Service shall be made pursuant to one of the methods set forth in (1), (2), or (3). Whenever under these rules service is required or permitted to be made on a party represented by an attorney, the service shall be made on the attorney unless service on the party is ordered by the court. If an attorney has filed a notice of limited scope representation or a notice of limited appearance for an otherwise self-represented person, pursuant to Rule 11.01(b), service shall be made on the self-represented person and on the attorney until such time as a notice of completion of limited scope representation has been filed. After notice of completion of limited scope representation has been filed, service on the attorney previously providing limited scope representation shall no longer be necessary.
Tenn. R. Civ. P. 5.02
Advisory Commission Comments [2010].
The Commission is aware that many attorneys serve documents on one another electronically but, because the current rule does not provide electronic service is sufficient service, also send a paper copy of the document. This rule change is designed to allow attorneys to accomplish service of pleadings and other papers electronically without the need to send a physical copy.
The requirement that the sender shall include language in the subject line designed to alert the recipient that a document is being served under this rule is intended to reduce the possibility that the recipient might overlook the service of a document. Words in the subject line to the effect of "TRCP Rule 5 Service of Document in Smith v. Jones" are sufficient.
Adobe PDF was chosen as the format because it is required for federal court filings and virtually all attorneys have ready access to it. Of course, the parties may stipulate to the use of a different format.
The mailing or hand delivery of a certificate was included out of concern, well-founded or not, that an email transmitting a document could be lost in cyberspace. The certificate requirement puts the receiving attorney on notice that a document has been sent and, if the document was not received, will allow that attorney to initiate a process for promptly obtaining a copy of it.
The rule provides a mechanism for a court to order, for good cause shown, that electronic service of pleadings and papers not be permitted in a particular case.
Advisory Commission Comments [2012].
The first paragraph of Rule 5.02 is amended to address service of pleadings and other papers in cases in which an attorney has filed a notice of limited scope representation or a notice of limited appearance for an otherwise self-represented person, pursuant to Rule 11.01(b).
Advisory Commission Comment [2020]
Rule 5.02(3) has been added to provide for electronic service through a court's E-Filing system, provided that such a system has been authorized bysuch court pursuant to Rule 5B of these rules. The amended rule authorizes E-service through a court's electronic transmission facilities as to any registered user of such facilities. An attorney or party who chooses to become a registered user of a court's E-filing system shall be required to accept service through the court's electronic facilities unless otherwise ordered by the court in that particular case. As a result of this amendment, service may be effectuated under these rules by any of three means: the conventional means of service authorized in Rule 5.02(1), by electronic transmission or email as authorized in Rule 5.02(2), or by E-service pursuant to Rule 5.02(3) in those courts that have adopted an E-filing system that complies with Rule 5B and the technological standards promulgated by the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Advisory Commission Comment [2023]
Rule 5.02(2) is amended to provide self-represented parties the same convenience in sending and receiving documents by email that is afforded to attorneys. Section 5.02{2){d) provides that a trial court may excuse a party from receiving service by email "for good cause shown [ ... ] . " The rule is not intended to require pro se litigants who lack regular and reliable email access to find a means to acquire it. When email service is feasible, however, courts should "not excuse the pro se litigant from complying with the same substantive and procedural rules that represented parties are expected to observe." State v. Sprunger, 458 S.W.3d 482, 491 (Tenn. 2015) (Citations omitted). Rule 5.02(2) is further amended to eliminate the requirement of a mailed, faxed, or hand-delivered certificate advising that a document has been transmitted electronically.