Notes on Court Document Redaction

Our friends at Princeton University's Center for Information Technology Policy (CITP) have posted a very interesting article "Studying the Frequency of Redaction Failures in PACER".  As most of you know, PACER is the US Federal Courts program for access to court case management and case documents that have been either E-filed or scanned.  CITP author Timothy B. Lee explains the differences in PDF and other formats that are used in electronic document systems and the software they developed to study the problem (which they make available).  The article ends with a discussion on technical approaches that could be used to address the redaction issue.

In addition, there are other technical resources available.  For example, if you use Adobe Acrobat Pro one might want to check out a couple of web pages and videos on subject here and here.

Today courts are often placing the burden of redaction upon the litigants.  The Wyoming courts have earlier this year released new rules on document redaction that can be viewed here.

And other redaction rules have been posted by the following courts:

• USA Federal Courts
• Nevada State Courts
• Washington State Courts

Note - the accompanying graphic was adapted from the publically available picture of a redacted page from the ACLU vs. Ashcroft lawsuit.

NY's top administrative judge calls for legislation mandating e-filing

Last week I noted the huge amount of legislative interest and activity on e-filing. At almost the same time, NY's Chief Administrative Judge Ann Pfau was delivering her report urging legislation be adopted to mandate the use of e-filing in the state's courts. The report, eFiling in the New York State Courts: Report of the Chief Administrative Judge to the Governor, the Chief Judge, and the State Legislature, was created in fulfillment of a legislative request for information on the state's existing system and its status. The report includes the following ringing endorsement of e-filing.

Over [the last] twelve years, e-filing has shown itself to be reliable, efficient, convenient, and secure. It allows court papers to be filed and served, virtually instantaneously, at any time and from anywhere, without the need to go to the courthouse. It allows online access to case files by counsel anywhere at any time. It also sharply reduces record storage, retrieval and reproduction costs, completely eliminates the burden and expense of serving papers on opposing parties, and minimizes the need to travel to the courthouse. The result is significant cost savings for litigants, attorneys, the courts, and County Clerks. Indeed, it is estimated that universal mandatory e-filing would reduce the cost of litigation by hundreds of millions of dollars a year, with much of this savings inuring to the businesses and the state and local governments that so often litigate in our courts. With the potential to eliminate the filing and service of hundreds of millions of pieces of paper each year, e-filing is also the key to a greener, more environmentally responsible justice system.

Roundup of e-filing legislation

As courts move to more expansive use of electronic filing, more than technical issues have come up. Two in particular (financing and dated statutory language) require the active participation and permission of legislatures for implementation. This year saw several new laws and some bills still currently active that would go a long way to help, or in the case of New Mexico harm, e-filing and the courts. Among the bills:

Law

South Dakota HB 1038 Requires clerk of Supreme Court collect certain fees for the electronic transmission of court records. Signed into law by Governor 2/17/11.

Virginia SB 1369 Provides that clerks may charge a fee of $25 for civil or criminal proceedings filed electronically and an additional $10 fee for subsequent filings in such proceedings. Requires fee go to clerk's local fund to cover operational expenses of the electronic filing system. Clarifies that clerks may provide official certificates and certified copies of records that contain personal identifying information electronically upon request of a party or attorney. Makes various changes to clerks' duties regarding electronic filing. Signed into law by Governor 3/26/11.

On Governor’s desk awaiting action

Florida SB 170 Requires each state attorney and public defender to electronically file court documents with the clerk of the court and receive court documents from the clerk of the court. Requires the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association and the Florida Public Defender Association report to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by a specified date on the progress made to use the Florida Courts E-Portal system or the clerks' offices portals to electronically file and receive court documents, etc. Approved by full House 5/4/11. To Governor for approval.

For a list of other state activity, check out Issue 5:21 of Gavel to Gavel.

Projects and Notes - June, 2011

We have received many notes on court technology projects, thanks to our friends, that we want to pass along.  So here goes.

LegalXML Electronic Court Filing (ECF) Issues Portable Media Draft

The OASIS LegalXML Electronic Court Filing TC members have produced a Committee Specification Draft (CSD) and submitted it for 30-day public review for the ECF 4.0 Portable Media Service Interaction Profile.  The profile may be used to store ECF 4.0 message transmissions to portable media in the absence of an active network between the sending and receiving MDEs.  For more click here.

iPad/iPhone Deposition Support (thanks Carlene)

The iPhone J. D. blog shares a step-by-step guide for using that device to recreate a scene in/for a deposition.

iPads as Kiosks (thanks Jim D)

Apple stores are using iPads as very attractive kiosk devices.

Montgomery County Ohio E-Filing Training and Support (thanks Anne)

A very nice Q & A page was created by the Montgomery County (Dayton) Ohio E-filing project following their webinar training.  They have also posted their PowerPoint presentations and other very useful information from their project.

"Judges Walk Tightrope With Online Presence" (thanks EZ)

The Recorder legal newspaper in California posted an article on issues facing judges using social media.

Oregon Courts Choose CMS (Press release)

DALLAS – June 2, 2011 – Tyler Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: TYL) today announced that the State of Oregon has selected Tyler’s Odyssey® Court Management System for statewide implementation supporting all state trial courts. Odyssey supports Oregon’s eCourt goal of using technology to streamline court processes, reduce costs from handling and storing paper files, provide around-the-clock access to court information, and provide better information for judicial decision-making. Please click here for the full press release.

Court Videoconferencing

News articles from Tennessee and Georgia.

Federal Courts Work on their Archives

Another excellent article in the US Federal Courts newsletter. The Third Branch from their May, 2011 edition shares news of recent work being done by the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management Records Subcommittee.

The article, Making Room-Saving History, summarizes work being done by the Federal Courts with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to reduce the massive accumulation of records that "cost the Judiciary over $6.2 million last year".

The article notes:

""Records had accumulated for decades and had become an unmanageable mass," said Judge Steven Merryday (M.D. Fla.), then chair of the Records Subcommittee, part of the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management (CACM). "With the potential of rising storage costs, we were facing catastrophic budget consequences." Merryday's subcommittee began by looking for ways to preserve what needed to be kept and what could be disposed. They sought the advice of the head of the National Archives and court representatives. The subcommittee went over, code by code, what would be found in a file, and agreed on what should be preserved. Then they made their recommendations to the full CACM Committee and then to the Judicial Conference."

The article further notes:

This is the first time in more than 30 years that NARA has been able to dispose of any federal court case records. They've begun with paper civil case files dating back to 1970. But before they dispose of any files, courts have the ability to designate "non-trial temporary case" files between 1970 and 1995 as historic. These files will be retained and stored. All cases filed at any time that proceeded to trial, and all cases filed before 1970 are automatically designated permanent and will not be destroyed. The remaining cases will be indexed and become easier to access.

What is considered historically significant? The CACM Committee, working with NARA, federal judges, historians, and academics, proposes that certain case records be designated permanent. Cases of historic significance would involve particular issues such as state reapportionment cases, civil rights voting cases, treason, national security, family farm and historic bankruptcy cases, and death penalty habeas corpus cases. Judges and clerks of court also are asked to designate cases that:

• Involved a lawyer, litigant, or witness of historical interest or importance;
• Involved an issue of historical interest;
• Involved a matter of national interest separate from the issues in the litigation; or
• Received substantial media attention at the time.

Several state courts have done similar work including promenently the New York State Judiciary Records Management program.  For a list of their policies click here.

Wireless Device Guidelines for Federal Courts

The April, 2011 edition of the Federal Courts Third Branch newsletter contains a timely article: Wireless Device Access Guidelines Strike Balance.  The article begins:

“The American public loves the convenience of their wireless communication devices—PDAs and laptops, smart phones and earpiece devices, among others. It’s estimated there are 285 million cell phone users in the United States.

However, the same devices that provide convenience in communications may raise security concerns in federal courts and possibly disrupt proceedings. Courts have responded with a variety of access policies.

To help strike the right balance between security concerns and convenience, the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, in consultation with the Information Technology Committee and the Judicial Security Committee, has issued revised guidance for courts to consider that updates how new technologies could be used and what this may mean for courts.”

Documents as a Two Way Street

Electronic document software should be able to do more to help us do our work in the courts. One problem has been the current inability for the software that has been implemented to be able to work together. For example, when a judge creates an order, they most often create the document in a word processing program, save it; possibly convert it to  PDF; then in turn it is ideally e-filed or less ideally, scanned or printed. Then the data is manually entered into the case management system (CMS). No wonder many court users have a dim view of automation “productivity” when put through these multiple and often confusing steps? But it doesn't have to be that way.

All major word processing and forms software has the ability to merge data from a database into a document when created. Many CMS have been doing this since the early 1980’s via mail merge functionality. But most don’t realize that one can identify data entry fields (see this Microsoft Word example article) so that the data can be “read” for data entry by the database. Therefore the new scenario could be: first, the judge or clerk would select the document to be created; the database in turn would be called upon to complete/merge the known data into the document. When complete, the data added by the user would in turn be read by the system and automatically entered into the CMS database. This helps the judge/clerk accomplish their task and, avoids the need for subsequent data entry and other steps. This is the two way street. But just as important, the document itself should be automatically stored or attached as part of the CMS database so that it is an integral part of the court record.

In other words, this approach minimizes multiple steps as well as complexity. And since the major technology vendors have provided the ability to do full text search of documents stored in their databases, the court users can retrieve document data both through the case number but also using “Google” type searches. For discussion of Microsoft database search capabilities click here and here and for Oracle click here.

Bottom line: the technology vendors have been working hard over the past decade to make things work together… it is up to court technology developers to use that capability to benefit the daily work of the judges and court staff.

E-Filing / E-Reader Notes

Western District of Virginia Federal Court

Courts are starting to express addition control over the form and format of E-filed documents.  For example, via Virginia Lawyers Weekly we learn that the Western District of Virginia District Court has requested that large scanned PDF attachments be handled separately and submitted in separate 10 MB file attachments. The complete court rule can be read here.

Texas Appellate Courts¹

The Supreme Court of Texas has made E-filing a promenant place on their website.  In addition to the link to their rules, there is a link to a paper by attorney Don Cruse and Clerk of Court Blake A. Hawthorne's paper: Appellate Briefs of the Future that contains excellent guidance on preparing "e-briefs".  Attorney Cruse' further provides valuable information via his SCOTXBlog including a call for comments on how e-briefs are really being used.

US Supreme Court

And last, in an article we missed late last year we learn that two US Supreme Court justices have been using e-readers, the iPad and Kindle.

Notes:
(1) Thanks to Kendall Collins Smith and her OneLegal Blog for this lead

Trust and E-Filing

There is a significant differentiation between e-filing systems design to address inherent issues between trusted and un-trusted E-filers.  Let me explain:

An article by former Public Broadcasting System “pen-named” columnist, Robert X. Cringley. "The T Word" discussed the concept of trust.  He wrote:

“(T)rust is … based on one of two methodologies — empiricism or transparency” The essence of empirical trust in this instance is “I trust because I don’t need to trust because I am (or soon will be in the rube scenario) immune to harm.” This immunity comes from a mathematical proof, whether that proof is provided by a strongly encrypted password on a computer file or by the hedging of counter-parties in some complex financial derivatives play. Empirical trust is a zero-sum game.”

“Trust through transparency is a completely different creature based on the novel idea that people say what they mean, do what they say they will, and make things that work because you can see how they work inside.”

E-filing systems that are based using Electronic Filing Service Providers (EFSP - see note 1 below)  are essentially empirical trust systems.  The courts have “hedged” their risk by allowing the EFSP to validate the filer and handle payments.  In turn if the EFSP charges their fees via credit card that later default, well they have hedged that risk/trust via the credit card service company who absorb the loss (as would the courts if charged the credit card directly).

Also an EFSP could be another government agency that the court implicitly trusts and vouches for their user community.  A prosecutor, social service agency, or law enforcement department would maintain their authorized user access that in turn would provide identification verification for e-filing.

Finally the court themselves could develop their own “circle of trust”(2)  as have the US Federal Courts who validate their e-filing users via a sign-up and training procedure.  For example, the US Bankruptcy Court in San Diego explains on their web page that “to become a CM/ECF Registered User that one must register and complete the assigned training”

But what about E-filers, such as the self-represented, who do not use an Electronic Filing Service Provider to vouch for them?  They will have to be initially viewed as un-trusted E-filers.  There is a very old but true saying that came from a New Yorker magazine cartoon  “On the Internet, nobody knows you are a dog”.  The fact of anonymity has been a boon and curse to the users of the Internet.  In our case it is a curse because we must have reasonable assurance that the person submitting the electronic is in fact that person (or authorized person).  The risk of “spam” filings and other type of network attacks is real.  Thus since the goal is to make e-filing as accessible and convenient to use for as many persons as possible, these issues and limitations must be addressed by technology, rules, and procedures.

Some of these problems may be addressed by initiatives in many countries to create secure online identity.  For example, in April, 2011 the USA President, Barak Obama issued a "blueprint" for creating a system of digital identity.  When such systems are developed they will be of great help to the courts in adopting and implementing E-filing.

Notes:

1) EFSP - Texas ( eFiling for Courts ) and others have developed e-filing systems based upon the concept of statewide portal with the end users being serviced by private corporations known as Electronic Filing Service Providers or EFSP.

2) The “circle of trust” quote is from the film – “Meet the Parents”:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0212338/

3) The graphic accompanying this post is based upon the excellent graphics illustrating collaboration concepts published at: http://emergentbydesign.com/2010/07/01/guidelines-for-group-collaboration-and-emergence/

Connecticut bill would require state, in consultation with judicial branch, establish e-document standards and guidelines

Cross-posted to Gavel to Gavel.

The question of standards for the authentication and storage of e-documents, in particular court documents, is getting more and more legislative attention. Connecticut's HB 6600 of 2011 is a case in point.

Some background is in order.

SB 501 of 2010 created a task force to study converting legislative documents from paper to electronic form. A similar but separate task force was created via HB 5435 of 2010 to study ways in which state agencies and departments could reduce or eliminate duplicative procedures and the amount of paper used and how, when practicable, technology can be employed to help in such reduction or elimination.

The judiciary testified before both task forces. Efforts to end transcription of legislative proceedings were opposed by the judiciary, as witnessed by the testimony of Deputy Chief Court Administrator Judge Patrick l. Carroll, III (page 79). Chief Court Administrator Judge Barbara M. Quinn submitted testimony to the state agency paper task force noting among other things the court's use of e-filing and review of its business processes.

The resulting legislation, HB 6600 of 2011, contains a litany of ways to avoid paper, such as reducing the number of copies of statutes that get distributed (the number going to the judiciary would decrease and probate courts would have to specifically request copies) and moving much of the legislative process online.

For the courts, another element of note is Section 28:

Not later than January 1, 2012, the State Librarian shall, in consultation with the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management, the Commissioner of Administrative Services, the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Information Technology, the executive director of the Joint Committee on Legislative Management and the Chief Court Administrator of the judicial branch, establish standards and guidelines for the preservation and authentication of electronic documents. (emphasis added)

HB 6600 was approved by the Joint Government Administration and Elections Committee and is currently pending final action in the House and Senate.