McPeters' claim states that Court Clerk Adamick requires all of Judge Edwards civil cases to go through LexisNexis FileandServe, and will stamp any documents filed directly with the Court Clerks office with a "VOID" stamp and return the documents unfiled. In her complaint, McPeters states that Adamick is relying upon an unsigned order from Judge Edwards from February 10, 2003, and there "is no standing order, signed by all of the District Judges in Montgomery County, establishing e-filing requirements for one, or more, of the courts of Montgomery County." According to the 2003 Judge Edwards order, only civil litigants are required to file through FileandServe and that criminal defendants are not required to use FileandServe. Judge Edwards also excluded the following from the same requirement:
- The State of Texas
- Child Protective Services
- Adoption Agencies, and
- New divorce and annulment cases that are resolved within 90 days.
McPeters claims that the agreement between the courts and LexisNexis is a RICO violation through what she calls the "Plan" between the court and LexisNexis that requires her and other litigants "to pay filing fees, service charges and taxes that are no authorized by statute, and that exceed the amounts required by statute." She believes that the "Plan" also financially benefits the county and that Judge Edwards and Court Clerk Adamick have gone beyond their official powers to require electronic filing and refusing to accept or file any documents presented directly to the Court Clerk's office.
The claim goes on to add that the exclusive agreement violates McPeters' and other litigants' due process rights, equal protection under the US Constitution as well as the open courts and due course of law rights under the Texas Constitution. McPeters is seeking exemplary damages and wants the County enjoined from requiring that the court documents be filed exclusively through FileandServe.
It is always interesting when courts get into these agreements with private vendors where the court gives the vendor the exclusive rights to something like electronic filing. Yes, it does make things convenient for many of us who file regularly with the court, but what is convenient for some may not be for all litigants. Requiring someone to only use a private vendor to file court documents, while at the same time refusing to accept the physical documents through the Court Clerk's office seems like one of those situations where a Draconian Rule overrode common sense. It will be interesting to see how this suit takes shape over the next few months and what affect it will have over other courts that have exclusive contracts with vendors for e-filing, and if they can force everyone to use (and pay) that vendor while the court clerk refuses to accept any documents filed directly with his or her office.