EFileReady/ Guides / Why courts reject filings

Why courts reject e-filings

← All guides

E-filing rejections are rarely about the merits. They are about file mechanics. State e-filing authorities have published, at length, the mechanical reasons documents bounce — and the pattern is consistent across jurisdictions. Here are the causes, roughly in order of how often they bite.

1 · The scan isn't searchable

A scan is a picture of a document, however crisp. Court staff search filings constantly — for case numbers, party names, statute references. A picture of text defeats that, so portals either reject the document or rasterize/convert it — a step court technology staff have described as a nightmare at scale, and one that has motivated whole compliance campaigns. The fix is OCR before filing: Acrobat's Recognize Text, or any OCR tool, then export text-based PDF/A.

2 · Fonts not embedded

If the PDF references Helvetica but doesn't contain it, every machine that opens the file guesses a substitute. Line breaks move; a page that fit on one page becomes two. Several courts explicitly warn against "smallest file size" export settings because they strip fonts. Embedded fonts are also a hard PDF/A requirement.

3 · It isn't actually PDF/A

The filename says motion-pdfa.pdf. The bytes say otherwise: no XMP identification, no PDF/A output intent, fonts missing. Clerks' portals validate the file, not the filename. Being "saved from Word" is not the same as "exported as PDF/A".

4 · Encryption, passwords, and locked permissions

PDF/A prohibits encryption and so do filing workflows: the clerk must be able to open, search, and process the document without credentials. Password-protected and permission-locked files are routine rejections.

5 · Embedded attachments, JavaScript, and other "document intelligence"

Court technology standards commonly prohibit embedded file attachments, form fields with actions, document-level JavaScript, hidden deleted content, and embedded non-display data — because the clerk's workflow flattens, invalidates, or deletes them, and the clerk's copy then differs from what you filed. Some standards publish explicit permitted/prohibited element lists: bookmarks, electronic signatures and internal links are typically fine; attachments and JavaScript are not.

6 · Size and page limits

Single-submission caps are common — one state's supreme court standard caps a single filing at 50 MB; other portals set their own limits per document. Oversized files fail silently or reject at upload. Compress scans, but never by stripping embedded fonts.

7 · Wrong version or exotic PDF features

PDF 2.0 files, XFA forms, portfolios, and layers can trip older validators. When in doubt, plain PDF 1.7-exported PDF/A-2b is the safest target.

None of this is legal strategy — it's file hygiene. Run the mechanical checks before you file: the free checker on this site does it in your browser, and for a certified conformance report use an ISO 19005 validator such as veraPDF.
Check a PDF now
EFileReady — general information, not legal advice. Court rules differ and change; verify your court's current technology standards. PDF/A checker · All guides · hello@toolve.pages.dev