Hi Sergui,
I don’t fully understand your perspective. Can you please elaborate?
Also, my perspective centers on cases where auto-accept is permissible. Consider a criminal case with related motions and notices in one filing package. In this scenario each motion is a lead document with its
associated notices, affidavits , etc., as connected documents. From an architectural perspective, it seems to me that it will inefficient in certain implementations. I refer specifically to web services with all of its attendant overhead.
There would also be an incongruence with the part of the spec (Court Policy Response Message) that specifies whether multiple lead documents in a filing are acceptable. As it is currently documented, it does
not explicitly qualify the MDE to which the policy applies. I take that to apply to both CFM and RDM equally.
Thoughts?
From: Serguei Mysko [mailto:sergueim@intresys.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 1:22 AM
To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] FW: ECF Schema Related Question
Hi,
Looking from ECF v.4 spec perspective.
There can be a specific Court review procedure.
So, for example, out of 5 originally filed docs (under the CoreFilingMessage), only 2 would be reviewed - to appear under RDM, better to say - multiple RDMs.
How else, if a doc upon review would get a different title, case type or else?
A Court may follow an auto accept (no review) for some case types as well.
I don't see an issue with ECF v.4.
-
Serguei
Intresys
On 9/21/2012 9:13 PM, James E Cabral wrote:
Joe Mierwa noticed a discrepancy in the number of lead documents allowed between the CoreFilingMessage and RecordDocketingMessage. I think this is worth a discussion for ECF 4.1.
Jim Cabral
MTG Management Consultants, L.L.C.
www.mtgmc.com
(206) 442-5010
Phone
(502) 509-4532
Mobile
Helping our clients make a difference in the lives of the people they serve.
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this
in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
From: James E Cabral
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 12:13 AM
To: 'Joe Mierwa'
Subject: RE: ECF Schema Related Question
Joe,
This question really tests my memory. Reviewing the ECF 3.x and 4.x schemas, I verified that we have allowed multiple lead and connected documents in CoreFilingMessage all the way back to ECF 3.0. In ECF 3.x,
RecordDocketingMessage allowed for multiple “reviewed” documents without distinguishing lead from connected documents. In ECF 4.0 and later, however, we changed ReviewDocketingMessage to allow one lead and multiple connected documents. Why exactly we didn’t
allow multiple leads in ECF 4.0, I can’t say for sure. For now, I think your analysis is correct – you would need to call ReviewDocketingMessage multiple times in the case of a CoreFilingMessage with multiple lead documents. But I think it is worth discussion
with the TC as to whether that makes sense for ECF 4.1 and beyond.
Jim Cabral
MTG Management Consultants, L.L.C.
www.mtgmc.com
(206) 442-5010
Phone
(502) 509-4532
Mobile
Helping our clients make a difference in the lives of the people they serve.
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this
in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
Hey,
I only just noticed/realized that the CoreFilingMessage allows for multiple lead documents while the RecordDocketingMessage only allows 1 lead document. The net effect is that the Filing Review MDE would need to invoke the Court Record
MDE once per lead document. Is that correct? If so, I would assume that the rationale is that if the clerk is reviewing each lead as a separate package then each would be approved singly resulting into a filing into the court record.
Does that sound about right?
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in
error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers.