IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE-FORM 1.983 (PROSPECTIVE JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE)

PER CURIAM.

The Court has for consideration amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure Form 1.983 (Prospective Juror Questionnaire) proposed by The Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee (Committee).1 The Board of Governors of The Florida Bar approved the Committee’s proposals, which we adopt with the modifications and additional amendment explained below.

The more significant amendments proposed in the Committee’s out-of-cycle report2 add directions to the parties and to the court on the minimization of sensitive information on the prospective juror questionnaire, as required by Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425(a)(2), and revise question 13 on the questionnaire to conform to section 40.013(4), Florida Statutes (2016), which provides for the excusal of expectant mothers and certain parents, upon request. The Committee proposes additional amendments to the form in its response to a comment by Indian River County Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller Jeffrey R. Smith, who suggests several changes to the form. One of the Committee’s additional proposals is intended to conform question 8 on the questionnaire with section 40.013(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2016), which provides for the excusal of full-time federal, state, or local law enforcement officers and such entities’ investigative personnel. The Committee also proposes several amendments to the summons language under the signature line on the form, the most significant of which revises that language to reflect that the clerk of court, not the sheriff, summons jurors, consistent with section 40.23(1), Florida Statutes (2016).

After considering the Committee’s report, the comment, and the response, we adopt the amendments to question 13 (ex*986pectant mothers and parents), the revisions to the summons language, and the grammatical and stylistic changes proposed by the Committee. However, we modify the proposed directions at the top of the form to direct “attorneys and pro se litigants” to redact the month and date of the prospective juror’s birth before filing a copy of the form, consistent with rule 2.425(a)(2). See In re Implementation of Comm. on Privacy & Court Records Recommendations, 78 So.3d 1045, 1049-50 (Fla. 2011) (explaining that Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425 provides the procedures for minimizing the amount of sensitive personal information included in documents being filed with the court and Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 governs the procedures for determining the confidentiality of information after it has been filed, and recognizing that under rule 2.425, it is the filer (attorney or pro se litigant) who must not file or must truncate or redact sensitive personal information listed in the rule before a document is filed with the court). We also modify the proposed amendments to question 8 (law enforcement officers and investigative personnel) consistent with section 40.013(2)(b), which allows full-time federal, state, or local law enforcement officers and such entities’ investigative personnel, who otherwise would be excused from jury service, to “choose to serve.” Finally, we amend the note about the caption at the end of the form to reference the “authority charged by law with the selection of prospective jurors,” consistent with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.431(a)(1), rather than the currently referenced “jury-selecting authority such as ‘Board of County Commissioners of Leon County, Florida,’ or ‘Pinellas County Jury Commission.’” See §§ 40.001; 40.011, Fla. Stat. (2016) (providing that the clerk of the circuit court is responsible for the processing of jurors, including the qualifications and the generation of juror candidate lists).

Accordingly, we amend the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure as set forth in the appendix to this opinion. New language is indicated by underscoring; deletions are indicated by struck-through type. The amendments shall become effective immediately upon the release of this opinion.

It is so ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

LAWSON, J., did not participate.

Attachment

APPENDIX

*987

*988

*989