Rule 5.Serving and filing pleadings and other documents

Reporter’s Notes—2022 Amendment: Rule 5 is amended at the request of the Supreme Court to make permanent certain provisions of Administrative Order 49 that permit filing and serving documents by email in certain circumstances. See A.O. 49, ¶ 6. Rule 5(a) is carried forward. It sets forth the service requirement for all documents subsequent to the summons and complaint or for which the rules may provide another mode of service. The amendments to Rule 5(a) are part of a comprehensive change to replace “paper” with “document” throughout the rule. This change is made in the title and in Rule 5(a), (d), and (f). Under Rule 5(i), the broad definition of document is incorporated from the 2020 Vermont Rules for Electronic Filing. Note Civil Rule (5)(f)(1) intentionally refers to “paper documents” because it relates to documents filed on paper and not documents in general. The initial sentence of Rule 5(b), requiring service on the attorney of a represented party unless otherwise ordered, remains in effect. However, the list in the second sentence of the traditional service methods of delivery, mailing, or leaving with the clerk, together with the detailed provisions of former Rule 5(b)(1)-(3) defining those methods, are now found in amended Rules 5(b)(1) and (2). New Rule 5(b)(1) defines the five methods of service. Subparagraph (b)(1)(A) defines service using the electronic filing system by reference to applicable provisions of the 2020 Vermont Rules for Electronic Filing and adds that such service is complete upon transmission unless the sender learns that it was not received. Subparagraphs (1)(B), (C), and (E), as noted above, carry forward with minor alterations the language of former Rule 5(b)(1)-(3). Subparagraph (1)(D) defines service by email. Former Rule 5(b)(4), providing for email service in units and divisions in which electronic filing under the 2020 Vermont Rules for Electronic Filing had not yet been implemented, has been deleted as obsolete. Former Rule 5(b)(5), regarding service by electronic means, is superseded by new Rule 5(b)(1)(A). New Rule 5(b)(2) states when the five methods of service are required or permitted. Subparagraph (2)(A) makes clear that service between electronic filers must be made through the electronic filing system, or by another method agreed between the parties, as provided in Rule 11(d) of the 2020 Vermont Rules for Electronic Filing. New Rule 5(b)(2)(B) delineates the methods of service for nonelectronic filers, which includes self-represented parties or other participants that have not elected or are not required to electronically file. Those individuals may serve or be served by delivery, mailing, or commercial carrier. Email service may be made in three circumstances. First, email service can be used if a self-represented party files a notice of appearance and provides both an email address and consent to be served at the email in accordance with simultaneously amended Rule 79.1(d). Second, the parties may agree to service by email in a signed writing filed with the court. Last, even if consent was not provided in the notice of appearance, a non-efiler can be served at an email address provided on a pleading if a non-efiler does not have a valid physical or postal address. The rule formerly allowed for service by leaving with the clerk where no mailing address was known. Leaving with the clerk is now authorized by Rule 5(b)(2)(B)(iii) only where a party is prevented from knowing the other party’s address by law or court order. This occurs most frequently when there is an abuse-protection order in place or requested. New Rule 5(b)(2)(C) addresses efilers who have not properly created a service contact on the public list as required by Rule 4(b) of the 2020 Vermont Rules for Electronic Filing. In that instance, other efilers cannot serve by using the electronic filing system. The rule allows service by delivery or mailing, or by email if agreed by the parties in a writing filed with the court. New Rule 5(b)(2)(D) pertains to service of discovery documents that are not filed with the court. Under this provision efilers must serve discovery documents by using the electronic filing system. Service by or on non-efilers may be made by mailing or delivery. In either case, the parties can agree on a different method of service. Because service of discovery documents is less formalized, the agreement is not required to be signed or filed with the court, in contrast to agreements for alternate service of documents filed with the court. Rules 5(c) (Numerous Defendants) is carried forward without change. Rule 5(d) is amended to replace “paper” with “document.” In Rule 5(e), subtitles have been added to the numbered paragraphs for clarity. Rule 5(e)(1) (filing with clerk or judge) is carried forward with minor wording change. Rule 5(e)(2) is amended to make clear that all attorneys and all self-represented parties or other participants in the proceeding registered as efilers must use the court’s electronic filing system. Under new Rule 5(e)(3), unregistered self-represented parties, other participants, and attorneys who are permitted to do so by the 2020 Vermont Rules for Electronic Filing may file by delivery, ordinary mail, commercial carrier, or email. The standards for email filing are in new Rule 5(e)(4). The filing must be sent to the email address for the court where the filing is made, which can be found on the Judiciary website at https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/court-divisions/court-email-addresses. The filing must be sent as an attachment, preferably in PDF format. The rule allows the attachment to be in another “readily accessible document type” to provide self-represented parties with some flexibility in submitting documents by email. Documents sent in a proprietary file type or not easily opened by court staff may need to be filed by another means. The email subject line must identify the case number and the court where the filing is made. When an email is sent to multiple courts, it is important for the filer to identify which court the document is meant to be filed in. The rule provides the different methods for signing a document sent by email. Rule 5(e)(5) specifies the filing date for documents depending on how they are filed. New Rule 5(e)(5)(A) caries forward the provision of former 5(e)(3) that when documents are filed by mailing, delivery, or commercial carrier, the date of filing is the date the filing is received by the clerk’s office if received before the office is scheduled to close. Under subparagraphs (e)(5)(B) and (D), filings made by email and using the electronic filing system are filed on a date if submitted before midnight. A simultaneous amendment to Rule 6(a)4) specifies that the last day for filing by email ends at midnight in the court’s time zone. Subparagraph (e)(5)(C) carries forward former 5(e)(3), that filings to a judge are dated when the judge receives it. Rule 5(e)(6) carries forward former Rule 5(e)(4), with a sentence making clear that, if it is available, an inmate may file and serve by email as provided for other litigants. Rule 5(e)(7) carries forward former Rule 5(e)(5) with the elimination of a reference to the 2010 Vermont Rules for Electronic Filing, which are obsolete. Rule 5(f) (renamed Form of Documents) is carried forward with minor amendments and broken into two paragraphs to address nonelectronically and electronically filed documents separately. Rules 5(g) (Separation of Nonpublic Data), and (h) (Certificate of Service) are carried forward without change. New Rule 5(i) incorporates several definitions pertaining to filing and service from the 2020 Vermont Rules for Electronic Filing.

Reporter’s Notes—2020 Amendment: Rule 5(b)(4) was adopted to make the rule consistent with the 2010 version of the Vermont Rules for Electronic Filing Rules when they were adopted to implement the experimental eCabinet system of electronic filing. See Reporter’s Notes to the first 2017 Amendment to this rule. This system was implemented in civil and small claims cases in certain counties and in the Environmental Division. See Reporter’s Notes to 2020 Vermont Rules of Electronic Filing Rule 2 (list of counties, divisions, and types of cases where eCabinet is used). The eCabinet system will remain in use in those counties, divisions, and types of cases until the new case management system is rolled out in those counties and in the Environmental Division. As a result, Rule 5(b)(4) will remain in effect until that time. Once the new system has been rolled out in all places where eCabinet has been in effect, Rule 5(b)(4) will no longer apply and the 2020 Vermont Rules of Electronic Filing will govern the subject matter of this rule as specified in Rule 5(b)(5). To fully implement the transition, the language of the last sentence of Rule 5(b)(2) is moved to Rule 5(b)(4)(F) so it will not apply when eCabinet is no longer used. New Rule 5(b)(5) provides that in units and divisions where the Court Administrator has directed that efiling commence, the 2020 Vermont Rules for Electronic Filing control the method of service. These amendments were made necessary by the method of post-commencement service that is part of the new electronic filing system and required to be used for electronic filers by 2020 V.R.E.F. 11(d)(1) unless parties agree to a different system. Under the new electronic filing system, a filer directs the system to make service on other electronic filers, and the service consists of a notice that the filing was made and directions on how to view that filing. Under the former eCabinet system, now contained in the 2010 Vermont Rules for Electronic Filing, service on an electronic filer was by emailing a copy of the filing. Rule 5(b)(4)(A), (B), (C), (D), and (E) details that method of service. Rule 5(e)(3) is amended to make clear that the time of filing an efiling is controlled by the applicable provision of the Vermont Rules for Electronic Filing and not by the civil rule. There is a distinction between the date of filing and the date of service when documents are efiled and notice of the filing is sent through the efiling system as required by 2020 V.R.E.F. 11(d). As noted in 2020 V.R.E.F. 5(c)(1), the date of filing is the date the filing is submitted to the efiling system. The date of service may be later because the system will not serve a document until it has been reviewed and accepted. See Reporter’s Notes to 2020 V.R.E.F. 11(b). Rule 5(e)(5) is amended to make clear that the applicable version of the Vermont Rules for Electronic Filing controls whether an efiling can rejected. Rule 5(f)(1) is amended to clarify that the filer must comply with the applicable version of the Vermont Rules for Electronic Filing. Rule 5(f)(2) is repealed as no longer necessary. Rule 5(g) is amended to cross-reference to the Vermont Rules for Public Access to Court Records, which as recently amended, specifies how to file documents to conform to the substantive requirements. Rule 5(h) is amended to provide that the necessity for a certificate of service with an electronic filing is controlled by 2020 V.R.E.F. 11(g) if it is applicable. Where service is by efilers using the efiling system, a certificate of service is no longer necessary under 2020 V.R.E.F. 11(g)(1).

Reporter’s Notes—2018 Amendment: Rule 5(e)(4) is added, and present Rule 5(e)(4) is redesignated (5), to provide a “prisoner’s mailbox” procedure for the filing of documents after the complaint in a civil action by an inmate confined in an institution. The provision is virtually identical to the simultaneously added V.R.C.P. 3(b) providing the procedure for inmate filing of a complaint. See Reporter’s Notes to that rule.

Reporter’s Notes—Second 2017 Amendment: Rule 5(h), as added effective September 21, 2015, is amended to clarify and make uniform the procedures under it. In some clerks’ offices it has been interpreted to (1) require a separate form for each item served, (2) require that the form be on a separate document from the items it identifies, and (3) allow court staff to return filings that lack a certificate, rather than accepting them and then having the judge determine how to handle the absence. The amendment makes clear that the certificate may be incorporated in the document filed or be on a separate page and may embrace multiple documents. Further, the amendments to paragraph (3) make clear that a document filed without a certificate should be accepted for filing, subject to compliance with the order of the judge concerning the filing of a proper certificate.

Reporter’s Notes—First 2017 Amendment: Rule 5 is amended to establish procedures for service and filing of documents under the rule by electronic means in all divisions and units of the superior court. The amended rule is incorporated by reference in V.R.A.P. 25(b), V.R.Cr.P. 49(b), V.R.F.P. 4.0(a)(2)(A), and V.R.E.C.P. 3, 4(a), and 5(a)(2). Conforming amendments will be made to V.R.P.P. 5. Service by e-mail was originally provided for in the 2006 amendments to the rules and eliminated in 2010 with the adoption of the Vermont Rules for Electronic Filing. It is anticipated that once the Vermont Rules for Electronic Filing become effective in all divisions and units, the rule will be amended again to conform to that change. As used in this rule, sending by e-mail attachment has the same meaning as service by electronic means. Under new Rule 5(b)(4)(A), documents must be sent by electronic means if required by the Vermont Rules for Electronic Filing. New paragraph (4)(B) provides that in all other cases documents may be served by electronic means to the extent that the parties have agreed in writing. The writing must be filed with the court to make clear the terms of the agreement for purposes of filing under amended Rule 5(e). The requirement of a writing is consistent with the provisions of Federal Civil Rule 5(b)(2)(E). It is contemplated that counsel and parties may elect to file a “standing” consent with the court to receive service of documents by electronic means in all matters before the court, obviating the need for a multiplicity of additional written filings for each case. Provision for a “standing” consent for electronic service is also fully consistent with existing widespread practice among counsel to provide copies of case documents to other parties by e-mail. Unless required by the Vermont Rules for Electronic Filing, a party may withdraw, or qualify a “standing” consent to receive service of documents by electronic means by writing filed with the court as well. The use of electronic transmission is subject to new subparagraph (C) requiring observation of confidentiality standards that may exist for documents in such matters as mental health proceedings or transactions recommended by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. New subparagraph (D) requires the use of registered e-mail addresses for service under the rule, because it is simpler and in accord with evolving practice. The current provisions for registration are found in Rule 3 of the Vermont Rules for Electronic Filing and Administrative Order No. 44. Subparagraph (E) makes clear that attorneys and parties are responsible for notifying others of changes in any e-mail address used, as required by V.R.E.F. 3(b). Rules 5(e) and (f) are divided into numbered paragraphs for clarity. Rule 5(e)(2) is amended for conformity with new Rule 5(b)(4). In a case not governed by the Vermont Rules for Electronic Filing, documents may be filed electronically only with the court’s prior approval. New Rule 5(f)(2) makes clear that a paper served or filed electronically in compliance with this rule is a written paper or in writing for purposes of the rules. Cf. Federal Civil Rule 5(d)(3).

Reporter’s Notes—2015 Amendment: Rule 5(d) is amended to delete the provision that a filing by an attorney constitutes a representation that the paper filed has been or will be served. The amendment removes language inconsistent with simultaneously adopted V.R.C.P. 5(h), which requires a certificate of service to be filed by an attorney as well as by a self-represented litigant. Rule 5(h) is added to require a separate certificate of service to be filed after service of any document under Rule 5. The new provision is primarily intended to address a problem resulting from the fact that more and more cases involve one or more self-represented parties. However, it applies to filings by attorneys as well as by self- represented parties. Form 29, incorporating the requirements of the certificate laid out in new Rule 5(h)(1) and (2), has been added to the Appendix of Forms by simultaneous amendment. Consistent with the new rule, a simultaneous amendment to V.R.C.P. 5(d) deletes the provision that filing by an attorney is sufficient proof of service. Many self-represented parties are unfamiliar with the requirement of Rule 5(a) that every filing with the court must also be sent to all other parties or their lawyers. Although sometimes unrepresented parties list a “cc” to other parties, this is often not the case. It is therefore impossible to tell whether other parties have been informed of the filing. Thus, the court may rule on a motion because the time to respond has passed and it is unopposed, only to find out later, when a motion to reconsider or reopen is filed, that the other parties were not even aware of the motion until the court’s ruling. The court must then vacate the ruling, potentially wait again for the motion reaction time to pass, and then revisit the motion. This results in more work for the court staff, the judge, and the other patties who should have been served. It can also create extensive delays. To avoid this, in some courts staff routinely make photocopies of filings by self-represented litigants and mail them to the other side to be sure the other side is aware of the motion or filing. This practice, however, shifts to already overburdened staff a duty that is legally the obligation of the parties. It also shifts the costs of photocopying and mailing to the court. Even when lawyers appear in a case there are times when it is unclear whether service has been made—for example, where new counsel came in close to the time of a filing, and it is not apparent whether the filing was served on the new counsel. This lack of clarity can lead to misunderstandings, wasted hearing time, reconsideration, or time spent by court staff calling or emailing counsel to determine who has been served. Finally, when the courts move to electronic filing, cover letters will likely be eliminated. Thus, even the “cc” that now may appear on a cover letter will no longer be submitted to assist the court in determining whether copies of filings were sent to other parties. All of these problems will be greatly reduced by the simple requirement of a certificate of service, by which every lawyer or party filing a document with the court certifies to whom he or she has mailed the document, on what date, and to what address. The rule is not intended to change the requirements of Rule 5 regarding what documents must be served or the manner of service. Federal Rule 5(d) has required certificates of service since 1991. See 4B C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil § 1150 (3d ed. 2002).

Reporter’s Notes—2011 Amendment: See Reporter’s Notes to simultaneous amendment making the Vermont Rules for Electronic Filing permanent. Rule 5(g) is amended to permit continued inclusion of a social security number in a document where it is required by federal law. In particular, retirement fund administrators might decline to honor an instrument such as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) in which the litigants’ social security numbers had been redacted as required by V.R.C.P. 5(g) in the absence of a specific request from the court. As under prior practice, when a social security number has not been redacted from a document because required under this rule, the clerk will redact the number before permitting public access to the document. See Reporter’s Notes to Rule 6(b)(29) of the Vermont Rules for Public Access to Court Records; 2001 amendment adding V.R.C.P. 5(g). In a case filed pursuant to the Vermont Rules for Electronic Filing, the provisions of Rule 3(c) of the Vermont Rules Governing Dissemination of Electronic Court Records, as amended, apply to redaction of required social security numbers.

Reporter’s Notes—2010 Amendment: Rules 4(b), (l)(3); 5(b), (e), (f); 6(a), (e); 10(d); 11(a), (b); 26(g); 40(a), (b); 45(a)(1)(G); 77(c), (d); 79(a)(1), (2); 79.1(g) of the Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure rules are amended or added to conform to the Vermont Rules for Electronic Filing as adopted by simultaneous emergency amendment. See Reporter’s Notes to those rules.

Reporter’s Notes—2006 Amendment: Rules 5(b) and (e) are amended for consistency with a 2001 amendment of F.R.C.P. 5(b) and for clarity. The amendments are also intended to form the basis for consistency between this rule and V.R.A.P. 25. See Reporter’s Notes to 2006 Amendment of V.R.A.P. 25. The first sentence of Rule 5(b) adopts language of amended F.R.C.P. 5(b)(1) intended to make clear that the service provisions of Rule 5(b) apply only to the papers required by Rules 5(a) and 77(d) “to be served upon each of the parties.” This requirement is intended to apply to papers to be served after service of original process under Rules 4 (summons and complaint) and 4.1 and 4.2 (writs of attachment and trustee process) and to witness subpoenas under Rule 45. Cf. Federal Advisory Committee’s Note to 2001 Amendment of F.R.C.P. 5(b)(1). These documents are directed in the first instance to a specific defendant, trustee, or witness and contain their own service provisions. Proof of their service is filed with the court and available to other parties there. For clarity, Rule 5(b) has been divided into three paragraphs defining the three forms of service recognized by the rule. (The provisions of amended V.R.C.P. 5(b) will govern service under V.R.A.P. 25(b) by virtue of the incorporation of V.R.C.P. 5 in that rule.) Rule 5(b)(1) carries forward the language of former Rule 5(b) defining service by delivery. Cf. F.R.C.P. 5(b)(2)(A) and F.R.A.P. 25(c)(1)(A). Rule 5(b)(2), derived from F.R.C.P. 5(b)(2)(D) and F.R.A.P. 25(c)(1)(B)- (D), defines service by mailing to include ordinary first-class mail, delivery by a commercial carrier such as FedEx or UPS, and electronic transmission (including e-mail or fax) if the other party has consented in writing to electronic service. Each of these methods of service is complete upon entrustment of the paper being served to the means of transmission-the postal service or carrier, or the “send” button of the electronic device. The rule contains the further proviso that electronic service is not effective if the serving party learns that the transmission was not received. This provision, adapted from F.R.C.P. 5(b)(3) and F.R.A.P. 25(c)(4), reflects a concern that failures of transmission are still a greater possibility with e-mail and fax than with hard-copy delivery. While the risk of nondelivery initially is on the party served, who has consented, the serving party with actual knowledge of the nondelivery (for example, by automatic notification through the sending e-mail program) must make a further effort to complete service by an effective means. See Federal Advisory Committee’s Notes to 2001 Amendment of F.R.C.P. 5(b)(3) and 2002 Amendment of F.R.A.P. 25(c)(4). Rule 5(b)(3), defining service by leaving with the clerk, is added for balance and clarity and for consistency with the simultaneous amendments of V.R.C.P. 5(e) and V.R.A.P. 25(a). Rule 5(e) is amended to make clear that a paper required to be served under Rule 5(a) and to be filed under Rule 5(d) may be filed either by delivery or by first-class mail or commercial carrier, provided that the papers are received by the filing deadline. For now, the rule does not provide generally for electronic filing with the clerk, pending further development of the electronic capabilities of the court system, but, in line with current practice, the judge may permit such filing (including fax filing) in a particular case on a showing of good cause. The amendment also makes clear that a judge, in permitting filing with her or him, may provide for any appropriate method of filing. Note that Rule 77(a) provides that the superior courts shall be deemed always open for the filing of pleadings and other papers. Though delivery to the clerk would normally be by leaving the paper with a responsible person in the clerk’s office during the normal business hours provided by Rule 77(c), in a case of great urgency the serving party may seek to find a clerk or deputy, or a judge, for a filing when the office is closed. See Reporter’s Notes to V.R.C.P. 77(a).

Reporter’s Notes—2001 Amendment: Rule 5(g) is based on the recommendation of the Committee to Study Public Access to Court Documents and Electronic Court Information. The purpose of this amendment is to avoid inclusion of social security numbers, which are confidential under federal law, in court records unless specifically requested by the court. This amendment is being adopted concurrently with the Rules for Public Access to Court Records, § 6(b)(29), which requires redaction of social security numbers from court records before the record is provided to the public. Rule 5(g) will substantially reduce the need to redact social security numbers from court records when access is requested.

Reporter’s Notes—1996 Amendment: Rule 5(d) is amended to provide that in every case discovery materials are to be filed only on order of the court or by a party who wishes to use them in the proceeding. The amendment furthers the original purpose of the rule to reduce the expense and space burdens of filing material that is not necessary to the determination of the action. The requirement of a certificate of completion or service is retained as an equivalent of proof of service. See Reporter’s Notes to 1982 and 1985 amendments of Rule 5(d). The amended rule departs from Federal Rule 5(d), which continues to provide, like the former Vermont rule, that discovery papers are to be filed unless the court orders otherwise. Note, however, that the federal District Court in Vermont has provided by local rule, pursuant to Federal Rule 5(d), that discovery papers “need not be filed with the court unless required in support of interlocutory motions or for use at the time of trial.” D. Vt. Cv. R. 4(e) (6/1/94). Rule 5(e) is amended to conform to changes made in the 1991 amendments of Federal Rule 5(e). The words “pleadings and other” are stricken from the first sentence as redundant. Although it has not been a problem in Vermont, the final sentence is added to make clear that, while a clerk may advise a party and the court that a paper is not in proper form, enforcement of the rules is a judicial function.

Reporter’s Notes—1985 Amendment: Rule 5(d) is amended to eliminate a problem that has arisen in implementing the 1982 amendment that allows the court to order that discovery materials not be filed in the action. Since Rule 5 equates filing with a representation that service has been or will be completed, and there is no further proof of service, the elimination of filing prevents the use of the court file to determine when all papers have been served. Elimination of filing also dispenses with any proof of service equivalent. The amendment recreates the proof of service function of filing by requiring the party who would otherwise file the discovery materials to file instead a certificate that the materials have been served pursuant to Rule 5(a). In the case of depositions, the certificate shows that the officer has certified and sealed the deposition under Rule 30(f). The certificate should identify the type and nature of the discovery or discovery response, the party serving the discovery or response, the parties on whom the discovery was served, and in the case of a deposition the fact that the deposition has been certified and sealed and the place where the deposition is stored. This amendment applies in district court because of the incorporation of this rule into District Court Civil Rule 5.

Reporter’s Notes—1984 Amendment: Rule 5(a) is amended to cross-reference the new requirement in Rule 62(b) for serving a party in default for failure to appear in order to obtain execution. See Reporter’s Notes—1984 Amendment to Rule 62(b). The amendment will apply in District Court since D.C.C.R. 5 incorporates this rule.

Reporter’s Notes—1982 Amendment: Rule 5(d) is amended as part of the series of amendments to the discovery rules following the recent amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Reporter’s Notes—1982 Amendments to Rule 26. The amendment to this rule is identical to the federal amendment to F.R.C.P. 5(d), effective August 1, 1980. Discovery materials often become the major part of the court’s file even though they are not used in the proceeding. The bulk of these materials has contributed to a serious record storage problem in many Vermont courts. Although these considerations suggest eliminating filing requirements, there are reasons not to go that far. Filing places the materials in the public record, allowing access for interested parties. Filing also serves as a way of monitoring that requirements of the discovery rules are met. Recognizing that these competing considerations may balance differently in different courts, the amendment gives the court discretion to dispense with filing of discovery materials unless they will be used in the proceeding.

Reporter’s Notes: This rule is taken verbatim from Federal Rule 5, with minor provisions adopted from Maine Rule 5 and Vermont practice. It incorporates the essence of former County Court Rule 5, applicable in Chancery under former Chancery Rule 56, with the following major differences: (1) The new rule is more inclusive as to what papers must be served. (2) The new rule provides that parties in default need not be served. (3) Rules 5(c) and (e) have no equivalent in the former rule. (4) The requirement of a certificate of service in former County Court Rule 5.3 is replaced by the provision of Rule 5(d), based on the comparable Maine rule, that the act of filing constitutes an undertaking subject to the obligations of Rule 11 that the paper has been served. (5) The provisions of former County Court Rule 5.4 pertaining to service of orders by the clerk are covered by Rule 77(d). Note that Rule 5(a) contains a provision for service of discovery papers that was added to the federal rule as part of the 1970 discovery amendments. The address for service by mail under Rule 5(b) will presumably be that indicated on the party’s pleading by virtue of Rule 11 unless a later address is in fact known. See also Rule 79.1(a), (b). Rule 5(f) has no federal equivalent. It changes practice under former County Court Rule 50. All documents should now be filed on standard letter-size paper and need not be folded.