Rule 5.04 - Filing; Certificate of Service(a) Deadline for Filing Action. Any action that is not filed with the court within one year of commencement against any party is deemed dismissed with prejudice against all parties unless the parties within that year sign a stipulation to extend the filing period. This paragraph does not apply to family cases governed by rules 301 to 378 of the General Rules of Practice for the District Courts.(b) Filing of Documents After the Complaint; Certificate of Service. All documents after the complaint required to be served upon a party, together with a certificate of service specifying the details of how and when service was accomplished and signed under oath or penalty of perjury by the person effecting service, shall be filed with the court within a reasonable time after service, except disclosures under Rule 26, expert disclosures and reports, depositions upon oral examination and interrogatories, requests for documents, requests for admission, and answers and responses thereto shall not be filed unless authorized by court order or rule. If a document is electronically filed and electronically served together using the district court's e-service system, no separate proof of service is required.(c) Rejection of Filing. The administrator shall not refuse to accept for filing any document presented for that purpose solely because it is not presented in proper form as required by these rules or any local rules or practices. Documents may be rejected for filing if:(1) tendered without a required filing fee or a correct assigned file number;(2) tendered to an administrator other than for the court where the action is pending;(3) the document constitutes a discovery request or response submitted without the express permission of the court; or(4) the document contains a restricted identifier or other non-public information submitted in violation of Rules 11.02, 11.03, or 11.04 of the General Rules of Practice for the District Courts. This clause (4) shall not apply to criminal, civil commitment, juvenile protection, or juvenile delinquency cases, or to medical records in any type of case.(d)Relation Back. On motion and in the interests of justice, the court may deem a filing rejected under paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(4) of this rule to be filed as of the time and date it was originally tendered to the appropriate administrator for filing.Amended effective 7/1/2015; amended effective 1/1/2021; amended effective 7/1/2021.Advisory Committee Comments-2015 Amendments Rule 5.04 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 Minn. Stat. § 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.Advisory Committee Comment-2020
Amendments Rule 5.04(b) is amended to expressly require that proofofservice 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 ofrejection are severe or irreparable. This might occur for those relatively rare cases where an action is commenced by filing the complaint. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. § 514.11 (requiring timely filing of mechanic's lien foreclosure action).