clarifies the limited circumstances where documents tendered to the court administrator

for filing can be rejected. These provisions largely reflect current practices in the courts. Concern about public access to sensitive information is greater in the context of electronic filing because of the risk that the information could be found and spread over the Internet shortly after filing. See, e.g., Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 11 for requirements for submitting restricted identifiers (e.g., Social Security numbers, etc.) and procedures to address any failure to comply with the requirements. It is not feasible to accept for filing documents that relate to an action pending in another district or to file them in an action under an invalid file number. The acceptance of these documents would only create confusion for the parties, both in the intended district and action and in the district and action where they are mistakenly sent. Similarly, payment of the required filing fee is required by statute, see Minnesota Statutes, section 357.021, and there is no provision for filing without payment of that required fee. The filing of discovery requests and responses, other than notices of taking depositions, is already prohibited by the second paragraph of this rule; the amended language makes it clear that the court administrators are authorized to reject these unauthorized filings. The rule does not prevent a party from filing an affidavit that incorporates or attaches copies of discovery requests or responses that are authenticated by the affiant. The rule intentionally omits any recommendation that the absence of a Civil Cover Sheet would result in the rejection of a document for filing. The court can impose an appropriate sanction for this failure after appropriate notice to the parties and, if the court determines it is appropriate, an opportunity to cure the defect. The improper submission of restricted identifiers is addressed in Rule 11.02(3) of these rules and in Rule 11.04 in the General Rules of Practice. Published by the Revisor of Statutes under Minnesota Statutes, section 3C.08, subdivision 1. CIVIL PROCEDURE 26 MINNESOTA COURT RULES Advisory Committee Comment - 2020 Amendments Rule 5.04(b) is amended to expressly require that proof of service be provided either by: (1) both eFiling and eServing a document together using the court's e-Filing System (with the system- generated proof of service eliminating the need to file separate proof of service); or (2) by filing a separate certificate of service. The amended rule specifies that a certificate of service must be signed under oath or penalty of perjury by the person effecting service. The certificate must also establish the specific time and manner of services, as this information is often required to determine the deadline for response. Rule 5.04(c) is amended to add the new subdivision (4), to authorize court administrators to reject for filing any document containing restricted identifiers or other information that may not properly be filed in a public document. The specific definitions of what information may not be filed are contained in Rules 11 and 14 of the Minnesota General Rules of Practice for the District Courts. Rule 5.04(d) is new and is intended to prevent a rejection for filing from having case-ending or other severe consequences for a timely attempt to file a document that contains non-public information. Relief is not automatic under the rule, and in most cases the document will not be deemed filed until a version that complies with the rules is filed. If the filing date is crucial, however, the rule authorizes a motion to have the filing of a compliant version deemed filed as of the time of the original attempted filing. The rule requires that the moving party demonstrate that relief is required "in the interests of justice." This standard does not focus on whether there is a good excuse for the initial, non-compliant document being tendered for filing so much as whether the consequences of rejection are severe or irreparable. This might occur for those relatively rare cases where an action is commenced by filing the complaint. See, e.g., Minnesota Statutes, section 514.11 (requiring timely filing of mechanic's lien foreclosure action). 5.05 Filing; Facsimile Transmission Except where filing is required by electronic means by rule of court, any document may be filed with the court by facsimile transmission. Filing shall be deemed complete at the time that the facsimile transmission is received by the court and the filed facsimile shall have the same force and effect as the original. Only facsimile transmission equipment that satisfies the published criteria of the Supreme Court shall be used for filing in accordance with this rule. Within 7 days after the court has received the transmission, the party filing the document shall forward the following to the court: (a) a $25 transmission fee for each 50 pages, or part thereof, of the filing; (b) any bulky exhibits or attachments; and (c) the applicable filing fee or fees, if any. If a document is filed by facsimile, the sender's original must not be filed but must be maintained in the files of the party transmitting it for filing and made available to the court or any party to the action upon request. Upon failure to comply with the requirements of this rule, the court in which the action is pending may make such orders as are just, including but not limited to, an order striking pleadings Published by the Revisor of Statutes under Minnesota Statutes, section 3C.08, subdivision 1. 27 CIVIL PROCEDURE MINNESOTA COURT RULES or parts thereof, staying further proceedings until compliance is complete, or dismissing the action, proceeding, or any part thereof. (Amended effective January 1, 1997; amended effective January 1, 2006; amended effective September 1, 2012; amended effective January 1, 2020.) Advisory Committee Comment - 1996 Amendment Most of Rule 5.02 is new and for the first time provides for service by facsimile. Service by this method has become widespread, generally handled either by express agreement of counsel or acquiescence in a service method not explicitly authorized by rule. The committee considered a suggestion that the provision for leaving a document with the court administrator be changed, deleted, or clarified. Although it is not clear from the rule what the administrator should do in the rare event that a document is filed with the administrator rather than delivered or mailed to the attorney, the committee believes the rule should be retained as it provides notice to the court that although service may comply with the rule, effective notice has not been received by the party entitled to notice. This will facilitate the court's consideration of the sufficiency of service under all of the circumstances. The amendment to Rule 5.02 provides an express mechanism for service by facsimile. Service by facsimile has become widely accepted and is used in Minnesota either by agreement or presumption that it is acceptable under the rules or at least has not been objected to by the parties. The committee believes an express authorization for service by facsimile is appropriate and preferable to the existing silence on the subject. The committee's recommendation is modeled on similar provisions in the Wisconsin and Florida rules. See Wis. Stat. sections 801.14(2) & .15(5)(b); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.080(b)(5). Service by facsimile is allowed in other jurisdictions as well. See, e.g., Ill. S. Ct. R. 11(b)(4); S. Dak. R. 15-6-5(b); Cal. R. Civ. P. 2008. In addition to providing for service by facsimile, Rule 6.05 is amended to create a specific deadline for timely service. This rule adds an additional day for response to any paper served by any means other than mail (where 3 extra days are allowed under existing Rule 6.05, which is retained) and where service is not effected until after 5:00 p.m., local time. This rule is intended to discourage, or at least make unrewarding, the inappropriate practice of serving papers after the close of a normal business day. Service after 5:00 p.m. is still timely as of the day of service if the deadline for service is that day, but if a response is permitted, the party served has an additional day to respond. This structure parallels directly the mechanism for dealing with service by mail under the existing rule.