Last night's Tip discussed the use of certificate authorities to authenticate web site owners, and encrypt communications. Certificate authorities do not remain valid indefinitely. Expired certificates will generate an error message. Certificate authorities that have been revoked for some other reason will be put on a Certificate Revocation List (CRL). This is an example of an error message you'll see in a browser if a CA has been put on a CRL.

Some CAs on a CRL will only be on hold, and are not necessarily permanently revoked.

Digital certificates will be placed on a CRL when public keys have been compromised, a certificate is believed to be a fake, the issuer of the CA is compromised, or a web site owner no longer owns a server or domain name.

Certificate authorities prepare digital certificates to associate public keys with entities that a user communicates with using the secure HTTPS protocol in a web browser. The key is used by the browser to encrypt data transmitted by users to the servers of the entity owning the web site. In order to prevent the transmission from being hacked by someone pretending to be the trusted entity, the user's browser checks the certificate and the public key it receives against public keys received from the certificate authority.

In Chrome you can find a list of the certificate authorities it uses under Settings . . . Privacy and security . . . Security . . . Manage certificates . . . on the Trusted Root Certification Authorities tab.

IdenTrust, Comodo (Sectigo), VeriSign, DigiCert and GoDaddy are some of the most widely used certificate authorities.

Note that It is possible to import a certificate authority into your web browser.

Recently, attorneys who filed a complaint for an emergency injunction relief declaring that the Electoral Count Act was unconstitutional and that Vice President Michael Pence had the discretion to decide which electors for a state be counted suffered the minor embarrassment (in addition to the major embarrassment of being cowed by Donald Trump into making their request) of needing to request a deadline extension because of difficulties they encountered converting documents from Google Docs to MS Word. See an article about this mishap posted here.

As the article by Ed Bott [real name?] makes clear, using a word processor other than Microsoft Word can lead to formatting problems.

One possible complication not mentioned by Bott is that Google Docs and MS Word count words differently. Attorneys trying to file a version of a brief that comes in just under a word limit, might get one count in Google Docs and another in MS Word. See this example:

Google Docs counts 'his/her' as 2 words, but MS Word counts it as only 1 word. Different Word processing programs will use different rules to determine word breaks - based on spacing, punctuation, and other factors.

When the plain text of this amicus brief is pasted into Word, we get a count of 6,040 words.

Google Docs gives a count of 6060 words for the same text.

Several courts explicitly require that attorneys use MS Word.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California states on its site , , that it "is a Microsoft Word only court. All documents required to be submitted to the court in word processing format pursuant to Local Rules 137, 163 and 281 (proposed orders, jury instructions and pretrial statements) must be submitted in Word format (.docx)."

The site of the Wisconsin Court System in a section on document requirements instructs attorneys that "[a]ll documents should be submitted in PDF format unless they require editing by a court official. If the probability of editing exists, the document can be submitted in Microsoft Word 2007 or newer (.docx) format." See:

For e-filings with the Supreme Court of Florida,"[a]ttorneys must submit briefs and petitions in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF), in Microsoft Word 97 or higher format, or in WordPerfect format."

The rules for the Hon. Lara J. Genovesi of the State of New York Supreme Court for Kings County specifically state that a proposed order for an unopposed motion be submitted in Microsoft Word format. See:

Sean O'Shea has more than 15 years of experience in the litigation support field with major law firms in New York and San Francisco.   He is an ACEDS Certified eDiscovery Specialist and a Relativity Certified Administrator.

The views expressed in this blog are those of the owner and do not reflect the views or opinions of the owner’s employer.


All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information.


This policy is subject to change at any time.


Contact Me With Your Litigation Support Questions:

  • Twitter Long Shadow

© 2015 by Sean O'Shea . Proudly created with