as follows::
- Font style and size. A proportionally spaced serif font – Century School Book, Century, Bookman Old Style or Book Antiqua. Do Not use Times New Roman. Size should be 13 pt. text and 14 pt. headings.
- Line spacing. 1.2 (the current requirement is 1.5) This is closer to what is used in book publishing for better readability.
- Margins. 1.5 inches on all sides.
- Alignment. Use left alignment.
- Miscellaneous items. Use smart, i.e. “curly”, quotation marks. Use boldface, italics but not underlining. Do not use all caps for emphasis.
- File formatting. Use the word processing program to covert to pdf. In appendices, use e-copies rather than scanned copies with an OCR of the document.
- Hyperlinking. The court encourages filers to hyperlink Briefs and Writs to legal citations, appendices or exhibits.
The complete 2DCA Formatting Requirements and Guidelines may be reviewed HERE.
It will be interesting to see how briefs using the preferred guidelines will appear. Anyone who might want assistance implementing these new requirements and guidelines may contact me at our AppealTech Los Angeles office at (213) 402 4890.
- New York Appellate Division: Final Version of Statewide Practice Rules and Local Rules
- Statewide Practice Rules Will Have Significant Effect on Pending First Department Appeals
- Appellate Division, Second Department expands e-filing to Suffolk County cases!
- Look for Expanded E-filing Categories for the Fourth Department Starting July 1
- When can an Appellee file an Appellee’s Supplemental Appendix in the Second Circuit?