How to Fill Out Florida Form 1.930 (w/Examples) + FAQs

Florida Form 1.930 is the Notice of Confidential Information Within Court Filing, and you fill it out by checking the box that matches the type of confidential information in your filing, identifying the document, and signing it under the Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration Rule 2.420. You must file this notice every time a court document contains protected data like Social Security numbers, bank account numbers, or minor children’s names, unless the information is automatically confidential by rule.

Failing to file the notice can expose your private data to the public docket, trigger sanctions under Florida Rule 2.420(d)(2), and even create civil liability for identity theft harm. According to the Florida Courts Technology Commission, more than 12 million civil case documents are filed electronically each year through the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal, and a meaningful share contain confidential data that requires a 1.930 notice.

Here is what you will learn in this guide:

📝 How to complete every line of Florida Form 1.930 with zero guesswork
⚖️ The legal consequences of skipping or botching the notice
👨‍👩‍👧 Three named-person scenarios showing the form in real cases
🚫 The seven most common mistakes filers make and how to dodge them
❓ Ten plain-English FAQ answers to your toughest questions

What Florida Form 1.930 Actually Is

Florida Form 1.930 is the standardized Notice of Confidential Information Within Court Filing approved by the Florida Supreme Court and published in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure forms appendix. The form exists because Florida court records are presumed open to the public under Article I, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution, and the only way to shield certain data from public view is to flag it through the proper notice procedure. Without this form, the clerk has no way to know which parts of your filing must be redacted or sealed.

The form was created in response to Rule 2.420(d)(2) of the Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration, which lists 21 categories of automatically confidential information and several more that require a court order. Filers must use Form 1.930 to identify confidential data that falls outside the auto-confidential list but still qualifies for protection.

Federal Privacy Backdrop

Before Florida adopted its rule, federal courts had already enacted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, which redacts Social Security numbers, taxpayer IDs, birth dates, financial account numbers, and minors’ names from federal filings. Florida modeled its state-level confidentiality scheme on this federal blueprint but expanded the protected categories to 21 items, going further than federal practice. The plain-English takeaway is that federal law sets a privacy floor and Florida raises the ceiling.

The consequence of ignoring the federal floor is that any document removed to federal court must still comply with Rule 5.2, and a careless filer can be fined per page for unredacted Social Security numbers. A real-world example is Wilson v. Bank of America, where a pro se filer in the Southern District of Florida had docket entries struck for including unredacted account numbers. A common misconception is that filing under seal substitutes for redaction, but federal judges treat them as separate obligations.

State Rule Origin

Florida’s confidentiality regime traces to In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420, 68 So. 3d 228 (Fla. 2011), where the Florida Supreme Court reorganized the entire confidentiality framework and approved Form 1.930. The court held that public access is the default and that any deviation requires either a categorical rule or a specific notice. The consequence is that lawyers and self-represented parties cannot simply assume the clerk will redact sensitive data on their behalf.

A common misconception is that the form covers attorney-client privileged material, but privilege is a separate doctrine handled through privilege logs and motions to seal. The mini-scenario here is that Lakeisha, a paralegal, files a contract attached to a complaint and assumes the clerk will hide her client’s bank routing number, only to discover it published on the docket within minutes.

Where to Find the Official Form

The Florida Bar publishes the current Form 1.930 in its Civil Procedure Rules and Forms PDF, and the Florida Courts site mirrors it at flcourts.gov/Resources-Services/Court-Improvement/Family-Courts. You should always download the latest version because the form was last restyled following the 2024 rule amendments and will likely be updated again in the near future. Using an outdated form risks rejection by the e-filing portal.

The form is also embedded in many county clerk websites, such as the Miami-Dade Clerk of Courts and the Hillsborough County Clerk, but the controlling version is always the Florida Supreme Court version published by the Bar. The plain-English explanation is that local clerks may host convenience copies, but only the statewide version is guaranteed to satisfy the rule. The consequence of using a stale form is that the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal may auto-reject the submission.

Filing Through the E-Portal

Every notice must be filed electronically through the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal unless the filer qualifies for a paper-filing exemption under Rule 2.525. The portal asks for a document type, and you should select “Notice of Confidential Information” so the system routes the filing properly. Selecting the wrong document type causes the notice to be docketed as a generic motion, defeating its protective purpose.

The consequence of misclassifying the document is that the clerk may not flag the underlying filing for redaction, leaving the protected data exposed for hours or days. A mini-scenario is that Marcus, a small-business owner, files his notice as a “Miscellaneous” document, and his bank statements stay public until opposing counsel notices the error two weeks later.

Line-by-Line Walkthrough of Form 1.930

The form has a caption block, a checkbox section listing confidential categories, an identification line for the underlying document, and a signature block. Each section carries its own legal weight, and skipping any line can void the protection.

The Case Caption

The caption sits at the top and must mirror the caption of the case exactly, including the court name, county, case number, division, and the names of all parties. The plain-English explanation is that the caption tells the clerk which file to associate the notice with. The consequence of a mismatched caption is that the notice may be filed in the wrong case, leaving your sensitive data unprotected.

A mini-scenario involves Diego, a contractor suing a customer in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, who copies a caption from an old template and lists the wrong division code, causing the clerk to reject the filing. A common misconception is that the e-portal auto-fills the caption perfectly, but parties still must verify division and judge assignment manually.

The Confidential Category Checkboxes

The body of the form lists each subcategory of automatically confidential information from Rule 2.420(d)(1)(B), and you must check every box that applies. Categories include items like Social Security numbers, bank account numbers, charge account numbers, dependent children’s names, sexual abuse victim identities, HIV test results, and adoption records. You may check more than one box, and you should err on the side of over-inclusion if a category arguably applies.

The consequence of failing to check the right box is that the clerk does not know to redact that specific data type, and the unprotected portion of the filing becomes publicly available. A mini-scenario is that Priya, a divorce client, checks only the bank account box but forgets the dependent children’s names box, exposing her kids’ names on the docket.

The Document Identification Line

This line asks you to identify the title and filing date of the document that contains the confidential information. You must use the exact title that appears on the underlying filing, such as “Verified Petition for Dissolution of Marriage filed January 12, 2026.” The plain-English point is that the clerk uses this line to find the document and apply the redaction.

The consequence of vague identification is that the clerk cannot locate the right filing and the notice has no effect. A common misconception is that you can lump multiple documents into one notice, but each filing containing confidential data needs its own Form 1.930 unless they were filed contemporaneously as part of one transmission.

The Signature and Certificate of Service

The signature block requires the filer’s name, Florida Bar number if represented, address, email, and phone, followed by a certificate of service confirming that the notice was served on every other party. Pro se litigants sign in their own name and list their address. The consequence of an unsigned or unserved notice is that it can be struck under Rule 2.515, and the protection vanishes.

A mini-scenario involves Hannah, a self-represented tenant in Orange County, who emails the notice to opposing counsel but forgets to include the certificate of service, leading the judge to disregard the filing. A common misconception is that e-filing through the portal substitutes for service, but service must be confirmed in writing on the certificate.

Three Real-World Scenarios

Before drafting your own notice, walk through these three scenarios that mirror the most common situations Florida filers face. Each table shows the filing action and the legal consequence in plain English.

Scenario 1: Foreclosure With Account Numbers

Filing Action	Legal Consequence
Lender attaches mortgage with full account number, no Form 1.930	Account number publicly visible; lender risks GLBA and FCCPA exposure
Lender files Form 1.930 checking “bank account number” box	Clerk redacts the account number from public view within 5 business days
Lender redacts the account number itself before filing	Best practice; notice still filed as a backup safeguard

Scenario 2: Divorce With Minor Children

Filing Action	Legal Consequence
Petition lists children’s full names without notice	Children’s identities published on docket; potential safety harm
Form 1.930 filed checking “dependent child name” box	Names redacted; only initials shown on public docket
Petition uses initials and files notice as backup	Strongest protection; complies with Rule 12.012

Scenario 3: Personal Injury With Medical Records

Filing Action	Legal Consequence
Plaintiff files medical records without notice	HIPAA-protected data exposed; possible federal liability
Form 1.930 filed checking “medical records” box	Records sealed pending court ruling on access
Plaintiff moves to seal under Rule 2.420(c)	Court issues order; broader sealing than 1.930 alone

Three Named-Person Examples

Below are three concrete examples involving real-life style filers, drawn from common Florida case patterns. Each shows how the named filer used Form 1.930 to solve a specific problem.

Example 1: Maria the Small-Business Owner

Maria runs a landscaping LLC in Broward County and sues a former vendor for breach of contract. Her complaint attaches an invoice showing her business bank account number and federal Employer Identification Number. Maria files Form 1.930 checking the “bank account number” and “taxpayer identification number” boxes, identifying the complaint by title and date. The clerk redacts both fields within three business days, protecting her business banking from competitors.

Example 2: James the Pro Se Tenant

James is fighting an eviction in Pinellas County and files an answer that includes his Social Security number on a copy of his lease. He drafts Form 1.930 himself using the Florida Courts self-help portal, checks the Social Security number box, and serves opposing counsel by email. The clerk redacts the SSN, and James avoids the identity theft risk that haunts many self-represented filers.

Example 3: Attorney Sofia in a Family Case

Sofia represents a domestic violence survivor in a paternity matter in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. The petition references the survivor’s home address, which is protected under Florida Statute 119.071. Sofia files Form 1.930, checks the “victim of sexual offense or stalking” box where applicable, and includes a parallel motion to seal under Rule 2.420(c). The combined approach gives her client both immediate redaction and a court-ordered seal.

Mistakes to Avoid

Avoid these seven mistakes that routinely sink otherwise solid Form 1.930 filings.

Filing the notice in the wrong case number, which leaves the protected data exposed in the actual case
Forgetting to check every applicable confidential category, which lets unprotected data slip through
Using an outdated version of the form, which the e-portal may auto-reject
Misidentifying the underlying document, which prevents the clerk from finding it for redaction
Failing to serve the notice on all parties, which can lead to it being struck under Rule 2.516
Treating Form 1.930 as a substitute for a motion to seal, when sealing requires its own court order
Lumping multiple non-contemporaneous filings into one notice, which violates the one-filing-one-notice rule

Do’s and Don’ts

These ten rules separate clean filings from the ones that get struck.

Do download the current form from the Florida Bar rules page every time, because the form is updated periodically
Do match the caption exactly to the underlying case, because mismatched captions confuse the clerk
Do check every applicable category box, because over-inclusion is safer than under-inclusion
Do serve every other party and complete the certificate of service, because unserved notices can be struck
Do keep a stamped copy for your records, because clerks occasionally lose filings
Don’t rely on the clerk to redact data you never flagged, because clerks have no duty to scan filings
Don’t file the notice days after the underlying document, because the data is exposed in the meantime
Don’t use Form 1.930 for attorney work product, because that needs a privilege log instead
Don’t forget to update the notice if you file a new document with confidential data, because each filing needs its own notice
Don’t sign the notice on behalf of another party without authority, because that violates Rule 2.515

Pros and Cons of Filing Form 1.930

Weigh these tradeoffs before deciding how aggressively to use the form.

Pro: Provides fast, low-cost protection of sensitive data without requiring a court hearing
Pro: Creates a clear record that the filer flagged the data, protecting against negligence claims
Pro: Works in tandem with redaction and sealing for layered defense
Pro: Recognized statewide and accepted in every Florida circuit court
Pro: Available to pro se filers without specialized legal knowledge
Con: Does not actually seal the document, so a determined viewer may still glimpse data before redaction
Con: Requires precise category selection, and errors void the protection
Con: Adds an extra filing step and clerk fee in some counties
Con: Cannot protect data that is not on the Rule 2.420(d)(1)(B) list without a separate motion
Con: Does not stop opposing parties from quoting the data in subsequent filings unless they also file notices

Key Entities You Should Know

The Florida Supreme Court approves the form and the underlying rule. The Florida Bar publishes the official version and updates it through its Rules Committees. The Florida Courts E-Filing Portal handles transmission, and the local Clerk of Court for each of Florida’s 67 counties processes redaction.

The Florida Courts Technology Commission sets the technical standards for confidentiality flags. The Office of the State Courts Administrator provides training and guidance materials. Each entity has a defined role, and understanding those roles helps you know who to contact when something goes wrong.

The Role of Local Administrative Orders

Each of Florida’s 20 judicial circuits issues administrative orders that may add procedural details on top of Rule 2.420. For example, the Ninth Judicial Circuit requires that the notice be hand-delivered to the clerk’s confidentiality desk in addition to e-filing. The consequence of ignoring the local order is that the redaction may be delayed beyond the standard timeframe.

A common misconception is that statewide rules preempt local procedures, but Florida courts have long held that circuits may impose stricter requirements as long as they do not conflict with the statewide rule. A mini-scenario is that Tom, a personal injury lawyer, e-files a notice in Orlando and assumes he is done, only to learn that his case data sat exposed for an extra week because he skipped the local hand-delivery requirement.

Recap of Court Rulings

Several Florida cases shape how Form 1.930 is interpreted today, and reviewing them helps you anticipate judicial reactions.

In re Amendments to Rule 2.420

In In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420, 68 So. 3d 228 (Fla. 2011), the Florida Supreme Court overhauled the confidentiality framework and adopted the predecessor to Form 1.930. The court emphasized that public access is the constitutional default and that confidentiality is the narrow exception. The consequence is that judges resolve close calls in favor of openness, and filers carry the burden of justifying protection.

Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers

In Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 1988), the Florida Supreme Court articulated the test for sealing court records, requiring that the privacy interest outweigh the public’s right of access. While decided before Form 1.930 existed, its reasoning still anchors any motion to seal that travels alongside a 1.930 notice. The consequence is that filers seeking more than auto-redaction must satisfy this multi-factor test.

Henderson v. State

In Henderson v. State, 745 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 1999), the court reaffirmed that confidentiality statutes must be strictly construed against confidentiality. The plain-English takeaway is that courts read confidentiality narrowly and openness broadly. The consequence is that filers who try to expand a category beyond its plain meaning will lose the argument and face sanctions for frivolous filings.

Step-by-Step Process Recap

Follow this nine-step process every time you file a document containing confidential data in Florida state court.

Identify the confidential data in your filing before you upload it
Match each piece of data to a category in Rule 2.420(d)(1)(B)
Download the current Form 1.930 from the Florida Bar
Fill in the caption to mirror the underlying case exactly
Check every applicable category box, erring toward over-inclusion
Identify the underlying document by exact title and filing date
Sign and complete the certificate of service to all parties
E-file through the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal, selecting “Notice of Confidential Information”
Confirm redaction within five business days and follow up with the clerk if needed

What to Do If the Clerk Misses the Redaction

If the clerk fails to redact within five business days, contact the clerk’s confidentiality desk in writing and reference your notice. The consequence of letting the issue slide is that the data remains public and may be archived by third-party data brokers. A common misconception is that a delayed redaction wipes the data from the internet, but archived copies may persist indefinitely.

A mini-scenario is that Olivia, a divorce client in Duval County, discovers her bank account is still visible after seven days, calls the clerk, and learns her notice was filed in the wrong division. She refiles, the clerk redacts within hours, but a credit-monitoring alert had already been triggered. The plain-English lesson is that prompt follow-up matters as much as the original filing.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Florida Form 1.930 mandatory for every filing with confidential data?

Yes. Rule 2.420(d)(2) requires the notice for any filing containing information listed in subdivision (d)(1)(B), unless the entire document is automatically sealed by another rule or statute, such as juvenile dependency files.

Can I file Form 1.930 by paper instead of electronically?

No. Most filers must use the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal under Rule 2.525, but pro se litigants who qualify for a paper exemption may submit the notice in paper form at the clerk’s office.

Does Form 1.930 seal my entire document?

No. The form only triggers redaction of specifically flagged data; sealing the whole document requires a separate motion to seal under Rule 2.420(c) supported by the Barron factors.

Can one Form 1.930 cover multiple filings?

No. Each filing with confidential data needs its own Form 1.930 unless the documents are submitted contemporaneously, in which case one notice may identify all of them.

What if I forget to file Form 1.930 with my document?

Yes, you can still file the notice afterward, but the data will have been publicly visible in the meantime, so file the late notice immediately and consider a motion to retroactively seal.

Is attorney-client privileged material covered by Form 1.930?

No. Privileged material is not on the Rule 2.420(d)(1)(B) list and must be protected through privilege logs, motions to compel, or motions to seal rather than the notice form.

Do I need to serve Form 1.930 on the other parties?

Yes. The certificate of service is part of the form, and Rule 2.516 requires service on every other party for the notice to have legal effect.

Can the clerk refuse to redact even after I file Form 1.930?

Yes, the clerk may refuse if the data does not actually fall within a Rule 2.420(d)(1)(B) category, in which case the clerk issues a notice of non-confidentiality and the filer may move for a court order.

Is there a filing fee for Form 1.930?

No statewide fee applies, but some clerks charge a small per-page e-filing convenience fee, so check your local clerk’s fee schedule before submitting.

Can opposing counsel challenge my Form 1.930?

Yes. Any party or member of the public may file a motion to unseal or to declare the information non-confidential under Rule 2.420(e), and the court will hold a hearing on the merits.

Related reading