Minnesota General Rules of Practice for the District CourtsIncludes amendments effective January 1, 2006Provided by the Minnesota Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office
TITLE I. RULES APPLICABLE TO ALL COURT PROCEEDINGS Rule 1. Scope of Rules; Modification; Service on Parties; Applicability to Pro Se Parties1.01 Scope1.02 Modification1.03 Service on Parties1.04 Responsibilities of Parties Appearing Pro SeRule 2. Court Decorum; Conduct of Judges and Lawyers2.01 Behavior and Ceremony in General2.02 Role of Judges2.03 Role of AttorneysRule 3. Ex Parte Orders3.01 Notice3.02 Prior ApplicationRule 4. Pictures and Voice RecordingsRule 5. Appearance by Out-of-State LawyersRule 6. Form of Pleadings6.01 Format6.02 Paper Size6.03 Backings Not AllowedRule 7. Proof of ServiceRule 8. Interpreters8.01 Statewide Roster8.02 Appointment8.03 Disqualification from Proceeding8.04 General Requirement for Court Interpreter Certification8.05 Examination for Legal Interpreting Competency8.06 Application for Certification8.07 Appeal of Denial of Certification8.08 Complaints and Investigation8.09 Expenses and Fees8.10 Continuing Education Requirements8.11 Confidentiality of Records8.12 Interpreters to Assist JurorsRule 9. Frivolous Litigation9.01 Motion for Order Requiring Security or Imposing Sanctions9.02 Hearing9.03 Failure to Furnish Security9.04 Stay of Proceedings9.05 Appeal9.06 Definitions.9.07 Effect on Other Provisions.
10.01 When Tribal Court Orders and Judgments Must Be Given Effect
10.02 When Recognition of Tribal Court Orders and Judgments is Discretionary
Rule 11 Submission of Confidential Information
11.01 Definitions
11.02 Restricted Identifiers
11.03 Sealing Financial Source Documents
11.04 Failure to Comply
11.05 Procedures for Requesting Access to Sealed Financial Source Documents
Rule 1. Scope of Rules; Modification; Service on Parties;
Applicability to Pro Se Parties Rule 1.01 Scope.
These rules shall apply in all trial courts of the state. These rules may be cited as Minn. Gen. R. Prac. ___. Rule 1.02 Modification.
A judge may modify the application of these rules in any case to prevent manifest injustice. Rule 1.03 Service on Parties.
When a paper is to be served on a party under these rules, service shall be made on the party’s lawyer if represented, otherwise on the nonrepresented party directly. Rule 1.04 Responsibility of Parties Appearing Pro Se.
Whenever these rules require that an act be done by a lawyer, the same duty is required of a party appearing pro se. Cross Reference: Minn. R. Civ. P. 5.02, 83.
Rule 2. Court Decorum; Conduct of Judges and Lawyers
Rule 2.01 Behavior and Ceremony in General
(a) Acceptable Behavior. Dignity and solemnity shall be maintained in the courtroom. There shall be no unnecessary conversation, loud whispering, newspaper or magazine reading or other distracting activity in the courtroom while court is in session. (b) Flag. The flags of the United States and the State of Minnesota shall be displayed on or in close proximity to the bench when court is in session. (c) Formalities in Opening Court. At the opening of each court day, the formalities to be observed shall consist of the following: court personnel shall direct all present to stand, and shall say clearly and distinctly: Everyone please rise! The District Court of the ________ Judicial District, County of ________, State of Minnesota is now open. Judge ________ presiding. Please be seated. (Rap gavel or give other signal immediately prior to directing audience to be seated.) At any time thereafter during the day that court is reconvened court personnel shall give warning by gavel or otherwise, and as the judge enters, cause all to stand until the Judge is seated. (The above rule (to) or (to not) apply to midmorning and midafternoon recesses of the court at the option of the judge.) (d) The Jury. Jurors shall take their places in the jury box before the judge enters the courtroom. Court personnel shall assemble the jurors when court is reconvened. When a jury has been selected and is to be sworn, the presiding judge or clerk shall request everyone in the courtroom to stand. (e) Court Personnel. Court personnel shall maintain order as litigants, witnesses and the public assemble in the courtroom, during trial and during recesses. Court personnel shall direct them to seats and refuse admittance to the courtroom in such trials where the courtroom is occupied to its full seating capacity. (f) Swearing of Witnesses. When the witness is sworn, court personnel shall request the witness’ full name, and after being sworn, courteously invite the witness to be seated on the witness stand. (g) Manner of Administration of Oath. Oaths and affirmations shall be administered to jurors and witnesses in a slow, clear, and dignified manner. Witnesses should stand near the bench, or witness stand as sworn. The swearing of witnesses should be an impressive ceremony and not a mere formality. (Amended effective January 1, 1998.) Rule 2.02 Role of Judges
(a) Dignity. The judge shall be dignified, courteous, respectful and considerate of the lawyers, the jury and witnesses. The judge shall wear a robe at all trials and courtroom appearances. The judge shall at all times treat all lawyers, jury members, and witnesses fairly and shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual preference, status with regard to public assistance, disability, or age.
(b) Punctuality. The judge shall be punctual in convening court, and prompt in the performance of judicial duties, recognizing that the time of litigants, jurors and attorneys is of value and that habitual lack of punctuality on part of a judge justifies dissatisfaction with the administration of the business of the court.
(c) Impartiality. During the presentation of the case, the judge shall maintain absolute impartiality, and shall neither by word or sign indicate favor to any party to the litigation. The judge shall be impersonal in addressing the lawyers, litigants and other officers of the court. (d) Intervention. The judge should generally refrain from intervening in the examination of witnesses or argument of counsel; however, the court shall intervene upon its own initiative to prevent a miscarriage of justice or obvious error of law. (e) Decorum in Court. The judge shall be responsible for order and decorum in the court and shall see to it at all times that parties and witnesses in the case are treated with proper courtesy and respect. (f) Accurate Record. The judge shall be in complete charge of the trial at all times and shall see to it that everything is done to obtain a clear and accurate record of the trial. It is a duty to see that the witnesses testify clearly so that the reporter may obtain a correct record of all proceedings in court.(g) Comment Upon Verdict. The judge should not comment favorably or adversely upon the verdict of a jury when it may indirectly influence the action of the jury in causes remaining to be tried.
(Amended effective January 1, 1998.) Rule 2.03 Role of Attorneys
(a) Officer of Court. The lawyer is an officer of the court and should at all times uphold the honor and maintain the dignity of the profession, maintaining at all times a respectful attitude toward the court. (b) Addressing Court or Jury. Except when making objections, lawyers should rise and remain standing while addressing the court or the jury. In addressing the court, the lawyer should refer to the judge as “Your Honor” or “The Court.” Counsel shall not address or refer to jurors individually or by name or occupation, except during voir dire, and shall never use the first name when addressing a juror in voir dire examination. During trial, counsel shall not exhibit familiarity with the judge, jurors, witnesses, parties or other counsel, nor address them by use of first names (except for children). (c) Approaching Bench. The lawyers should address the court from a position at the counsel table. If a lawyer finds it necessary to discuss some question out of the hearing of the jury at the bench, the lawyer may so indicate to the court and, if invited, approach the bench for the purpose indicated. In such an instance, the lawyers should never lean upon the bench nor appear to engage the court in a familiar manner. (d) Non-Discrimination. Lawyers shall treat all parties, participants, other lawyers, and court personnel fairly and shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual preference, status with regard to public assistance, disability, or age. (e) Attire. Lawyers shall appear in court in appropriate courtroom attire. (Amended effective January 1, 1998.) Advisory Committee Comment--1997 Amendment The majority of this rule was initially derived from the former Rules of Uniform Decorum. The adoption of these rules in 1991 included these provisions in Part H, Minnesota Civil Trialbook. They are recodified here to make it clear that the standards for decorum, for lawyers and judges, apply in criminal as well as civil proceedings. The Task Force on Uniform Local Rules considered the recommendations of the Minnesota Supreme Court Task Force on Gender Fairness, and recommended Rule 2.03(d) be adopted to implement, in part, the recommendations of that body. See Minnesota Supreme Court Task Force for Gender Fairness in the Courts, 15 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 825 (1989). The rule specifically incorporated the definition of discriminatory conduct in the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes, section 363.01, subd. 1(1) (1990). The Task Force added to the statutory definition of discrimination the category of sexual preference.
The inclusion of these provisions in the rules is intended to establish uniform standards to be followed in most cases. Nothing in this rule limits the power of the court to modify the rules or their application in a particular case. See Rule 1.02. It is not intended that the failure to follow these rules, in itself, would be the subject of claimed error in the conduct of the trial court proceedings in the absence of aggravating circumstances, such as repeated violations or persistent violation after objections by a party or direction from the court.
Rule 3. Ex Parte Orders
Rule 3.01 Notice.
In any application for ex parte relief, the court may require a demonstration or explanation of the efforts made to notify affected parties, or the reasons why such efforts were not made. The reasons supporting ex parte relief should be recited in the order. Rule 3.02 Prior Application.
Before an ex parte order is issued, an affidavit shall be submitted with the application showing: (1) No prior applications for the relief requested or for a similar order have been made; or, (2) The court and judge to whom the prior application was made; the result of the prior application; and what new facts are presented with the current application. Failure to comply with this rule may result in vacation of any order entered. Task Force Comment--1991 Adoption Rule 3.01 is new, although it codifies the practice of the vast majority of judges. Rule 3.02 is derived from Rule 10 of the Code of Rules for the District Courts. This rule applies in all trial court proceedings, including criminal actions. The Minnesota Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Criminal Procedure joins the Task Force in recommending that this rule apply in all trial court proceedings. The review of the efforts made to provide notice is an integral part of permitting ex parte relief to be granted. The rule does not specify what showing must be made and does not state how it is to be made because the Task Force recognizes that a wide variety of circumstances apply to the seeking and obtaining of ex parte orders. In some circumstances, there may be proper reasons to justify ex parte relief even if notice could be given, and in those limited instances, a showing of those reasons should be made and reviewed by the court. The more common situation will involve description of the efforts made to give notice. The court may require the information in written or affidavit form, may take oral testimony, or may base the decision on the statements of counsel, either in person or by telephone. The Task Force also believes that if notice to affected parties is deemed unnecessary, the order should state the facts supporting ex parte relief without notice.
Rule 4. Pictures and Voice Recordings
No pictures or voice recordings, except the recording made as the official court record, shall be taken in any courtroom, area of a courthouse where courtrooms are located, or other area designated by order of the chief judge made available in the office of the court administrator in the county, during a trial or hearing of any case or special proceeding incident to a trial or hearing, or in connection with any grand jury proceedings. This rule shall be superseded by specific rules of the Minnesota Supreme Court relating to use of cameras in the courtroom or use of videotaped recording of proceedings to create the official recording of the case. (Amended effective January 1, 1994.) Advisory Committee Comment--1994 Amendments This rule is derived from the current local rules of three districts.
It appears that this rule is desired by the benches of three districts and it may be useful to have an articulated standard for the guidance of lawyers, litigants, the press, and the public. The Supreme Court has adopted rules allowing cameras in the courtrooms in limited circumstances, and it is inappropriate to have a written rule that does not accurately state the standards which lawyers are expected to follow. See In re Modification of Canon 3A(7) of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct, No. C7-81-300 (Minn. Sup. Ct. May 22, 1989). The court has ordered an experimental program for videotaped recording of proceedings for the official record in the Third, Fifth and Seventh Judicial Districts. In re Videotaped Records of Court Proceedings in the Third, Fifth, and Seventh Judicial Districts, No. C4-89-2099 (Minn. Sup. Ct. Nov. 17, 1989) (order). The proposed local rule is intended to allow the local courts to comply with the broader provisions of the Supreme Court Orders, but to prevent unauthorized use of cameras in the courthouse where there is no right to access with cameras. This is amended in 1994 to make it unnecessary for local courthouses to obtain Supreme Court approval of formal local rules designating areas of courthouses off limits to cameras. The reason for allowing local determination of this issue is the great architectural diversity of Minnesota courthouses and the recognition that the need for changes in the camera-free areas as space use changes, construction or remodeling, or other changes occur. There is no need for formal rulemaking nor Supreme Court approval of these rules. Any order designating areas of a courthouse pursuant to this rule should be posted or available in the court administrator’s office. There is no reason for publication of this order so long as it is readily available to members of the press or others interested in this issue. Rule 5. Appearance by Out-of-State Lawyers
Lawyers duly admitted to practice in the trial courts of any other jurisdiction may appear in any of the courts of this state provided (a) the pleadings are also signed by a lawyer duly admitted to practice in the State of Minnesota, and (b) such lawyer admitted in Minnesota is also present before the court, in chambers or in the courtroom or participates by telephone in any hearing conducted by telephone. In a subsequent appearance in the same action the out-of-state lawyer may, in the discretion of the court, conduct the proceedings without the presence of Minnesota counsel. Any lawyer appearing pursuant to this rule shall be subject to the disciplinary rules and regulations governing Minnesota lawyers and by applying to appear or appearing in any action shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Minnesota courts. Task Force Comment--1991 Adoption This rule is derived from 3rd Dist. R. 1. This rule is intended to supplement Minnesota Statutes, section 481.02 (1990) and would supersede the statute to the extent the rule may be inconsistent with it. This rule recognizes and preserves the power and responsibility of the court to determine the proper role to be played by lawyers not admitted to practice in Minnesota. Rule 6. Form of Pleadings
Rule 6.01 Format
All pleadings or other papers required to be filed shall be double spaced and legibly handwritten, typewritten, or printed on one side on plain unglazed paper of good texture. Every page shall have a top margin of not less than one inch, free from all typewritten, printed, or other written matter. Civil Rules Advisory Committee Comment—2006 Amendment Rule 6.01 is amended to delete a sentence dealing with filing by facsimile. The former provision is, in effect, superseded by Minn. R. Civ. P. 5.05, as amended effective January 1, 2006. Rule 6.02 Paper Size
All papers served or filed by any party shall be on standard size 8-1/2 X 11 inch paper. Rule 6.03 Backings Not Allowed
No pleading, motion, order, or other paper offered to the court administrator for filing shall be backed or otherwise enclosed in a covering. Any papers that cannot be attached by a single staple in the upper lefthand corner shall be clipped or tied by an alternate means at the upper lefthand corner. (Former Rule 102 adopted effective January 1, 1992; renumbered effective January 1, 1993.) Cross Reference: Minn. R. Civ. P. 5.05, 10.
Advisory Committee Comment--1992 Amendments This rule is based on 4th Dist. R. 1.01 (a) & (b), with changes. Although the rule permits the filing of handwritten documents, the clearly preferred practice in Minnesota is for typewritten documents. Similarly, commercially printed papers are rarely, if ever, used in Minnesota trial court practice, and the use of printed briefs in appellate practice is discouraged.
All courts in Minnesota converted to use of “letter size” paper in 1982. See Order Mandating 8-1/2 x 11 Inch Size Paper For All Filings in All Courts in the State, Minn. Sup. Ct., Apr. 16, 1982 (no current file number assigned), reprinted in Minn. Rules of Ct. 665 (West pamph. ed. 1992). Papers filed in the appellate courts must also be on letter-sized paper. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 132.01, subdivision 1. This rule simply reiterates the requirement for the trial courts.
Rule 7. Proof of Service
When service has been made before filing, proofs of service shall be affixed to all papers so that the identity of the instrument is not obscured. If a document is filed before service, proof of service shall be filed within 10 days after service is made. (Former Rule 103 adopted effective January 1, 1992; renumbered effective January 1, 1993; amended effective January 1, 1996.) Cross Reference: Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.06, 5.04.
Advisory Committee Comments--1995 Amendments This rule derived from Rule 13 of the Code of Rules for the District Courts. The second sentence is new, drafted to provide for filing of documents where service is to be made after filing. The Committee recommends amendment of the rule to require a specific rather than subjective standard for the filing of proof of service. Although the Committee heard requests to change the rule to require that all documents be filed with proof of service attached, the Committee believes that such a rule is neither helpful nor necessary. Such a rule would make it difficult to serve and file documents at the same time, and would probably result in greater problems relating to untimely service and filing. Nonetheless, there appear to be a number of situations where proof of service is not filed for a substantial period of time, resulting in confusion in the courts. The rule is accordingly amended to change the requirement from filing “promptly” after service to “within ten days” after service. The Committee believes this period is more than sufficient for filing a proof of service. The Committee is also sensitive to a potential problem that would arise with a requirement that proof of service accompany documents at the time of filing. The Committee continues to believe that documents, in whatever form, should not be rejected for filing by the court administrators. Rather, documents should be filed as submitted and the court should deal with any deficiencies or irregularities in the documents in an orderly way, having in mind the mandate of Rule 1 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure that the rules be interpreted to advance the “just, speedy, and inexpensive” determination of every action.
Rule 8. Interpreters
Definitions
1. “Review Panel” means the Minnesota Court Interpreter Review Panel, which is comprised of two district court judges and one court administrator appointed by the Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court.
2. “Coordinator” means the Court Interpreter Program Coordinator assigned to the State Court Administrator’s Office.
3. “Good Character” means traits that are relevant to and have a rational connection with the present fitness or capacity of an applicant to provide interpretation services in court proceedings.
4. “Roster” means the Minnesota statewide roster of court interpreters.
(Incorporated into General Rules of Practice, as amended, effective January 1, 2006.) Rule 8.01 Statewide Roster
The State Court Administrator shall maintain and publish annually a statewide roster of certified and non-certified interpreters which shall include: (a) Certified Court Interpreters: To be included on the Statewide Roster, certified court interpreters must have satisfied all certification requirements pursuant to Rule 8.04. (b) Non-certified Foreign Language Court Interpreters: To be included on the Statewide Roster, foreign language court interpreters must have: (1) completed the interpreter orientation program sponsored by the State Court Administrator; (2) filed with the State Court Administrator a written affidavit agreeing to be bound by the Code of Professional Responsibility for Interpreters in the Minnesota State Court System as the same may be amended from time to time; and (3) received a passing score on a written ethics examination administered by the State Court Administrator. (c) Non-certified Sign Language Court Interpreters: To be included on the Statewide Roster, non-certified sign language court interpreters must
(1) have satisfied the three requirements set forth about in Rule 8.01(b);
(2) be a member in good standing with the Registry of Interpreters for the Def (RID) or with the National Association of the Deaf (NAD); and
(3) possess
(i) both a valid Certificate of Transliteration (CT) and a Certificate of Interpretation from RID; or
(ii) a valid Comprehensive Skills Certificate (CSC) from RID or
(iii) a valid Level 5 certificate from NAD; or
(iv) a valid Certified Deaf Interpreter (CDI) or Certified Deaf Interpreter Provisional (CDIP) certificate from RID; or
(v) another equivalent valid certification approved by the State Court Administrator.
(Incorporated into General Rules of Practice, as amended, effective January 1, 2006.) Advisory Committee Comment 1997 Amendment It is the policy of the state to provide interpreters to litigants and witnesses in civil and criminal proceedings who are handicapped in communication. Minnesota Statutes, sections 611.30 - .32 (1996); Minn. R. Crim. P. 5.01, 15.01, 15.03, 15.11, 21.01, 26.03, 27.04, subd. 2; Minnesota Statutes, section 546.44, subdivision 3 (1996); see also 42 U.S.C. section 12101; 28 C.F.R. Part 35, section 130 (prohibiting discrimination in public services on basis of disability).
To effectuate that policy, the Minnesota Supreme Court has initiated a statewide orientation program of training for court interpreters and promulgated the Rules on Certification of Court Interpreters. Pursuant to Rule 8.01 of the General Rules of Practice for the District Courts, the State Court Administrator has established a statewide roster of court interpreters who have completed the orientation program on the Minnesota court system and court interpreting and who have filed an affidavit attesting that they understand and agree to comply with the Code of Professional Responsibility for Court Interpreters adopted by the Minnesota Supreme Court on September 18, 1995. The creation of the roster is the first step in a process that is being undertaken to ensure the competence of court interpreters. To be listed on the roster, a non-certified court interpreter must attend an orientation course provided or approved by the State Court Administrator. The purpose of the orientation is to provide interpreters with information regarding the Code of Professional Responsibility, the role of interpreters in our courts, skills required of court interpreters, the legal process, and legal terminology. Merely being listed on the roster does not certify or otherwise guarantee an interpreter’s competence.
In 1997, two key changes were made to this rule. First, interpreters are now required to receive a passing score on the ethics examination before they are eligible to be listed on the Statewide Roster. This change was implemented to ensure that court interpreters on the Statewide Roster have a demonstrated knowledge of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Second, to be eligible to be listed on the Statewide Roster, non-certified sign language court interpreters are required to possess certificates from the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID), which demonstrate that the interpreter has minimum competency skills in sign language. This change was recommended by the Advisory Committee because of reports to the Committee that courts were hiring sign language interpreters who completed the orientation training, but who were not certified by RID. This practice was troubling because prior to the promulgation of Rule 8, courts generally adopted the practice of using only RID certified sign language interpreters to ensure a minimum level of competency. Unlike most spoken language interpreting fields, the field of sign language interpreting is well established with nationally developed standards for evaluation and certification of sign language interpreters. Because of the long history of RID, its certification program, the availability of RID certified sign language interpreters in Minnesota and the recent incidents when courts have deviated from their general practice of appointing RID certified sign language interpreters, the Advisory Committee determined that it is appropriate and necessary to amend Rule 8 to maintain the current levels of professionalism and competency among non-certified sign language court interpreters.
Rule 8.02 Appointment
(a) Use of Certified Court Interpreter. Whenever an interpreter is required to be appointed by the court, the court shall appoint only a certified court interpreter who is listed on the statewide roster of interpreters established by the State Court Administrator under Rule 8.01, except as provided in Rule 8.02(b) and (c). A certified court interpreter shall be presumed competent to interpret in all court proceedings. The court may, at any time, make further inquiry into the appointment of a particular certified court interpreter. Objections made by a party regarding special circumstances which render the certified court interpreter unqualified to interpret in the proceeding must be made in a timely manner. (b) Use of Non-Certified Court Interpreter on Statewide Roster. If the court has made diligent efforts to obtain a certified court interpreter as required by Rule 8.02(a) and found none to be available, the court shall appoint a non-certified court interpreter who is otherwise competent and is listed on the Statewide Roster established by the State Court Administrator under Rule 8.01. In determining whether a non-certified court interpreter is competent, the court shall apply the screening standards developed by the State Court Administrator.
(c) Use of Non-Certified Court Interpreter not on the Statewide Roster. Only after the court has exhausted the requirements of Rule 8.02(a) and (b) may the court appoint a non-certified interpreter who is not listed on the Statewide Roster and who is otherwise competent. In determining whether a non-certified interpreter is competent, the court shall apply the screening standards developed by the State Court Administrator. In no event shall the court appoint a non-certified sign language interpreter who does not, at a minimum possess both a Certificate of Transliteration and a Certificate of Interpretation from the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf or an equivalent certification from the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf or another organization that is approved by the State Court Administrator. (Added effective January 1, 1996; amended effective January 1, 1998.) Advisory Committee Comment 1997 Amendment Rule 8.02(a) requires that courts use certified court interpreters. If certified court interpreters are not available or cannot be located, courts should next use only interpreters listed on the statewide roster maintained by the State Court Administrator. Rule 8.02 recognizes, however, that in rare circumstances it will not be possible to appoint an interpreter from the statewide roster. Non-roster interpreters and telephone interpreting services, such at AT & T’s Language Lines Service, should be used only as a last resort because of the limitations of such services including the lack of a minimum orientation to the Minnesota Court System and to the requirements of court interpreting. For a detailed discussion of the issues, see Court Interpretation: Model Guides for Policy and Practice in the State Courts, chapter 8 (National Center for State Courts, 1995), a copy of which is available from the State Court Administrator’s Office. To avoid unreasonable objections to a certified court interpreter in a proceeding, the rule makes a presumption that the certified court interpreter is competent. However, the rule also recognizes that there are situations when an interpreter may be competent to interpret, but not qualified. Examples of such situations include when an interpreter has a conflict of interest or the user of the interpreter services has unique demands, such as services tailored to a person with minimal language skills, that the interpreter is not as qualified to meet.
Rule 8.02(b) requires that courts make “diligent” efforts to locate a certified court interpreter before appointing a non-certified court interpreter. Because the certification process is still in an early stage and because it is important to ensure that courts use competent interpreters, courts should seek the services of certified court interpreters who are located outside the court’s judicial district if none can be found within its own district. In addition, courts should consider modifying the schedule for a matter if there is difficulty locating a certified interpreter for a particular time. Because the certification program being implemented by the State Court Administrator is still new, interpreters are being certified in only certain languages at this time. The Advisory Committee recognizes that it may be some time before certification is provided for all languages used in our courts. However, the committee feels strongly that for those languages for which certification has been issued, the courts must utilize certified court interpreters to ensure that its interpreters are qualified. If a court uses non-certified court interpreters, court administrators should administer the screening standards prior to hiring an interpreter. However, the presiding judge is still primarily responsible for ensuring the competence and qualifications of the interpreter. A model voir dire to determine the competence and qualifications of an interpreter is set forth in the State Court Administrator’s Best Practices Manual on Court Interpreters.
Rule 8.03 Disqualification from Proceeding
A judge may disqualify a court interpreter from a proceeding for good cause. Good cause for disqualification includes, but is not limited to, an interpreter who engages in the following conduct: (a) Knowingly and willfully making a false interpretation while serving in a proceeding; (b) Knowingly and willfully disclosing confidential or privileged information obtained while serving in an official capacity; (c) Failing to follow applicable laws, rules of court, or the Code of Professional Responsibility for Interpreters in the Minnesota State Court System. (Added effective January 1, 1996; amended effective January 1, 1998.) Advisory Committee Comment 1995 Interpreters must take an oath or affirmation to make a true interpretation to the best of their ability, to the person handicapped in communication and to officials. Minnesota Statutes, sections 546.44, subdivision 2; 611.33, subdivision 2 (1994). Interpreters cannot disclose privileged information without consent. Minnesota Statutes, sections 546.44, subdivision 4; 611.33, subdivision 4 (1994). These and other requirements are also addressed in the Code of Professional Responsibility for Interpreters in the Minnesota State Court System.
Rule 8.04 General Requirement for Court Interpreter Certification
(a) Eligibility for Certification. An applicant is eligible for certification upon establishing to the satisfaction of the State Court Administrator:
1. age of at least 18 years;
2. good character and fitness;
3. inclusion on the Statewide Roster of court interpreters maintained by the State Court Administrator’s office in accordance with Rule 8 of the General Rules of Practice for the District Courts;
4. passing score on legal interpreting competency examination administered or approved by the State Court Administrator’s Office; and
5. passing score on a written ethics examination administered by the State Court Administrator’s Office.
(Incorporated into General Rules of Practice, as amended, effective January 1, 2006)
Rule 8.05 Examination for Legal Interpreting Competency
(a) Examination. Examinations for legal interpreting competency in specific languages shall be administered at such times and places as the Coordinator may designate.
1. Scope of Examination. Applicants for certification in interpreting in a spoken or sign language may be tested on any combination of the following:
a. Sight Interpretation;
b. Consecutive Interpretation;
c. Simultaneous Interpretation; and
d. Transliteration (when applicable).
2. Denial of Opportunity to Test. An applicant may be denied permission to take an examination if an application, together with the application fee, is not complete and filed in a timely manner.
3. Results of Examination. The results of the examination, which may include scores, shall be released to examinees by regular mail to the address listed in the Coordinator’s files. Statistical information relating to the examinations, applicants, and the work of the State Court Administrator’s Office may be released at the discretion of the State Court Administrator’s Office.
4. Testing Accommodations. A qualified applicant with a disability who requires reasonable accommodations must submit a written request to the Coordinator at the same time the application is filed. The Coordinator will consider timely requests and advise the applicant of what, if any, reasonable accommodations will be provided. The Coordinator may request additional information, including medical evidence, from the applicant prior to providing accommodations to the applicant.
5. Confidentiality. Except as otherwise provided in Rule 8.05(a)3, all information relating to the examinations is confidential. The State Court Administrator’s Office shall take steps to ensure the security and confidentiality of all examination information.
(Incorporated into General Rules of Practice, as amended, effective January 1, 2006.)
Drafting Committee Comment‑‑1996
The Minnesota Supreme Court is one of the founding states of the State Court Interpreter Certification Consortium. It is the function of the Consortium to develop tests for court interpretation in various languages and administration standards, and to provide testing materials to individual states and jurisdictions. The Minnesota State Court Administrator’s Office will in most circumstances utilize tests and standards established by or in conjunction with the Consortium.
Rule 8.06 Application for Certification
(a) Complete Application. An applicant desiring legal interpreting certification in a particular language shall file with the Coordinator a complete and notarized application on a form prepared by the State Court Administrator’s Office and pay the application fee established by the State Court Administrator’s Office.
(b) Certification Standards.
1. Screening. The State Court Administrator’s Office shall administer character, fitness and competency screening. It shall perform its duties in a manner that ensures the protection of the public by recommending for certification only those who qualify. A court interpreter should be one whose record of conduct justifies the trust of the courts, witnesses, jurors, attorneys, parties, and others with respect to the official duties owed to them. A record manifesting significant deficiency in the honesty, trustworthiness, diligence or reliability of an applicant may constitute a basis for denial of certification.
2. Relevant Conduct. The revelation or discovery of any of the following should be treated as cause for further inquiry before the State Court Administrator’s Office decides whether the applicant possesses the character and fitness to qualify for certification to interpret in the courtroom:
a. conviction of a crime which resulted in a sentence or a suspended sentence;
b. misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
c. revocation or suspension of certification as an interpreter, or for any other position or license for which a character check was performed in this state or in other jurisdictions; and
d. acts that indicate abuse of or disrespect for the judicial process.
3. Evaluation of Character and Fitness. The State Court Administrator’s Office shall determine whether the present character and fitness of an applicant qualifies the applicant for certification. In making this determination, the following factors should be considered in assigning weight and significance to prior conduct:
a. the applicant’s age at the time of the conduct;
b. the recency of the conduct;
c. the reliability of the information concerning the conduct;
d. the seriousness of the conduct;
e. the factors underlying the conduct;
f. the cumulative effect of the conduct;
g. the evidence of rehabilitation;
h. the applicant’s positive social contributions since the conduct;
i. the applicant’s candor in the certification process; and
j. the materiality of any admissions or misrepresentations.
(c) Notification of Application for Certification. The Coordinator shall notify applicants in writing and by regular mail of the decision on the applicant's request for certification.
(d) Information Disclosure.
1. Application File. An applicant may review the contents of his or her application file, except for the work product of the Coordinator and the State Court Administrator’s Office, at such times and under such conditions as the State Court Administrator’s Office may provide.
2. Investigation. Information may be released to appropriate agencies for the purpose of obtaining information related to the applicant’s character and competency.
3. Confidentiality.
a. Investigative Data: Information obtained by the Coordinator and the State Court Administrator’s Office during the course of their investigation is confidential and may not be released to anyone absent a court order. The court shall consider whether the benefit to the person requesting the release of the investigative data outweighs the harm to the public, the agency or any person identified in the data.
b. Applicant File Data: All information contained in the files of applicants for court interpreter certification in the State Court Administrator’s Office except as otherwise provided in Rule 8.06(d)3 of these rules is confidential and will not be released to anyone except upon order of a court of competent jurisdiction or the consent of the applicant.
c. Examination Information: Examination Information shall be available as provided in Rule 8.05(a).
(Incorporated into General Rules of Practice, as amended, effective January 1, 2006.)
Drafting Committee Comment‑‑1996
The primary purpose of character, fitness and competency screening is to ensure equal access to justice for people with limited English proficiency, or speech or hearing impairments. Such screening also ensures the efficient and effective operation of our judicial system. Our judicial system is adequately protected by a system that evaluates the character, fitness and competency of an interpreter as those elements relate to interpreting in the courtroom. The public interest requires that all participants in the courtroom be secure in their expectation that those who are certified interpreters are competent to render such services and are worthy of the trust that the courts, witnesses, jurors, attorneys and parties may reasonably place in the certified interpreter.
Rule 8.07 Appeal of Denial of Certification
(a) Appeal of Certification Denial. Any applicant who is denied certification by the State Court Administrator’s Office may appeal to the Review Panel by filing a petition for review with the Review Panel within twenty (20) days of receipt by the applicant of a final decision by the State Court Administrator’s Office.
The petition shall briefly state the facts that form the basis for the complaint and the applicant’s reasons for believing that review is warranted. A copy of the petition must be provided to the State Court Administrator’s Office.
(b) Response From State Court Administrator’s Office. The State Court Administrator’s Office shall submit to the Review Panel a response to the applicant’s appeal of the denial of certification within a reasonable time after receipt of a copy of the applicant’s petition for review. The response should set forth the reasons for the denial of certification.
(c) Decision by the Minnesota Court Interpreter Review Panel. The Review Panel shall give such directions, hold such hearings and make such order as it may deem appropriate.
(Incorporated into General Rules of Practice, as amended, effective January 1, 2006.)
Rule 8.08 Complaints and Investigation
(a) Procedure. Complaints of alleged unprofessional, illegal or unethical conduct by any certified or non-certified court interpreter on the Minnesota Court Interpreter Roster shall be governed by procedures established by the State Court Administrator’s Office. These procedures shall include the following:
1. a description of the types of actions which may be grounds for discipline;
2. a description of the types of sanctions available;
3. a procedure by which a person can file a complaint against an interpreter;
4. a procedure for the investigation of complaints;
5. a procedure for the review of complaints;
6. a hearing procedure for cases involving more severe sanctions; and
7. an appeal process when applicable.
(b) Revocation or Suspension of Certification or Roster Status. The certification or roster status of a certified or non-certified interpreter on the Minnesota Court Interpreter Roster is subject to suspension or revocation by the State Court Administrator’s Office in accordance with the procedures established by the State Court Administrator’s Office.
(Incorporated into General Rules of Practice, as amended, effective January 1, 2006.)
Drafting committee comment‑‑1996
The complaint procedure is not intended as a means for appealing claims of error by a court interpreter. The complaint procedure is available to address unprofessional or unethical conduct by certified and non-certified court interpreters. Consequently, in the absence of fraud, corrupt motive, bad faith, or pattern of established interpreter error, the Coordinator is not likely to initiate an investigation of a complaint of an error of a court interpreter.
It is contemplated that the power to revoke or suspend interpreter certification or roster status will be exercised sparingly and when exercised, consideration will be given to the appropriate procedure and the giving of notice and an opportunity to be heard if such process is due the interpreter.
The expenses for administering the certification requirements, including the complaint procedures, may be paid from initial application, examination fees and renewal fees. The fees shall be set by the State Court Administrator’s Office and may be revised as necessary with the approval of the Supreme Court.
(Incorporated into General Rules of Practice, as amended, effective January 1, 2006.)
Rule 8.10 Continuing Education Requirements
The State Court Administrator’s Office may establish continuing education requirements for certified and non-certified interpreters on the Minnesota Court Interpreter Roster with the approval of the Supreme Court.
(Incorporated into General Rules of Practice, as amended, effective January 1, 2006.)
Rule 8.11 Confidentiality of Records
Subject to exceptions in rules 8.01, 8.04(a)(3), 8.05(a)(3), 8.05(a)(5), and 8.06(d) of these rules, and the Enforcement Procedures for the Code of Professional Responsibility for Court Interpreters, all information in the files of the Coordinator, the Review Panel, and the State Court Administrator relating to court interpreters shall be confidential and shall not be released to anyone other than the Supreme Court except upon order of the Supreme Court.
(Incorporated into General Rules of Practice, as amended, effective January 1, 2006.)
Drafting Committee Comment‑‑2000
This rule is being added in 2000 to provide a consistent and necessary level of confidentiality for information maintained in the court interpreter orientation and certification process, including for example testing materials, orientation and registration information, and non‑roster contact information. Both certified and non‑certified interpreters included on the statewide roster under rule 8.01 must attend orientation training and pass an ethics exam, but the confidentiality provisions in rules 8.05 and 8.06 are limited to those seeking formal certification. Rule 8.11 ensures consistent confidentiality for all testing, orientation, registration and non‑roster contact information, and is consistent with the level of accessibility accorded similar information in the attorney licensing process.
Rule 8.12 Interpreters to Assist Jurors
Qualified interpreters appointed by the court for any juror with a sensory disability may be present in the jury room to interpret while the jury is deliberating and voting.
(Added effective January 1, 2006.)
Advisory Committee Comment – 2006 Amendment
Rule 8.12 is intended to provide guidance on the role of interpreters appointed for the benefit of jurors with a sensory disability. The requirement that such interpreters be allowed to join the juror in the jury room is logical and necessary to permit the juror to communicate in deliberations. In this situation the interpreter should be given an oath to follow other constraints placed on jurors (e.g., not to discuss the case, not to read or listen to media accounts of the trial, etc.) and also that the interpreter will participate only in interpreting the statements of others, and will not become an additional juror. An interpreter in this situation should also not be allowed or required to testify as to any aspect of the jury’s deliberations in any context a juror would not be allowed or required to testify.
This amendment is drawn from the language of Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.03, subd. 16.
The rule is limited by its terms to interpreters appointed for the benefit of jurors with a sensory disability only because that is the only condition generally resulting in the appointment for jurors. In other, unusual, situations where such an interpreter is appointed, these procedures would presumably apply as well.
Rule 9. Frivolous Litigation
Rule 9.01 Motion for Order Requiring Security or Imposing Sanctions
Relief under this rule is available in any action or proceeding pending in any court of this state, at any time until final judgment is entered. Upon the motion of any party or on its own initiative and after notice and hearing, the court may, subject to the conditions stated in Rules 9.01 to 9.07, enter an order: (a) requiring the furnishing of security by a frivolous litigant who has requested relief in the form of a claim, or (b) imposing preconditions on a frivolous litigant’s service or filing of any new claims, motions or requests. All motions under this rule shall be made separately from other motions or requests, and shall be served as provided in the Rules of Civil Procedure, but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion (or such other period as the court may prescribe), the challenged claim, motion, or request is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. (Added effective September 1, 1999.) Rule 9.02 Hearing
(a) Evidence. At the hearing upon such motion the court shall consider such evidence, written or oral, by witnesses or affidavit, as may be material to the ground of the motion. (b) Factors. In determining whether to require security or to impose sanctions, the court shall consider the following factors:
(1) the frequency and number of claims pursued by the frivolous litigant with an adverse result; (2) whether there is a reasonable probability that the frivolous litigant will prevail on the claim, motion, or request; (3) whether the claim, motion, or request was made for purposes of harassment, delay, or vexatiousness, or otherwise in bad faith; (4) injury incurred by other litigants prevailing against the frivolous litigant and to the efficient administration of justice as a result of the claim, motion, or request in question; (5) effectiveness of prior sanctions in deterring the frivolous litigant from pursuing frivolous claims; (6) the likelihood that requiring security or imposing sanctions will ensure adequate safeguards and provide means to compensate the adverse party; (7) whether less severe sanctions will sufficiently protect the rights of other litigants, the public, or the courts. The court may consider any other factors relevant to the determination of whether to require security or impose sanctions.(c) Findings. If the court determines that a party is a frivolous litigant and that security or sanctions are appropriate, it shall state on the record its reasons supporting that determination. An order requiring security shall only be entered with an express determination that there is no reasonable probability that the litigant will prevail on the claim. An order imposing preconditions on serving or filing new claims, motions, or requests shall only be entered with an express determination that no less severe sanction will sufficiently protect the rights of other litigants, the public, or the courts.
(d) Ruling Not Deemed Determination of Issues. No determination or ruling made by the court upon the motion shall be, or be deemed to be, a determination of any issue in the action or proceeding or of the merits thereof. (Added effective September 1, 1999.) Rule 9.03 Failure to Furnish Security
If security is required and not furnished as ordered, the claim(s) subject to the security requirement may be dismissed with or without prejudice as to the offending party. (Added effective September 1, 1999.) Rule 9.04 Stay of Proceedings
When a motion pursuant to Rule 9.01 is properly filed prior to trial, the action or proceeding is stayed and the moving party need not plead or respond to discovery or motions, until 10 days after the motion is denied, or if granted, until 10 days after the required security has been furnished and the moving party given written notice thereof. When a motion pursuant to Rule 9.01 is made at any time after commencement of trial, the action or proceeding may be stayed for such period after the denial of the motion or the furnishing of the required security as the court shall determine. (Added effective September 1, 1999.) Rule 9.05 Appeal
An order requiring security or imposing sanctions under this rule shall be deemed a final, appealable order. Any appeal under this rule may be taken to the court of appeals as in other civil cases within 60 days after filing of the order to be reviewed. (Added effective September 1, 1999.) Rule 9.06 Definitions
As used in this rule, the following terms have the following meanings: (a) “Claim” means any relief requested in the form of a claim, counterclaim, cross claim, third party claim, or lien filed, served, commenced, maintained, or pending in any federal or state court, including conciliation court. (b) “Frivolous litigant” means: (1) A person who, after a claim has been finally determined against the person, repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate either
(i) the validity of the determination against the same party or parties as to whom the claim was finally determined, or
(ii) the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law determined or concluded by the final determination against the same party or parties as to whom the claim was finally determined; or
(2) A person who in any action or proceeding repeatedly serves or files frivolous motions, pleadings, letters, or other papers, conducts unnecessary discovery, or engages in oral or written tactics that are frivolous or intended to cause delay; or (3) A person who institutes and maintains a claim that is not well grounded in fact and not warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law or that is interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigating the claim. (c) “Security” means either: (1) an undertaking to assure payment, issued by a surety authorized to issue surety bonds in the State of Minnesota, to the party for whose benefit the undertaking is required to be furnished, of the party’s reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees and not limited to taxable costs, incurred in or in connection with a claim instituted, caused to be instituted, or maintained or caused to be maintained by a frivolous litigant or; (2) cash tendered to and accepted by the court administrator for that purpose. (Added effective September 1, 1999.) Rule 9.07 Effect on Other Provisions
Sanctions available under this rule are in addition to sanctions expressly authorized by any other statute or rule, or in the inherent power of the court. (Added effective September 1, 1999.) Advisory Committee Comment - 1999 Amendment This rule is intended to curb frivolous litigation that is seriously burdensome on the courts, parties, and litigants. This rule is intended to apply only in the most egregious circumstances of abuse of the litigation process, and the remedies allowed by the rule can be viewed as drastic. Because of the very serious nature of the sanctions under this rule, courts should be certain that all reasonable efforts have been taken to ensure that affected parties are given notice and an opportunity to be heard. Rule 9.01 also requires that the court enter findings of fact to support any relief ordered under the rule, and this requirement should be given careful attention in the rare case where relief under this rule is necessary.
It is appropriate for the court to tailor the sanction imposed under this rule to the co