Information Technology Division
Administrative Office of the Courts
Stewart Bruner
1501 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007

For the reasons given below, the Information Technology Division of the Administrative Office of the Courts requests that the sentence “A text-searchable .pdf format is preferred.” be removed from the revision to Rule 5.1(c)(1)(A). While the requirement to submit .pdf, .odt, or .docx files is consistent with the direction of Commission on Technology (COT) in ACJA 1-506(D)(2), the stated preference for PDF in Rule 5 goes beyond the direction of COT by elevating one format above the others. Creation of text searchable PDF adds a step to the document creation process and creates a larger file than the native document. In addition, PDF no longer serves as a practical lock on a document’s format, so insufficient functional gain exists to offset the cost of storing larger files throughout the very long retention periods of superior court electronic documents.

COT discussed file sizes in relation to specifying allowable formats for e-filing when ACJA 1-506 was being amended in 2009. AOC experiments indicated that PDF bloats the filesize of smaller filings over their native word processor size. The exact amount of bloat cannot be reliably predicted or controlled since many different consumer software products exist for crafting PDFs and many variables are available to users within each software product, from Internet freeware to Acrobat Professional. Files are saved in at least three places at the court and stored for many years or forever in accordance with retention requirements, so increased size yields increased cost and decreased useful lifetime of storage hardware, shortening replacement cycles.

While storage devices may be inexpensive from a consumer’s standpoint, the long chain of costs associated with a larger filesize includes increased file access time, backup time, restoration time, uplift time to any replacement system, as well as increased biennial quality assurance testing time. Saving multiple versions on the filer’s computer system brings the same consequences. The costs of increased storage will be borne by filers, both directly and indirectly.

Here are test results for three different types of representative filings.
1-page text/table document
Original Word filesize: 16 KB
Saved as PDF in Word: 354 KB (22 times larger)
Saved in Adobe Acrobat Pro: 81 KB (5 times larger)

10-page text document
Original Word filesize: 37 KB
Saved as PDF in Word: 507 KB (14 times larger)
Saved in Adobe Acrobat Pro: 105 KB (2.8 times larger)

10-page tabular document
Original Word filesize: 30 KB
Saved as PDF in Word: 537 KB (18 times larger)
Saved in Adobe Acrobat Pro: 130 KB (4.3 times larger)

To summarize, insufficient functional improvement exists from PDF to warrant incentivizing its use with resulting faster consumption of resources for storage of multiple copies of files that can be 22 times larger than their native word processor format. Courts are well equipped to accept .docx and .odt native format filings from a variety of word processors without adding the steps and overhead necessitated by PDF. Preferring PDF format by rule is unnecessarily costly to both filers and the court.

On behalf of the Arizona Association for Justice (AAJ):
Joel B. Robbins, AZ Bar ID #011065
301 E. Bethany Home, #B-100
Phoenix, AZ 85012
602-285-0100
Fax: 602-265-0267
Email: [email protected]

On behalf of the Arizona Association for Justice (AAJ):
Joel B. Robbins, AZ Bar ID #011065
301 E. Bethany Home, #B-100
Phoenix, AZ 85012
602-285-0100
Fax: 602-265-0267
Email: [email protected]


SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENT ON THE NEW PROPOSED RULE CHANGES BY THE ARIZONA ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE

RULE 26(b)(1)(C).

While the committee maintains that the changes are not needed and invite unnecessary intervention, our particular concerns about the rule changes are moderated in the proposed comment to Rule 16, which details factors to be considered in the discussion of appropriateness. The Federal Rules differ substantially from Arizona’s Rules and the use of terms present in the Federal Rules would invite misuse of Federal cases where Arizona’s case law on discovery and disclosure has developed independently. To paraphrase Justice Louis Brandeis, the states are the laboratories of Democracy. Arizona’s independence in the area of the Civil Rules is and should remain a source of pride.

On behalf of the Arizona Association for Justice (AAJ):
Joel B. Robbins, AZ Bar ID #011065
301 E. Bethany Home, #B-100
Phoenix, AZ 85012
602-285-0100
Fax: 602-265-0267
Email: [email protected]


The Committee has modified its comments to reflect modifications to the proposals which were not reflected in the last comment.

Spencer G. Scharff
Thorpe Shwer, P.C.
3200 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1560
Phoenix, AZ 85012
602-682-6113 (office)
602-682-6149 (fax)
[email protected]
www.thorpeshwer.com
SBN: 028946

Jenny Yu, Esq.
Aderant
200 Corporate Pointe, Suite 400
Culver City, CA 90230
(310) 553-3355
[email protected]
SBN: 281924

Natasha Wrae, President
Pima County Bar Association
177 N. Church Ave., Suite 101
Tucson, AZ 85701
[email protected]

The Pima County Bar Association Ad Hoc Civil Rules Committee would discourage use of “should’ in the Rules because it is ambiguous as to the nature of the duty created by the Rule. If the rule requires an action, then “must” is appropriate. If the action is discretionary, then “may” is appropriate. “Should” implies a moral obligation but does not expressly state whether an action is discretionary or mandatory. If discretionary, then it would be better to use words that express that intention, such as “may,” “it is within the court’s discretion to …” or even “the court is encouraged to …” An alternative, though less preferable to our committee, would be to define the various uses of “should,” “must,” “may” and “shall” in a Definitions Provision or in “Committee Notes” to the Revised Rules.

The Task Force’s proposed revisions seem to attempt to eliminate “shall,” but it still appears in some of the proposed revised rules. The PCBA Committee considers “shall” to be synonymous with “must.” For the sake of consistency and clarity, however, if the trend is toward substituting “must,” then it would be better not to use “shall” unless, for some reason that can be clearly articulated, the meaning of the rule requires it.

Another concern is that the titles to the proposed revisions capitalize “principal” words in each heading/subheading. The Committee suggests it would be preferable and less confusing to keep the existing format which capitalizes the first word only.

The Committee suggests a global review of the use of “stipulate/stipulation” and “agree/agreement” to make sure that the intended meaning is conveyed by the term that has been chosen for use. In our discussion, “ stipulate/stipulation" was felt to imply a writing, which would be consistent with Rule 80(d). In some usages, “agree/agreement” was felt to be less pretentious, more easily understood, and perhaps more accurate if a written stipulation was not required by the context. The task force appears to follow this line of thinking in places. For example, in revised ARCP 30(b)(1), the task force changes “Absent a stipulation of all parties…” to “Unless all parties agree…”. However, in our Committee’s discussion this afternoon, the majority sentiment was that stipulation” was clearer than “agreement” in the context of that rule.

Attached are the comments and proposed changes offered by the Pima County Bar Association Ad Hoc Civil Rules Committee, Rules 1 through 37 and, separately, Rules 38 to end.

John A. Furlong, Bar No. 018356
General Counsel
State Bar of Arizona
4201 N. 24th St., Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85016
602-3407236
[email protected]

Commenter's Name: John R. Doody
Committee Name: Committee To Revise The Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure
Mailing Address: Confidential.
Phone Number: 602-277-3630
Fax Number: None.
Email Address: [email protected]
Bar Number: 012995

R-16-0010

Petitioners:
William G. Klain and David B. Rosenbaum, co-chairs
Task Force on the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure
1501 West Washington Street, Ste. 410, Phoenix, Arizona 85007
(602) 452-3242
[email protected]

The attached Amended Petition responds to comments provided during the first comment period. An Appendix to the Amended Petition contains a revised set of proposed rule amendments.

Filed on behalf of :

Dave K. Byers, Administrative Director
Administrative Office of the Courts
1501 W. Washington, Suite 414
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
[email protected]
(602) 452-3301

This Comment addresses Rule 5.1(d)(2), Service and Filing of Proposed Orders and Proposed Judgments.

Petitioners:
William G. Klain and David B. Rosenbaum, co-chairs
Task Force on the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure
1501 West Washington Street, Ste. 410, Phoenix, Arizona 85007
(602) 452-3242
[email protected]

Attached are Petitioner's Reply and Appendices A through E.

Christine Martin
Senior Policy Counsel
Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry
3200 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1125
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Ph: 602-354-2815
E:mail: [email protected]