Glitches in Oregon eService

eService in Oregon can be frustrating or impossible if the other side isn’t playing by the rules or doesn’t understand them.  Below is a primer on how eService is supposed to work and the problems practitioners are encountering.

eService Rules

  1. When you eFile into a case you are deemed to consent to eService.
    UTCR 21.100(1)(a).
  2. eService is available for any document unless you are filing a document that requires personal service or service under ORCP 7. UTCR 21.100(1)(a).
  3. At the first instance of eFiling into a case, a filer must enter in the electronic filing system the name and service email address of the filer, designated as a service contact on behalf of an identified party in the action. 
    UTCR 21.100(2)(a).
  4. When eServing another party, the filer is responsible for selecting the appropriate service contacts in the action for the purpose of accomplishing eService. UTCR 21.100(3)(a).
  5. If the preceding requirements are met, eService is automatic: “When the court accepts an electronic document for filing under UTCR 21.060(1)(a), the electronic filing system sends an email to the email address of each person whom the filer selected as a service contact or other service contact under section (3) of this rule. The email contains a hyperlink to access the document or documents that have been filed electronically.”  UTCR 21.100(4).
  6. Transmission of the email by the electronic filing system to the selected service contacts in the action constitutes service. UTCR 21.100(4).
  7. Electronic service is complete when the electronic filing system sends the email to the selected service contacts in the action.  UTCR 21.100(5).

When is eService not available?

You won’t be able to eServe the opponent if any of the following are true:

  • The opponent has not eFiled into the case.
  • You are filing a document that requires service under ORCP 7 or that requires personal service.  For example, a complaint or initiating petition.
  • The opponent has obtained permission from the court to file conventionally.  (If the opponent is not an eFiler, she cannot be eServed.)
  • Your opponent is a pro se who is not registered in the eFiling system.  (If the oppponent is not an eFiler, he cannot be eServed.)
  • Your opponent eFiled into the case, but failed to enter a designated service contact into the system as required by UTCR 21.100(2)(a).

What if Opposing Counsel Doesn’t Know or Won’t Follow the Rules?

When opposing counsel eFiles into a case, but fails to enter a designated service contact, there isn’t much you can do about it … directly.  For example, you might jump to the conclusion that you can do this step for the other side.  Unfortunately you can’t.  You can select someone to serve, but you cannot add someone as a service contact.  Filers have to add themselves, and we are stuck with this consequence.  This begs the question: when someone doesn’t comply with UTCR 21.100(2)(a), what should you do?  Here are my thoughts:

  • Verify the availability of service contacts early on. When the other side first appears or when you are served, login to the system and see if opposing counsel is available for you to select as a service contact.  This information may not be visible unless you are actually eFiling a document into the case, so don’t wait until you are up against a filing deadline to find out.  This leads to my next suggestion.
  • Give yourself extra time.  If you aren’t sure whether the other side has entered a service contact, assume you will have to serve conventionally and plan accordingly.
  • If you see that opposing counsel has failed to enter a service contact, pick up the phone. Refer opposing counsel to UTCR 21.100(2)(a) and ask him to take care of the oversight.
  • Create a calendar reminder to follow-up in three to five days (or sooner, if necessary).  Login in to the system and check again. If the other side still has not added a service contact, take a screenshot to document that no contact is present, and send a follow-up email to opposing counsel with the screenshot attached. Reference your earlier call.  [If you’re a Mac user, see these instructions for taking screenshots.]
  • If you’ve done all the above and the other side has not complied, it may be time for court intervention – such as moving the court for an order to compel the other side to follow the rule.  Attach a supporting affidavit documenting your efforts (calling, emailing opposing counsel). Your screenshot can be added as an exhibit.  Refer the court to UTCR 21.100(2)(a) and quote the rule.
  • If the other side is ordered by the court to add itself as a service contact and fails to do so, asking for sanctions may be the next step.
  • While all this is going on, don’t forget you still have to serve the other side. Proceed with conventional service until eService becomes available.

All Rights Reserved [2015] Beverly Michaelis

11 thoughts on “Glitches in Oregon eService

  1. It’s curious that you say that you cannot add someone as a service contact. I have done that many times from the service contacts tab, including adding client information with their email addresses….

    • In addition, there is a button next to each case that you’ve filed into that says service contacts…clicking on that button gives you a list from the case and then you can add from your master list that you’ve created under the service contacts tab at the top.

      • Hi Tara,
        Thanks for letting us know. So, provided a party or opposing counsel has added themselves as a service contact, it is an easy process to complete service.

        Is the procedure you describe the same for both the old eFiling system and the new HTML5 interface?

      • My comments apply to the original interface. I haven’t tried out the new interface yet.

    • You can only add someone AFTER they’ve added themselves. By rule, when you eFile into a case it is your responsibility to add yourself as a service contact. Sounds like you’ve been lucky. Opposing counsel in your cases have been doing what they are supposed to do. Unfortunately, not everyone is following the rule.

      • Actually, the contacts I have in my “master contact list” are all ones that I’ve manually added. My understanding was that you had to create your own service contact list within the system inclusive attorneys and clients. When you create a contact it asks if you want to make it public, which I pretty much have always checked the yes box. I would assume then if that makes anything that I’ve created visible to others filing into a particular case. It’s hard not knowing for sure. I think there is a lot of redundancy going on with e-filing/service and then still faxing/emailing/mailing copies to people. It will be nice when things are more streamlined.

      • So the rule says: “At the first instance of eFiling into a case, a filer must enter in the electronic filing system the name and service email address of the filer, designated as a service contact on behalf of an identified party in the action.” UTCR 21.100(2)(a). If the filer hasn’t added him/herself (or someone on behalf of the party) as a service contact, you cannot do it for them. So I’m not sure if this has been a happy circumstance where you added parties who added themselves or what.

        The FAQs posted by Tyler say this:
        What are Case Service Contacts?
        There are Case Service Contacts for every case. This list contains all individuals being served on the case.
        Attorneys must ensure that they are on the Case Service Contact list. Please refer to UTCR 2.010(8) and
        (9) for definitions of “Service Contacts” and Other Service Contacts”, and to UTCR 2.100(2) and (3)
        regarding entry of contact information and selecting service contacts and other service contacts.
        You cannot add yourself to a case Service Contact list if you have never filed into the case.
        Note: Once of you have e-filed in a case, it is mandatory to enter your contact information in the
        Case Service Contact list to ensure that you will receive notices.

  2. Pingback: The Year in Review – Top Posts in 2015 | Oregon Law Practice Management

  3. Oh boy! Now I understand this post better. I found a quick reference guide online and it cleared up the confusion I apparently was having. 🙂 Thanks again for pointing this out Bev.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s