Minn. R. Civ. P. 5.05 (2026)
Filing; Facsimile Transmission
Except where filing is required by electronic means by rule of court, any document may be filed with the court by facsimile transmission. Filing shall be deemed complete at the time that the facsimile transmission is received by the court and the filed facsimile shall have the same force and effect as the original. Only facsimile transmission equipment that satisfies the published criteria of the Supreme Court shall be used for filing in accordance with this rule.
Within 7 days after the court has received the transmission, the party filing the document shall forward the following to the court:
(a) a $25 transmission fee for each 50 pages, or part thereof, of the filing;
(b) any bulky exhibits or attachments; and
(c) the applicable filing fee or fees, if any.
If a document is filed by facsimile, the sender's original must not be filed but must be maintained in the files of the party transmitting it for filing and made available to the court or any party to the action upon request.
Upon failure to comply with the requirements of this rule, the court in which the action is pending may make such orders as are just, including but not limited to, an order striking pleadings or parts thereof, staying further proceedings until compliance is complete, or dismissing the action, proceeding, or any part thereof.
(Amended effective January 1, 1997; amended effective January 1, 2006; amended effective September 1, 2012; amended effective January 1, 2020.)
Advisory Committee Comment - 2006 Amendment
Rule 5.05 is amended to delete the requirement that an "original" document follow the filing by facsimile. The requirement of a double filing causes confusion and unnecessary burdens for court administrators, and with the dramatic improvement in quality of received faxes since this rule was adopted in 1988, it no longer serves a useful purpose. Under the amended rule, the document filed by facsimile is the original for all purposes unless an issue arises as to its authenticity, in which case the version transmitted electronically and retained by the sender can be reviewed.
The filing fee for fax filings in Rule 5.05 is changed from $5.00 to $25.00 because fax filings, even under the streamlined procedures of the amended rule, still impose significant administrative burdens on court staff, and it is therefore appropriate that this fee, unchanged since the rule's adoption in 1988, be increased. A number of committee members expressed the view that facsimile filing was, and still is, intended to be a process used on a limited basis in exigent or at least unusual circumstances. It is not intended to be a routine filing method.
The rule does not provide a specific mechanism for collecting the transmission fee required under the rule. Because prejudice may occur to a party if a filing is deemed ineffective, the court should determine the appropriate consequences of failure to pay the necessary fee.
Advisory Committee Comment - 2019 Amendment
Rule 5.05 is amended as part of the extensive amendments made to the timing provisions of the rules. These amendments implement the adoption of a standard "day" for counting deadlines under the rules - counting all days regardless of the length of the period and standardizing the time periods, where practicable, to a 7-, 14-, 21- or 28-day schedule.
Advisory Committee Comment - 1996 Amendment
Most of Rule 5.02 is new and for the first time provides for service by facsimile. Service by this method has become widespread, generally handled either by express agreement of counsel or acquiescence in a service method not explicitly authorized by rule.
The committee considered a suggestion that the provision for leaving a document with the court administrator be changed, deleted, or clarified. Although it is not clear from the rule what the administrator should do in the rare event that a document is filed with the administrator rather than delivered or mailed to the attorney, the committee believes the rule should be retained as it provides notice to the court that although service may comply with the rule, effective notice has not been received by the party entitled to notice. This will facilitate the court's consideration of the sufficiency of service under all of the circumstances.
The amendment to Rule 5.02 provides an express mechanism for service by facsimile. Service by facsimile has become widely accepted and is used in Minnesota either by agreement or presumption that it is acceptable under the rules or at least has not been objected to by the parties. The committee believes an express authorization for service by facsimile is appropriate and preferable to the existing silence on the subject. The committee's recommendation is modeled on similar provisions in the Wisconsin and Florida rules. See Wis. Stat. sections 801.14(2) & .15(5)(b); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.080(b)(5). Service by facsimile is allowed in other jurisdictions as well. See, e.g., Ill. S. Ct. R. 11(b)(4); S. Dak. R. 15-6-5(b); Cal. R. Civ. P. 2008.
In addition to providing for service by facsimile, Rule 6.05 is amended to create a specific deadline for timely service. This rule adds an additional day for response to any paper served by any means other than mail (where 3 extra days are allowed under existing Rule 6.05, which is retained) and where service is not effected until after 5:00 p.m., local time. This rule is intended to discourage, or at least make unrewarding, the inappropriate practice of serving papers after the close of a normal business day. Service after 5:00 p.m. is still timely as of the day of service if the deadline for service is that day, but if a response is permitted, the party served has an additional day to respond. This structure parallels directly the mechanism for dealing with service by mail under the existing rule.
Rule 5.05 is amended to add a provision relating to filing that was adopted as part of Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(e) in 1991. It is important that Rule 5 specifically provide that the court administrator must accept for filing documents tendered for that purpose regardless of any technical deficiencies they may contain. The court may, of course, direct that those deficiencies be remedied or give substantive importance to the deficiencies of the documents. The sanction of closing the courthouse to the filing should not be imposed or if imposed, should be imposed by a judge only after reviewing the document and the circumstances surrounding its filing. The rejection of documents for filing may have dire consequences for litigants and is not authorized by statute or rule.