Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 131.07
The following administrative procedures are applicable to all ITV proceedings:
Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 131.07
Advisory Committee Comments-2008 Amendment
In October 1999 the Supreme Court informally approved the use of ITV in civil cases but did not adopt any specific rules. The addition of Rule 131 in 2008 is intended to provide a uniform procedure permitting the use of interactive video teleconferencing (ITV) to conduct hearings and admit oral testimony in civil cases. It is based on protocols developed and implemented for a pilot project in the Ninth Judicial District and later tweaked by a subcommittee of the Court's former Technology Planning Committee. The success of the pilot project is reported in National Center for State Courts, Court Services Division, Assessment of the Interactive Television PROGRAMIN the Ninth Judicial Districtof Minnesota (Sept. 1999).
Rule 131.02 identifies the situations in which the district court may authorize the use of ITV by order: upon the court's own initiative, upon stipulation by the parties, or upon a showing of good cause. The court as part of its overall case management practice initiated the bulk of the orders in the Ninth Judicial District pilot project. It is anticipated that use of ITV will vary by district, depending on factors such as geographical size and the nature of the cases.
Rule 131.02(b) recognizes that when a court orders the use of ITV on its own initiative, the court must notify the parties of the use of ITV. Notices are to be in accordance with rules of civil procedure and the general rules of practice. Once an order is filed, Minn. R. Civ. P. 77.04 requires the court administrator to serve notice of the order immediately by mail, and Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 1.03 requires that service be made on a party's attorney if represented, otherwise on the party directly. The notice of ITV use may also be incorporated into a scheduling order issued under Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 111.03. Regardless of the precise mechanism, the notice of ITV use must include the information required in Rule 131.02(b). A sample notice is set forth for publication by the state court administrator.
Parties may, subject to court approval, stipulate to the use of ITV under rule 131.02(c). upon reaching a stipulation, the parties must contact the court administrator as soon as possible to obtain a date and time for the ITV hearing. Failure to provide adequate lead time may result in rejection of the stipulation. The parties are responsible for making arrangements to use any site that is outside the control of the court in the venue county. Parties should be aware that use of court and other governmental terminal sites might be subject to collaboration agreements entered into between courts and other government agencies. This may limit the availability of, or control the costs of using or accessing certain terminal sites, particularly those outside the county or district where the action is venued or outside the state's dedicated MNET network. Under Rule 131.03 parties requesting use of ITV for any hearing or proceeding are responsible for any additional use or other fees over and above those normally incurred by the venue county in connecting from one collaboration site to another. Parties are also responsible for ensuring compatibility of equipment for sites outside the control of the venue county.
Finally, a written, signed stipulation in the format substantially similar to the form appended to the rule must be filed with the court no later than twenty-four (24) hours prior to the hearing. By signing the stipulation the parties certify that they will follow the protocol, including, without limitation, the requirement in Rule 131.06(i) that no recording shall be made of the ITV proceeding except a recording made as the official record of the proceeding. Access to recordings of proceedings is governed by Rule 4, subd. 3, of the Rules of Public Access to Records of the Judicial Branch.
Rule 131.02(d) sets forth requirements for requesting ITV use when there is no stipulation by the parties. A formal motion is required, and it must be served and filed at least seven days prior to the scheduled hearing or proceeding for which ITV use is requested. The rule authorizes ex parte contact with the court for purposes of obtaining an expedited hearing date on the motion for use of ITV. See Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.04 (non-dispositive motions normally must be served and filed at 14 days in advance of the hearing). The moving party is responsible under Rule 131.03 for making arrangements to use any site that is outside the control of the court in the venue county, for providing the necessary contact information to the court administrator, for ensuring the compatibility of the equipment, and paying any additional costs incurred by the court in facilitating the ITV session. The motion must also include or be accompanied by a notice informing opposing parties of their right to object, consequences of failure to object, requirements for exchange of information, and prohibitions on recording an ITV session (a sample notice is provided for publication by the state court administrator).
Objections to a motion for use of ITV must be made prior to the hearing on the motion. The failure of an opposing party to object may be considered along with other factors set forth in Rule 131.02(d)(4) that may determine good cause for use of ITV. The moving party has the burden of establishing good cause.
Rule 131.02(d)(5) permits the court to shorten the time periods provided for in Rule 131.02 in emergent circumstances upon a proper showing. As of the time of the drafting of this commentary, a different time period is established for requesting ITV use in commitment cases under Rule 14 of the Special Rules of Procedure Under the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act (requires notice to the other party at least 24 hours in advance of the hearing, and court approval). The drafting committee is of the opinion that following the protocol with the ability to shorten the time frames when necessary will be sufficient to address the needs of commitment and other matters covered by this rule.
Rule 131.03 places responsibility for costs and site arrangements with those seeking to use ITV. The court assumes this responsibility when ordering ITV on its own initiative, as is done for the bulk of the ITV proceedings in the Ninth Judicial District pilot project. When a party or parties initiate the request, however, Rules 131.02(c) and 131.02(d) shift some of the responsibility to the requesting party or parties. Parties also certify that they will comply with the protocol, including the prohibition in Rule 131.06(i) against recording ITV sessions.
Rule 131.04 attempts to highlight an important logistical requirement when ITV is used. Documents and other information need to be exchanged and submitted to the court, where appropriate, prior to the ITV session. This is particularly important when the parties are located at different sites.
Rule 131.07(b) recognizes that ITV use imposes new logistical duties on court administration staff. This section is intended to assist courts as they implement ITV use and to train new staff.
Rules 131.05 -.07 set forth the ground rules for conducting ITV sessions. The prohibition on recording ITV sessions set forth in Rule 131.06(i) and echoed throughout the rule is identical to that applicable to telephone hearings under Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.09. This requirement is consistent with the directives of the supreme court regarding use of cameras in the courtroom. See In re Modification of Section 3A(10) of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct, No. C7-81-300 (Minn. S. Ct., filed Jan. 11, 1996) (order reinstating experimental program for audio and video coverage of trial court proceedings); Order for Interactive Audio-Video Communications Experiment in First Judicial District-Mental Illness Commitment Proceedings, No. C6-90-649 (Minn. S. Ct., filed April 5, 1995); Order re Interactive Audio-Video communications Pilot Program in Third Judicial District Mental Illness Commitment Proceedings, No. C6-90-649 (Minn. S. Ct., filed Jan. 29, 1999); Order for Interactive Audio and Video Communications, Fourth Judicial District, Mental Health Division, Price and Jarvis Proceedings, No. C6-90-649 (Minn. S. Ct., filed April 8, 1991).
Rule 131.05(c) requires that counsel and their party must be present at the same terminal site unless otherwise permitted by the court. In commitment cases, court rules do not permit counsel for the patient and the patient to be present at different sites. See rule 14 of the Special Rules of Procedure under the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act. Witnesses and other participants may be located at any terminal site that allows satisfactory video and audio reception.
Rule 131.07(c) describes equipment and room standards in functional terms. A more detailed discussion of technical issues and terminology can be found in Statewide videoconferencing Committee, Bridging the Distance: implementing videoconferencing in Wisconsin (10/30/2007) (a dynamic document that is continually updated and that is currently available for download from the Wisconsin Supreme Court website, located at http://www.wicourts.gov/about/committees/ppacvidconf.htm).
.