V.R.E.F. Rule 5

(a) In General. An electronic filer may initiate a new action or proceeding, or efile documents

in an action or proceeding that is in the electronic filing system, when required or permitted

under Rule 3, by logging in, and complying with the instructions in the electronic filing system.

(b) Electronic Filing Requirements. The efiler must submit each electronic filing in

accordance with the instructions in the electronic filing system and must:

(1) prepare and format the efiling in accordance with Rule 5(f) and (g), and Rule 7;

(2) sign the efiling as provided in Rule 9;

(3) provide a mailing address and email address on the documents electronically filed;

(4) satisfy payment requirements of Rule 10, except that failure to pay a Supreme Court entry

fee to the Vermont Judiciary in connection with the filing of a notice of appeal, or to seek a

waiver of that fee, is not grounds for rejecting a filing;

(5) take any actions required under Rule 7(a)(1) of the Rules for Public Access to Court

Records;

(6) certify that each document filed complies with the Rules for Public Access to Court

Records; and

(7) for initial filings, provide service contacts that will enable post-commencement service on

the efiler and maintain updated contacts.

(c) Electronic Filing Time. An electronic filing may be submitted on any day, including

holidays and weekends, and at any time.

(1) Filing Date. An efiling is considered submitted on a date if it is submitted prior to

midnight on that date;

(2) Technology Failure of Filer. Failure of the efiler’s system or internet unavailability will

not excuse a failure to comply with a filing deadline, unless the court specifically authorizes an

extension of the deadline;

(3) System Unavailability. A deadline will be extended for unavailability of the electronic

filing system, if the efiler could not reasonably file nonelectronically pursuant to Rule 3(b)(8).

(d) Court Staff Processing in the Superior Court and in Proceedings Before Hearing

Panels of the Professional Responsibility Board.

(1) Court Staff Review. Court staff will review all electronic filings for compliance with these

rules and Rule 7(a)(1) of the Rules for Public Access to Court Records in the manner prescribed

by Rule 7(a)(3) and (4).

(A) Except as designated in (B), court staff review will occur prior to entry into the

electronic case management system.

(B) Initial civil complaints made in commencement of an action pursuant to Vermont

Rule of Civil Procedure 3 will be reviewed to ensure the absence of confidential information

prior to entry into the case management system, and for compliance with all other rules after

entry into the electronic case management system, subject to the corrective and remedial

actions of Rule 7(a)(3) and (4) of the Rules for Public Access to Court Records. Electronic

filers remain obligated under Rule 5(b) to comply with filing requirements. Complaints

initiating the following civil actions will continue to be reviewed prior to entry:

(i) Actions for Orders Against Stalking or Sexual Assault (12 V.S.A. Ch. 178),

(ii) Small Claims Actions (12 V.S.A. Ch. 187), and

(iii) Any civil action that is within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, or

within the jurisdiction of criminal division, family division, environmental

division, probate division, or the judicial bureau.

(2) Accepting or Rejecting a Filing. Court staff will electronically notify the efiler either that

the efiling has been accepted or rejected. A rejection will provide the reason for the rejection.

Court staff may reject a filing that does not comply with these rules or Rule 7(a)(1) of the Rules

for Public Access to Court Records. Court staff may also reject a filing that contains an error that

cannot be corrected by court staff. The Court Administrator will delineate the permissible

reasons for rejecting a filing and provide the list in a prominent place on the Judiciary website.

(3) Failed Submission. A filing that does not comply with the instructions in the efiling

system or the formatting requirements in Rule 7 may not be processed by the electronic filing

system and may result in a failed submission. A failed submission does not reach the clerk queue

and may not be appealed.

(4) Correcting an eFiling. An efiler may submit a corrected efiling within 7 days after

receiving the notification that a filing resulted in a failed submission or was rejected if the efiler

follows the instructions for efiling a correction on the electronic filing system. It is the efiler’s

responsibility to demonstrate the date of rejection or failed submission. The court may extend

the time for correction for good cause. Court staff will accept a corrected efiling if all

requirements of those rules and the instructions for correction have been met.

(5) Filing Date. When an efiling has been accepted, the date and time of efiling for all

purposes under the applicable rules of procedure are the date and time that the initial efiling was

submitted if the corrected filing complied with the time limits in (d)(4).

(6) Assigning Case Number. The electronic filing system will provide a case number for a

new case filing that has been accepted in the acceptance notification. The assigned case number

must appear on all subsequent efilings pertaining to the case.

(7) Appeal of Rejected Filing. In the event an efiler and court staff are unable to resolve a

dispute regarding an electronic filing, the efiler may appeal the basis for a rejected filing to the

Court Administrator. The appeal must be filed within 7 days from the date of the rejection. The

time period in (d)(4) for correcting an efiling is tolled until the appeal is decided.

(e) Court Staff Processing in the Supreme Court.

(1) Court Staff Review. Court staff will review all electronic filings for compliance with

these rules, the Vermont Rules of Appellate Procedure, and Rule 7(a)(1) of the Rules for Public

Access to Court Records.

(2) Accepting or Rejecting a Filing. Court staff will electronically notify the efiler that the

efiling has been accepted or rejected. A rejection will provide the reason for the rejection. Court

staff may reject an efiling for noncompliance with Rule 7(a)(1) of the Vermont Rules for Public

Access to Court Records, the applicable limit on the number of words in the brief as contained in

V.R.A.P. 32(a)(4), the failure to include a word count in a brief as required by V.R.A.P.

32(a)(4)(D), or the failure to sign a document as required by these rules or the Vermont Rules of

Appellate Procedure. Court staff may also reject a filing that contains an error that cannot be

corrected by court staff.

(3) Failed Submission. A filing that does not comply with the instructions in the efiling

system or the formatting requirements in Rule 7 may not be processed by the electronic filing

system and may result in a failed submission. A failed submission does not reach the clerk queue

and may not be appealed.

(4) Correcting an eFiling. If court staff rejects an efiling pursuant to this subdivision, the

efiler may correct the efiling as set forth in (d)(4), and (d)(5) will apply to determine the filing

date.

(5) Limit of Review. This rule does not limit the actions the Supreme Court may take for

violation of these rules, the Vermont Rules of Appellate Procedure, or the Vermont Rules for

Public Access to Court Records.

(6) Assigning Case Number. The electronic filing system will provide a case number for a

new case filing that has been accepted in the acceptance notification. The assigned case number

must appear on all subsequent efilings pertaining to the case.

(7) Appeal of Rejected Filing. In the event an efiler and court staff are unable to resolve a

dispute regarding an electronic filing, the efiler may appeal the basis for a rejected filing to the

Court Administrator. The appeal must be filed within 7 days from the date of the rejection. The

time period in (e)(4) for correcting an efiling is tolled until the appeal is decided.

(f) Serving Notice of Electronic Filing. The efiler must complete service as required in Rule

11.

(g) Motions. Efilers must submit motions, responses, and supporting materials in a manner

consistent with any other applicable rules of procedure and the following:

(1) Separating Individual Motions and Responses to Motions.

(A) Motions; Separate Filing. All motions must be filed as separate lead documents.

(B) Separating Motions and Responses. An efiler may not respond to a motion and file a

new motion in the same document.

(2) Memoranda and Supporting Material.

(A) Memoranda of Law. A memorandum of law may be included as part of a motion or

response or may be filed as a separate document. The same memorandum may be filed in

support of multiple motions or responses but must identify the motions or responses to which

it relates and be referenced in the motions or responses.

(B) Supporting Material. Any supporting material, including affidavits, exhibits, or other

supporting or required attachments, must be separated from the motion. The supporting

material may be filed either as individual documents or compiled into a single document.

Supporting material must identify the motions or responses to which it relates.

(C) Format of Compiled Supporting Material Filed as a Single Document. If all

supporting material for a motion or response is filed as a single, compiled document, it must:

(i) be numbered sequentially with numbers that match the electronic page counter; and

(ii) contain a table of contents listing the separate parts of the supporting material

included, with electronic page references for each item.

(h) Criminal History Information. Criminal history information, filed in connection with a

criminal case, must be separately efiled in the following parts for which there is information:

(1) Misdemeanor or felony convictions in Vermont courts and resulting sentences;

(2) Misdemeanor or felony convictions in courts of other jurisdictions, including in federal

court and resulting sentences;

(3) Any other criminal history information.

Reporter’s Notes—2020

Rule 5(a) refers generally to the steps for efiling. The efiler must

log into the electronic filing system and follow the instructions

found there. The rule requires certain contact information to be

included in each efiling. The rule does not require a telephone

number to be included on each efiling but this information may be

requested by the court when a party enters a notice of appearance

so that the court has another means to contact the party.

Rule 5(b) generally cross-references the rules that contain efiling

requirements in the remainder of these rules and in the Vermont

Rules for Public Access to Court Records (V.R.P.A.C.R.).

The public access rules have been extensively amended to

address the challenge of providing public and special access to

electronic court records and at the same time protecting privacy

where necessary. The efiler responsibility requirements are set out

in V.R.P.A.C.R. 7(a)(1). The Rule requires electronic filers (and

nonelectronic filers) to be familiar with the substantive provisions

of the public access rules “to determine whether all or part of the

record being filed is not publicly accessible.” V.R.P.A.C.R.

7(a)(1)(A). If the whole record is not publicly accessible, the efiler

must so designate it at the time of filing. V.R.P.A.C.R. 7(a)(1)(D).

This occurs in two ways. For an efiler who is initiating a new case,

the efiler must designate the type of case in which the efiling is

being made. If proceedings in that type of case are not publicly

accessible, that efiling and future ones will be inaccessible to the

public. Second, for types of cases that are generally open to the

public, the efiler will be required to answer whether the efiling is

confidential or open to the public.

If the record is not publicly accessible in part, the efiler must

separate the part that is publicly accessible from the part that is not

publicly accessible, redacting or using another method to prevent

public access to the part that is not publicly accessible. The efiler

can then efile the unredacted record, designating it as not publicly

accessible, and the redacted version, designating it as publicly

accessible. V.R.P.A.C.R. 7(a)(1)(C). The efiler must certify that

the efiler has reviewed the efiling and the efiling complies with

V.R.P.A.C.R. 7(a)(1). If the record being efiled is wholly or partly

not publicly accessible, the efiler must specify what actions were

taken to comply with the public access rules and why the actions

were necessary. V.R.P.A.C.R. 7(a)(1)(B).

Note that if a document is efiled in a type of proceeding that is

not publicly accessible or the whole document is either publicly

accessible or not, the duty to act and certify compliance can be

fulfilled on the electronic filing screen. The efiler who properly

categorizes the type of proceeding and type of document will be

able to check a box that the efiler has fully complied with the

public access rules and thus comply with Rule 5(b)(6). In the more

complicated case where the record being efiled is wholly or partly

not publicly accessible, the efiler must also efile a separate

compliance statement of what actions were taken to comply and

why the actions were necessary. That statement plus the checked

box constitute the certification required by Rule 5(b)(6).

The last requirement is stated in Rule 5(b)(7). When an efiler

first enters a case, whether to initiate the case or to respond and

participate in a case, the efiler must separately enter service

contacts as specified by the system so others can serve the efiler

through the electronic filing site. Note that an efiler can add

multiple contacts for purposes of the case. For example, a lawyer

who is entering case on behalf of a client may have multiple email

addresses at which the lawyer wants to receive notices of filings in

the case. The lawyer may have a co-counsel the lawyer wants

notified of filings in a case or practice in a firm where filings in

cases go through a firm administrator who can assign work in the

firm. At first appearance in the case, the efiler should think

carefully about who should get notice of efilings and add those

persons as service contacts. An efiler can change service contacts

in a case but must keep them updated—for example, where there is

a change of email address.

As specified in Rule 5(c), an efiling can be made at any time of

any day. Under Rule 5(c)(1), an efiling made before midnight is

considered made on that date. This does not mean that the efiling

will be accepted or rejected at the time it is efiled. Staff who work

normal business hours will make that decision.

Rule 5(c)(2) and (3) address situations where an efiler is unable

to make an efiling because the electronic filing system is

unavailable, and the efiler will be prejudiced by inability to meet a

time deadline. Under Rule 5(c)(2), the technological failure is at

the efiler’s end and prevents access to the internet or to the

electronic filing system. In general, such a technological failure is

not grounds to allow the efiler to claim the initial attempted filing

time and date once the reason for the technological failure is

repaired and a new successful efiling is made. The rule, however,

allows the court to extend the deadline for good cause in situations

of extreme prejudice. An important factor in determining whether

the deadline should be extended is whether the efiler could have

filed nonelectronically and sought permission to do so under Rule

3(b)(3) to avoid the prejudice.

Rule 5(c)(3) deals with the situation where the technological

failure is at the electronic filing system end. In such a situation, the

efiler must first make a reasonable effort to file nonelectronically

under Rule 3(b)(7). If nonelectronic filing is unavailable, to

eliminate the prejudice, any filing deadline is automatically

extended to when use of electronic filing system is restored.

Rule 5(d) sets out the processes for staff review of an efiling,

acceptance or rejection of the efiling, notice to the efiler, correction

of noncompliant efilings, and case number assignment. The more-

detailed process for review and acceptance or rejection of an

efiling with respect to public-access compliance is set out in

V.R.P.A.C.R. Rule 7(a)(3) and (4) and controls for that review. For

example, Rule 5(d)(3) gives the efiler 7 days to correct an efiling

that is noncompliant with these rules. V.R.P.A.C.R. 7(a)(4)(ii)

provides that if review requires an efiler correction, the time limit

for such correction is set by the reviewer. The reviewer-determined

correction time limit for public-access compliance controls with

respect to that correction.

Essentially, staff review covers each of the items listed in Rule

5(b). Note that if correction is required, the efiler must follow the

instructions on the electronic filing site for making a corrected

efiling, so the reviewer knows that the initial filing was rejected

and the reason for the rejection in making the new review decision.

When a filing has been accepted, the date and time of filing for all

purposes under the applicable rules of procedure are the date and

time that the initial filing was submitted and scanned into the

electronic system as long as the correction was made within the

allotted time.

Another issue is presented under Rule 5(d)(5), in cases where

service has preceded filing to commence the action, as provided in

V.R.C.P. 3. In such cases, a responsive pleading may be filed prior

to filing of the summons and complaint. Such pleadings will be

retained by the system administratively in a “holding” file, pending

filing of the summons and complaint, upon which, the case will be

opened, and a case number assigned.

Under Rule 5(e), the efiler must also make service by the method

or methods specified in Rule 11, in addition to meeting the

requirements for efiling in Rule 5(b). There is a distinction

between the date of filing and the date of service when documents

are efiled and notice of the filing is sent through the efiling system

as required by Rule 11(d). As noted in Rule 5(c)(1), the date of

filing is the date the filing is submitted to the efiling system. The

date of service may be later because the system will not serve a

document until it has been reviewed and accepted. See Reporter’s

Notes to Rule 11(b).

Rule 5(f) continues the substance of 2010 V.R.E.F. 4(g) with

respect to how motions and supporting materials must be efiled.

Rule 5(f)(1), (2), and (3) contains provisions similar to 2010

V.R.E.F. 4(g)(1), (2), and (3). Rule 5(f)(4)(A), (B), and (C) is

consistent with 2010 V.R.E.F. 4(g)(4), but is displayed in separate

subdivisions for clarity.

The intent and meaning of alternative and independent forms of

relief is the same as under the 2010 rules. “Alternative forms of

relief” address the same issues by providing remedies that are

mutually exclusive and may be of decreasing impact on the party

against whom relief is sought. For example, in a motion filed under

V.R.C.P. 37(b), a defendant claiming that a plaintiff has refused to

comply with discovery obligations and orders may request

dismissal of a claim or an action and may request in the alternative

that if the court does not dismiss, the court preclude plaintiff from

using nondisclosed evidence at trial. In another example, a motion

to dismiss for failure to state a claim under V.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) or a

motion for judgment on the pleadings under V.R.C.P. 12(b)(3)

may be combined with a motion for summary judgment under Rule

56. These are single motions based on the same facts and legal

requirement; only the relief sought is different.

“Independent forms of relief,” conversely, address independent

issues and provide different and independent remedies, as when

two or more unrelated motions are combined in a single document.

For example, a motion entitled “Motion to Enforce Settlement

Agreement, Motion to Compel, and Motion to Dismiss

Counterclaim” contains three separate motions, each relating to a

different set of facts and having a different legal foundation. In

another example, a “Motion to Extend Time for Service” and a

“Motion for Alternative Service,” which asks for service by a tack

order, are requests under different rules that requires a different

factual basis. In these examples, each motion relates to a different

set of facts and has a different legal foundation.

Rule 5(f)(4)(D) is added to cover a situation where supporting

materials are efiled to support multiple memoranda of law. In such

a situation, the pages of the supporting materials must be

numbered, and there must be a table of contents.

Rule 5(g) is a placeholder for future action with respect to

criminal history information, which is filed in criminal cases by the

prosecution for consideration in establishing conditions of release

of a charged defendant. Typically, the source of the criminal

history information is the Federal Bureau of Investigation which in

turn gathers it from state and local law enforcement sources,

including from those in Vermont. It includes arrest, prosecution,

and conviction information and may contain law enforcement

investigatory information. In response to a request from the

Vermont Criminal Information Center, the Supreme Court through

its rules committees is considering what part or parts of the

criminal history information provided for conditions of release of a

charged defendant should be considered not publicly accessible

under federal and state law. The answer to the question is likely to

depend on the nature of the information provided so this rule

separates the criminal history information into parts that are

relevant to the public access issue.

Reporters Notes—2021 Amendment

Rule 5 is amended in three respects in connection with the

introduction of efiling in the Supreme Court.

First, subdivision (b)(4) is amended to make clear that an efiling of a

notice of appeal cannot be rejected for failure to pay a required entry

fee to the judiciary at the time the notice of appeal is filed, or for

failure to file a request to waive the fee. See V.R.A.P. 3(b)(1)(a); 32

V.S.A. § 1431. Although V.R.A.P. 3(b)(1)(A) requires paying the

filing fee with the filing of the notice of appeal, subparagraph

(b)(1)(D) states that an appellant’s “failure to take any step other than

a timely filing of a notice of appeal does not affect the appeal’s

validity, but is ground for the Supreme Court to take any appropriate

action, including dismissal.” Thus, the validity of the notice of appeal

cannot be affected by the failure to pay the entry fee. Note that the

amendment relates to the filing of the appeal entry fee and not to any

required payment to the efiling vendor.

New subdivision (e) is added to specify that court staff will perform

clerk review for filings in the Supreme Court, to specify the

permissible grounds for rejecting an efiling in the Supreme Court, and

to provide for corrections of rejected efilings in the Supreme Court.

The grounds for rejecting an efiling in the Supreme Court are limited

and the decision whether to reject an efiling is committed to the

discretion of the staff reviewer. The process for correcting a filing is

the same as for filings to the superior court. The rule does not apply to

filings that are rejected by the efiling system for failure to comply with

system requirements. In addition, the rule does not limit any remedy

the Supreme Court may impose for violation of procedural

requirements.

Former subdivision (e) is renumbered (f) and is divided into two

parts, one applicable to motion efilings in both the Supreme and

superior court and the other applicable only to superior court efiling.

The requirements with respect to motions seeking multiple forms of

relief are applicable in both the Supreme Court and the superior court.

The terminology is explained in the original Reporter’s Notes to 2020

V.R.E.F. 5(f)(1) & (2). The requirements enable the efiler to choose a

proper description of the filing in the efiling system, supplementing it

if necessary with an additional description of what is being filed. Note

that V.R.A.P. 27(d)(2), as amended simultaneously with this rule,

imposes the same requirements for motions seeking separate forms of

relief in the Supreme Court, irrespective of whether filed electronically

or on paper. In both the superior courts and Supreme Court efilers

must separate responses from new motions. Also V.R.A.P. 27 and

32(g) impose additional content and formatting requirements for

motions filed in the Supreme Court.

Other motion filing requirements related to supporting material in

former subdivision (f), now (g), remain applicable only in the superior

court. Motion practice in the Supreme Court is typically less complex

than in the superior court, making it unnecessary to apply the

additional requirements in the Supreme Court.

Third, the requirement in former subdivision (g), now (h), for

separation of criminal history information that is efiled in a criminal

case is made applicable only in the superior court. As the original

Reporter’s Notes to Rule 5(g) explain, the requirement is a placeholder

for differential treatment of criminal history information with respect

to public access. Since the separation, and public access classification,

occur in the superior court, it is already part of the record if the case

reaches the Supreme Court.

Reporter’s Note—2021 Emergency Amendment

Under the prior language of Rule 5, all electronic filings were

reviewed prior to entry into the Judiciary’s electronic case

management system in accordance with the rule’s requirements and

Rule 7 of the Vermont Rules for Public Access to Court Records. Rule

5(d) is amended following entry of the decision and order of the U.S.

District Court for the District of Vermont in Courthouse News Service,

et. al. v. Patricia Gabel, et. al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00132 on November

19, 2021. The amendments comport with new procedures for the

processing of the initial civil complaint, essentially providing for

public access to the same, prior to clerk review and acceptance

pursuant to Rule 5(d). The amendments do not alter an electronic

filer’s obligations under Rule 5(b), including compliance with Rule

5(b)(5) and (6). The amendments also do not alter the process of clerk

review of new civil complaint filings otherwise prescribed by Rule

5(d).

Beginning on Friday, December 10, 2021, initial civil complaints

submitted using the Odyssey File and Serve code “initial filing” were

automatically entered in the Judiciary’s electronic case management

system without a prior staff review and acceptance. Previously, all

electronic filings, including initial complaints and associated

documents in such cases, were reviewed by staff before being entered

into the electronic case management system. Some initial civil

complaints are excepted from the automatic entry, including those in

small claims actions, stalking/sexual assault actions, and those within

the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, or within the

jurisdiction of criminal division, family division, environmental

division, probate division, or the judicial bureau.

Once initial filings are automatically entered into the case

management system, documents and information designated by the

electronic filer as public will be viewable to the public on courthouse

public access terminals and on the Public Portal website for users with

elevated access roles.

Documents submitted under other filing codes in the same envelope

or in other envelopes will continue to be reviewed and manually

accepted by staff prior to being entered into the case management

system.

Pursuant to Rules 7(a)(3) and (4) of the Vermont Rules for Public

Access to Court Records, court staff will review all initial complaints

after they are entered into the system for the presence of nonpublic

information that should not be publicly viewable. As with all cases

under the present rules in which this screening reveals that nonpublic

documents or information are part of the initial filing, court staff will

take corrective or remedial actions authorized by Rules 7(a)(3) and (4)

to protect such information from public view and will send notice to

the efiler along with a specification of what corrective actions are

needed to fix defects in the filing.

Note that Rule 6 is not amended so procedures for review of

complaints filed non-electronically remain the same as they have been

Reporter’s Note—2024 Amendment

Rule 5(d) and (e) are amended to clarify the provisions regarding

accepting and rejecting filings. In addition to rejections made by court

staff, the amended rule addresses failed submissions, which are done

automatically by the efiling system. The amendments also clarify the

bases for rejection. Court staff and user experience demonstrate that a

number of rejected efilings result from efiler noncompliance with

requirements that are not articulated specifically in existing rules.

These include, but are not limited to, such errors as efiling into the

wrong case, filing by someone not a party or attorney in a case, filing

in the wrong county, duplicate filings, initiating a new case instead of

filing into an existing one, and filing by someone not authorized to

submit the filing type. Some rejections stem from rule-based

requirements, such as failure to sign a document and failure to comply

with V.R.P.A.C.R. 7(a)(1) by publicly filing nonpublic documents or

content.

Rule 5(b) continues to prescribe the requirements for any efiling,

with reference to other Rules for Electronic Filing, including Rules 5

and 7 (formatting); Rule 9 (signature); Rule 10 (payment of necessary

fees, or a request for waiver of them); and certification of compliance

with V.R.P.A.C.R. 7(a)(1) (public documents containing nonpublic

information; redacted and original versions required). For successful

submission and acceptance, the existing rule also requires that efilers

comply with the instructions in the efiling system and provide correct

mailing and emailing addresses and service contact information.

Rule 5(d)(2) is amended to clarify the bases for rejecting a filing.

The amended language provides that a filing may be accepted or

rejected and that a rejection will provide the reason for the rejection.

To supplement the general provision of 5(d)(1) that all electronic

filings are reviewed “for compliance with these rules, and Rule 7(a)(1)

of the Rules for Public Access to Court Records,” amended 5(d)(2)

states that staff may reject a filing that contains an error that cannot be

corrected by court staff. Rule 5(b) requires efilers to comply with the

instructions in the efiling system. Some errors by efilers cannot be

corrected by court staff after acceptance and therefore must be

rejected. This includes errors such as filing 6 into the wrong case,

filing an initial filing as a subsequent filing or vice versa, or filing a

criminal case with the wrong date or incorrect charge. The rule

indicates that the Court Administrator will provide a list of permissible

reasons for rejecting filings and make it available on the Judiciary

website. This will provide transparency to efilers regarding the reasons

for rejection and greater consistency across the state in how filings are

handled.

New paragraph 5(d)(3) addresses failed submissions. In limited

situations, efilings that do not comply with the efiling instructions or

the system’s formatting requirements may result in a submission

failure. This means the document cannot be fully processed by the

efiling system and it will not reach the queue for clerk review. In these

situations, the efiler will receive an automated email notice from the

electronic filing system that there was a failed submission.

Former (d)(3) regarding correcting an efiling is renumbered (d)(4)

and amended to allow an efiler the benefit of the date of initial

submission of a failed submission if corrected within 7 days. Because

a failed submission does not appear in the clerk review queue, it is the

efiler’s responsibility to demonstrate the date a filing was initially

submitted. During the efiling process, efilers sometimes experience an

“internal error,” which indicates that the information is

nonresponsive—for example, when unusable credit card information is

entered to pay for a filing—incorrect or incomplete and therefore

cannot be processed. These internal errors do not result in a

submission and therefore are not subject to the correction period.

Instructions on how to resubmit a rejected filing or a failed submission

are provided on the Judiciary website.

https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/about-vermont-judiciary/electronic-

access/electronic-filing/faqs

Former paragraphs (d)(4) and (5) are renumbered (5) and (6) without

amendment.

New paragraph (d)(7) is added to provide a process for appealing a

rejected efiling. The new provision indicates that the Court

Administrator will provide an administrative process for reviewing the

basis for a rejected efiling and delineate that process on the Judiciary

website. It is expected that this process will be required in very few

cases, only after an efiler and court staff are unable to resolve rejection

disputes otherwise. The appeal must be initiated within 7 days from

the date of rejection and the time for correcting 7 the filing is tolled

until the appeal is decided. There is no further appeal from this

administrative appeal process.

Rule 5(e) regarding court staff processing in the Supreme Court is

revised similarly to 5(d). Amended 5(e)(2) requires that a reason for

rejection be provided and that court staff may reject a filing that

contains an error which cannot be corrected by court staff, including

filing into the wrong case or filing a subsequent filing as an initial

filing. New 5(e)(3) addresses failed submissions. Former paragraphs

(e)(3)-(5) are renumbered (e)(4)-(6). New (e)(7) contains a provision

similar to (d)(7) on appealing a rejected efiling.

Rule 5(g)(1) is amended to delete former subparagraphs (g)(1)(A)

and (B), which allowed motions requesting alternative forms of relief

to be filed in a single document but required motions requesting

independent forms of relief to be filed separately. This rule has been

difficult to implement in practice because the distinction between

alternative and independent forms of relief was not easily ascertainable

by court staff reviewing filings. Thus, the requirement was

implemented nonuniformly. To achieve more clarity, new (g)(1)(A)

requires that all motions be filed as separate lead documents.

Submitting these motions as individual lead documents with the

correct efiling code will provide clarity for court staff, judges, and

parties and ensure that the requests are each identified, tracked,

responded to, and resolved. Former (g)(1)(C) is relabeled (g)(1)(B)

and continues to require motions and responses to be filed separately.

Rule 5(g) is amended regarding supporting material for motions.

New 5(g)(2)(A) allows a memorandum of law in support of a motion

to be filed as part of the motion document itself or as a separate

document. One memorandum may be filed in support of multiple

motions or responses as long as the memorandum identifies the

motions or responses to which it relates.

Under revised (g)(2) efilers must file supporting material, including

affidavits or exhibits, separately from the motion or memorandum.

The separate document must identify the motion(s) or response(s) to

which it relates. Supporting material may be submitted either as

individual files or as a single compiled document. Under (g)(2)(C),

supporting material that is compiled into a single document must be

numbered sequentially with numbers that match the electronic page

counter. In other words, the first page (including the table of contents)

should begin with page one. The references in the party’s motion to

the supporting material should use this numbering to allow other

parties and the court to easily locate the referenced material. Under

(g)(2)(C)(ii), the compiled document must begin with table of contents

that lists the page reference for each item. In deciding whether to

submit supporting material as individual files or as a single, compiled

document, the filer should consider the accessibility for the court and

the parties. It may be difficult for the court to easily locate and view

different types of supporting material at the same time if it is compiled

into a single document.

Reporter’s Notes—2025 Emergency Amendment

Rule 5(d)(1)(B) is amended in response to developments in the

litigation between Courthouse News Service and other various

news outlets and the Vermont Judiciary. When electronic filing

first began in March 2020, the Vermont Rules for Electronic Filing

required clerk review before electronically filed documents were

publicly accessible to prevent improper disclosure of confidential

information. The COVID-19 pandemic struck around the same

time that electronic filing began, and prompt processing of

complaints was impacted by staffing shortages and equipment

challenges. Courthouse News Service filed suit alleging that the

delays in accessing complaints violated its First Amendment right

of access. The district court issued an injunction barring a delayed

release of complaints, and Rule 5(d)(1) was amended in December

2021 to create a press-review queue where civil complaints could

be accessed before clerk review.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that

the pandemic-impacted delays violated the plaintiffs’ First

Amendment right of access but observed that the Judiciary’s

processing of new filings had since improved. Courthouse News

Serv. v. Corsones, 131 F.4th 59, 63 (2d Cir. 2025). The Second

Circuit vacated the district court injunction as overbroad. On

remand, the district court revised the injunction to enjoin only the

type of review taking place prior to August 2021. In response to

this revised injunction and the Second Circuit ruling, the Judiciary

reinstated pre-access review limited to confidential information in

civil complaints and with an expedited review process.

Rule 5(d)(1)(B) is revised to reflect this change in practice. The

amendment indicates that civil complaints are reviewed to ensure

the absence of confidential information prior to entry into the case

management system. The rule amendment recognizes that filers

have a responsibility to determine whether filings contain

information that is not publicly accessible and to either redact it or

separate it from publicly accessible information. V.R.P.A.C.R.

7(a)(1). In particular, the Vermont Rules for Public Access to

Court Records indicate that some personally identifying

information is not publicly accessible, including social security

numbers, passport numbers, and financial account numbers.

V.R.P.A.C.R. 6(b)(8). Under the revised rule, civil complaints are

reviewed to ensure there is no release of this personal information

before the complaint is accepted into the case management system.

Reporter’s Notes—2026 Amendment

Rule 5(d) is amended to indicate that review of electronic filings

in proceedings before hearing panels of the Professional

Responsibility Board are done in the same manner as those

submitted to superior courts. The filings may be rejected for failure

to comply with the efiling rules, the public access rules, or if there

is an error that cannot be correct by court staff—for example, filing

into the wrong case.