“Lessons learned during the pandemic and the resulting changes in court procedures have allowed the system to better adjust to the reality of the new normal”, says Janet Stellpflug. “In addition to promoting enhanced accessibility to all court users, clients will continue efficiencies learned in the pandemic, as an example, saving travel and time expenses to attend a brief pretrial in a remote location.”
The order is detailed below. For additional information, contact us.
MN Supreme Court Order Effective June 6, 2022 re: Court Operations
On April 19, 2022, the Supreme Court issued an Order governing state-wide court operations. This order, which supersedes the previous orders governing the operations of the Minnesota Judicial Branch during the pandemic, is set to go into effect on June 6, 2022. The April 19th Order shall apply to all proceedings in the district courts unless the case type or proceeding is expressly excluded from those standards.
The presumptive hearing format for “major civil” cases states that the following hearing types will be remote: arbitration, default, hearing, pre-trial, motions, scheduling conferences, settlement conferences, and temporary restraining orders.
The presumptive hearing format for “major civil” cases states that the following hearing types will be in-person: contempt, court trial, and jury trial.
The presiding judge can depart from the presumptive format, either on the court’s motion or a party’s motion, if exceptional circumstances for that departure exist. Parties’ agreement to depart from the presumptive format alone does not satisfy the exceptional circumstances requirement that the presiding judge may consider.
Factors a district court may consider in determining whether an exceptional circumstance exist to allow one or more parties to appear in person for a presumptively remote hearing:
- All parties, and the court agree that the hearing should be held in person (this by itself is not an exceptional circumstance)
- A party lacks access to the technology needed to participate remotely and cannot reasonably obtain it before the hearing
- The importance and complexity of the proceeding
- There are too many participants to be able to easily keep track of them on a computer screen
- For an evidentiary proceeding, whether appearing remotely would allow for effective examination of the witness and to maintain the solemnity and integrity of the proceedings.
- any undue surprise or prejudice that would result
- other such factors, based upon the specific facts and circumstances of the case, as the court determines to be relevant.
Factors a district court may consider in determining whether an exceptional circumstance exists to allow one or more parties to appear remotely for an in-person hearing:
- All parties, and the court agree that the hearing should be held in person (this by itself is not an exceptional circumstance)
- Holding the hearing in person would cause a hearing participant to reasonably fear for their safety
- The cost and time savings to any party
- Whether traveling to the hearing would be unreasonably far or unduly burdensome for a hearing participant
- A hearing participant is in custody or residential treatment and cannot physically travel to participate in the hearing
- Whether inclement weather poses a safety risk to participants
- Unavoidable scheduling conflicts of the parties preventing them from moving forward in a timelier way
- The importance and complexity of the proceedings
- For an evidentiary proceeding, whether appearing remotely would allow for effective examination of the witness and to maintain the solemnity and integrity of the proceedings.
- any undue surprise or prejudice that would result
- other such factors, based upon the specific facts and circumstances of the case, as the court determines to be relevant
The order is effective June 6, 2022. Hearings scheduled prior to the effective date of this order shall be held remotely or in person as initially noticed to parties, unless an exception is granted by the district chief judge.
