Insights
Confused about MNDES in 2025? You’re Not Alone.
On August 30, 2024, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued an order fundamentally changing how attorneys, litigants, and courts handle digital exhibits in district court cases. Effective January 1, 2025, the Minnesota Digital Exhibit System (MNDES) became the mandatory repository for filing and managing digital exhibits—documents, photographs, audio files, and video files—in Minnesota’s district courts. This move was intended to modernize evidence management, streamline exhibit submission, and make the judicial system more consistent and secure in an era of rapidly increasing digital evidence.
But the practical impact of these changes has left many attorneys, court staff, and self-represented litigants (or “pro se” parties) grappling with new and sometimes cumbersome processes. While the Supreme Court order sets out high-level requirements for using MNDES statewide, it does not prescribe uniform, detailed procedures for every county. Consequently, local practices vary—some counties have adopted standing orders to clarify usage, while others have not. The result is a patchwork of policies that can confuse both attorneys and litigants.
Below is an overview of the new system, what the Supreme Court’s order requires, and how local variations are generating procedural headaches.
Background and Purpose of MNDES
The Minnesota Supreme Court’s journey toward mandatory digital exhibit filing began in late 2021, when the Court launched a pilot program to test MNDES in select courts. The pilot reflected several converging forces:
Virtual Hearings: The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically increased remote proceedings, amplifying the need for an online tool to efficiently manage exhibits.
Rise of Digital Evidence: As video, audio, and digital images became more common in both civil and criminal cases, a centralized management system became essential.
Cybersecurity Concerns: Courts, like many institutions, face growing cybersecurity threats; MNDES attempts to reduce risks by limiting file types and scanning uploads for safety.
Following the pilot’s success, the Court expanded MNDES statewide, with Hennepin County being one of the last counties to adopt the system (for hearings and trials). Its August 30, 2024, order states that effective January 1, 2025, “parties and attorneys must use MNDES for the submission of all electronic (digital) exhibits … unless the presiding judge permits, for good cause shown, an alternative submission method.”
What the Supreme Court Order Requires
Under the new order, any party seeking to introduce digital evidence at trial or in certain hearings must upload those exhibits to MNDES in approved file formats (PDF, JPG, MP4, etc.). If a file isn’t in an approved format, the party must convert it or, if that’s not possible, request permission from the presiding judge to file it outside MNDES—and still provide any proprietary players or codecs needed to ensure the exhibit can be viewed.
Key Provisions
Mandatory Use of MNDES: Each district court must track offered and admitted exhibits in MNDES for any case involving digital exhibits.
Jury Deliberations: Audio and video exhibits in MNDES must be made accessible to jurors in criminal cases (unless excluded per the Rules of Criminal Procedure). Civil-court judges have discretion whether to allow these exhibits into the jury room.
Approved File Types: Users may only upload file types listed on the MNDES Acceptable File Types List; no zipped or proprietary files unless specifically authorized.
Retention and Destruction: Digital exhibits in MNDES may be deleted consistent with court record-retention policies, without notice to the parties (since digital exhibits are not “originals”).
Public Access: Courts may provide electronic access to publicly accessible exhibits with approval from the judge, but MNDES itself is not open for unfettered public browsing.
Local Variations: Ramsey vs. Hennepin
The Supreme Court order sets out the high-level mandate but does not specify uniform details about when and how exactly to file exhibits in MNDES, nor how motion exhibits should be handled. Consequently, local courts are filling in the gaps with varying practices.
Ramsey County: A Two-Step Filing Requirement?
In Ramsey County, parties have been instructed to:
File the Main Pleading or Motion (Without Exhibits) in Odyssey/MCRO.
Practitioners must file only the pleading or document—such as a complaint or initial declaration (for a TRO, for example)—before receiving a court file number.
Wait for a Court File Number, Then Upload Exhibits in MNDES.
Once the file number is assigned, attorneys or litigants must log in to MNDES (using that number) to file the exhibits.
New Workflows (and more Service Notifications). Seemingly gone are the days of including exhibits with Odyssey filings. Also gone is terminology in your pleading or declaration like, “A true and correct copy of Important Contract 1 is attached hereto as Exhibit A.” That language no longer works because the exhibit is not attached. Now, the procedure is to not attach the exhibit to the document, and to upload the document without exhibits. Instead, the pleading or declaration would include language like, “Uploaded to MNDES as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Important Contract 1.” The document with this language would then be filed into Odyssey without exhibits, and during a second step the exhibits would be 1) uploaded and 2) “shared” with opposing counsel through MNDES, generating one service notice for the main document (from Odyssey), and a separate service notice for the exhibits (from MNDES). And if there are multiple declarations, each with its own exhibits being uploaded to MNDES (all at the same time), the potential for confusion with mismatched exhibits is also a concern. This means naming conventions are very important.
Practical Challenges:
Delayed Access to Exhibits: Opposing counsel, court staff, and the public see only the main filing in MCRO until the exhibits make it to MNDES—a process that can lag if there are delays in obtaining the case number.
Potential for Oversight: Parties may forget to upload exhibits once the file number is available, risking incomplete filings or missed deadlines.
Extra Administrative Steps: Attorneys must monitor the case docket closely to see when the file number is generated, then perform a second round of uploading in MNDES, creating additional administrative burdens. This problem is only exaggerated where pro se litigants are involved.
Hennepin County: A Clarified Approach
Hennepin County, by contrast, has a standing order that:
Exempts motion exhibits from the MNDES requirement. However, the standing order does not address pleadings that may include exhibits.
Lays out clear exhibit numbering (e.g., Plaintiff/Petitioner 001–499, Defendant/Respondent 500–999).
Provides technical-relief protocols for system failures.
The difference between Hennepin (Minneapolis) and Ramsey (St. Paul) underscores the confusion practitioners face when multiple counties adopt differing procedures. An attorney appearing regularly in both jurisdictions must juggle two distinct sets of expectations for exhibit filing. And Minnesota has 87 counties, many with differing levels of adoption of the Supreme Court’s new order.
Access and Sharing Issues in MNDES
Public View vs. Shared Access
Another complication with MNDES is that exhibits are not automatically visible to everyone. Even if a document is considered “public” under the court rules, MNDES requires a direct “share” action by the uploader or court staff. This has different implications for different stakeholders:
General Public: If a member of the public searches MCRO, they may see references to exhibits but will not have access to them through MCRO. They must request access from the court or be “shared” to through MNDES, which is a separate process.
Opposing Counsel: Even attorneys on the same case might not automatically see the exhibits unless they are shared in MNDES, or unless the system automatically grants access once an exhibit is filed (and it currently doesn’t). This can create misunderstandings about whether exhibits have been properly served or are available for review.
“Same Firm, Different Login” Problem
A further complication arises when multiple staff members at the same law firm manage the same case in MNDES. For instance, if Legal Assistant A uploads exhibits using her personal MNDES account, Legal Assistant B in the same firm may not see them when he logs into his MNDES account—even though they both work for the same client (at the same firm). Without an intentional “Share” step or a firm-wide account structure (or password-sharing, which is not ideal), the second user is effectively locked out.
Consequences:
Inefficient Workflows: Law firm staff must scramble to ensure everyone has access, possibly duplicating or losing track of exhibit filings.
Risk of Error: If the attorney thinks an exhibit is already in MNDES but cannot see it, they may wrongly assume a document is part of the record when it is not (possibly because a legal assistant uploaded it from their own account and log-in).
Lack of Uniform Practice: Some firms use one universal login, others use individual logins. The system was designed with the latter in mind, but the system is not designed to fully accommodate multi-user firm workflows.
Why All This Matters
Appellate Record and “Offered vs. Admitted”
While MNDES simplifies digital evidence storage, confusion still abounds about when an exhibit transitions from “uploaded” to formally admitted into the record. If exhibits are uploaded but never offered at a hearing or trial (because they are attached to a complaint or declaration), they remain in a “pre-hearing” status, effectively invisible to appellate courts. This will lead to incomplete appellate records if neither party clarifies the exhibit’s status or if the judge fails to confirm admission on the record. This is an awkward method in practice, because there is no formal “offer” of “receiving” of exhibits that are attached to a declaration filed, for example, in support of a motion for summary judgment.
Pro Se Barriers
Pro se litigants already face a steep learning curve in court procedures. Now they must navigate two or more platforms—Odyssey, MCRO, and MNDES—and interpret local requirements that might not be posted clearly online. A simple procedural misstep, such as failing to share exhibits once uploaded to MNDES (which can be confusing on its own), can derail their case (for lack of evidence).
Increased Administrative Workload
Attorneys, legal assistants, and court staff contend with extra steps—especially in places like Ramsey County, where they must first wait for a case number, then file in MNDES. Larger firms must create internal procedures for staff “sharing” exhibits and clarifying who is responsible for final submissions. Court administrators are also fielding questions from practitioners who don’t realize exhibits in MNDES aren’t automatically visible to everyone.
Path Forward and Practical Tips
Statewide Uniformity
A comprehensive statewide rule or guide—similar to Hennepin County’s standing order—would reduce confusion, especially around motion exhibits, timing, and exhibit numbering.Filing Workflow Best Practices
File the pleading/motion in Odyssey immediately to obtain a file number in counties like Ramsey, then upload exhibits to MNDES as soon as the number is issued.
Always include a statement in the pleading that “[exhibits have been filed separately in MNDES].”
Firm-Wide MNDES Access
Where possible, coordinate a firm-wide approach to MNDES (e.g., designating a single, shared account or consistently “sharing” exhibits among team members).
Implement checklists ensuring all staff confirm that exhibits are visible in the correct matter.
Clear Communication with Opposing Counsel
If the local court does not automatically share exhibits in MNDES with opposing counsel, manually share them or serve them by another authorized means.
Include references in your motion or declaration to specific exhibit IDs in MNDES to reduce confusion.
Pro Se Accommodation
Courts could offer simpler “opt-out” procedures for pro se parties lacking technology needed to view or scan physical documents.
Legal aid organizations and clinics might need to provide training and resources on using MNDES.
Conclusion
Minnesota’s move to mandatory digital-exhibit filing via MNDES is a significant modernization of court practice. Its heart is in the right place. Ideally, it promises to reduce paperwork, enhance security, and create a seamless record for trials and appeals. But as this article illustrates, details matter—and those details still vary widely from county to county.
Attorneys and litigants must stay vigilant, confirm local rules, and carefully coordinate exhibit filing in both Odyssey and MNDES. Proactive communication with courts, opposing counsel, and firm colleagues can go a long way toward preventing missed deadlines and incomplete records. While MNDES may one day be uniformly administered across Minnesota, for now, practitioners must navigate a complex and evolving system—one that will undoubtedly continue to adapt as courts iron out the existing problems in the system.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Matthew Schaap is a civil litigation attorney who lives and works in Apple Valley. He provides services for a wide variety of personal and business litigation matters in state and federal court. He joined Dougherty Molenda in 2004.