RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] RE: ECF 4.0 GetDocument specification/impleme

Dallas – I am pretty much heading to the view that all these criminal, juvenile, and domestic documents should be e-signed and encrypted with the court’s key before they are submitted. Then a “public version” might be provided (have to figure out that process for review/approval)?

I was reading about “Redact-It Desktop” and that might be filter number one followed by some kind of rules based e-review software as filter number two and last a review from the CMS regarding parties/risk that should be stored in there.

Lots of fun things to build!

Jim M

From: Dallas Powell [mailto:dpowell@tybera.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 12:48 PM
To: James E Cabral; McMillan, Jim
Cc: Bryant Austin; legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] RE: ECF 4.0 GetDocument specification/implementation

There is another issue that you might want to consider for ECF 5. Recently in criminal efiling a document was sent in. The clerk recorded the information and documents as public. The enotifications went out allowing people to access the documents. Within 10 minutes of the recording the judge determined that the documents were not public and the security settings on the document and docket entry changed in the CMS. These conditions are a problem for some courts. We have since defined a new communication with the CMS to send a security update back to the enotification system which needs to extend to all EFSP to delete and deny further access to the documents. We have also seen similar issues in mental health where they need items expunged. This new communications from the CMS to the eFiling notification or for EFSP that cache documents need to be able to expunge / delete / deny access based on security changes that occur after distribution.

Dallas

From: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of James E Cabral
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 5:55 PM
To: Jim McMillan; Dallas Powell
Cc: Bryant Austin; legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [LIKELY_SPAM]Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] RE: ECF 4.0 GetDocument specification/implementation

OK, I’m hearing an action item for ECF 5. Who wants to own it? Jim McMillan? Gary? Dallas? Bryant?

__
Jim Cabral
502 509-4532

From: Jim McMillan
Sent: ‎Tuesday‎, ‎June‎ ‎16‎, ‎2015 ‎6‎:‎30‎ ‎PM
To: Dallas Powell
Cc: James E Cabral, Bryant Austin, legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org

Thanks Dallas for the clarification. The document issue might be something that JTC/CITOC could provide some leadership on as it is a perceived and real structural issue that either needs rules clarification or new rules.

On Jun 16, 2015, at 6:09 PM, Dallas Powell <dpowell@tybera.com> wrote:

no

From: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of McMillan, Jim
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 2:55 PM
To: James E Cabral; Bryant Austin; legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [LIKELY_SPAM]RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] RE: ECF 4.0 GetDocument specification/implementation

Is this because Washoe is using PDF binders for their documents like Tybera showed at a couple of the tech conferences (Case-a-dia?)?

From: James E Cabral [mailto:jec@mtgmc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 4:49 PM
To: McMillan, Jim; Bryant Austin; legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] RE: ECF 4.0 GetDocument specification/implementation

FYI. I received the following related use case from Dallas Powell:

Perhaps most people know this but there are some CMS systems where you can only have one document per docket entry while other CMS systems allows for one lead document per docket entry and multiple attachments. There is also a security setting for each level as well. Here is an example: Washoe 2^nd District had a situation where the case was public, the docket entry was public, the lead document (a complaint) was public, but the attachments were sealed because they were pictures of a women in a compromising situation and the court was not willing to expose information that is considered lewd or pornographic in nature.   When you retrieve a document from a docket entry and there are multiple documents if there is only one ID then the system must first combine the documents into a single document before it can return the information. Sometimes courts split the documents up just due to size and not security as well.

__
Jim Cabral
502 509-4532

From: Jim McMillan
Sent: ‎Tuesday‎, ‎June‎ ‎16‎, ‎2015 ‎9‎:‎58‎ ‎AM
To: Bryant Austin, legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org

Shouldn’t we be using NIEM Core “DocumentIdentification” ?

http://apps.ncsc.org/niem/ShowElement.aspx?element=nc:DocumentIdentification

I agree with Brian that there in nearly all instances a document identification number being sent from a filer’s / EFSP system and in turn placed in the court’s document repository (even if it is linked documents in a CMS)

Jim M

From: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Bryant Austin
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 9:21 AM
To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] ECF 4.0 GetDocument specification/implementation

I am hesitant to add more questions, but as I have been working through implementation of ECF 4.01 I have found the following and am not sure of the real intent. The beginning definition of the GetDocument message in the ecf-4.01-spec states a case number and a document number, but the xsd files show a nc:CaseTrackingID and a nc:CaseDocketID (pertinent parts of the definitions are below for reference). The niem definition seems to have a definite difference between a docket and a document. I don’t understand how a document can be located with just the case tracking ID and the docket ID without a document number. There can be many documents associated with a case and each document should have its own identifying number.

Thanks!

The ecf-4.01-spec document states the following, “3.2.13 GetDocument The Filing Assembly MDE MAY invoke the GetDocument query operation, including the case number and document number, on the Court Record MDE to retrieve a particular document from a case. The Court Record MDE will respond synchronously with the requested document or instructions on how to access it.”

The ECF-4.0-DocumentQueryMessage.xsd has the following:

“              <xsd:complexType name="DocumentQueryMessageType">

                                <xsd:annotation>

                                                <xsd:documentation>A request for an electronic document in the court's official record. </xsd:documentation>

                                </xsd:annotation>

                                <xsd:complexContent>

                                                <xsd:extension base="ecf:QueryMessageType">

                                                                <xsd:sequence>

                                                                                <xsd:element ref="nc:CaseTrackingID"/>

                                                                                <xsd:element ref="nc:CaseDocketID"/>

                                                                </xsd:sequence>

                                                </xsd:extension>

                                </xsd:complexContent>

                </xsd:complexType>”

The niem-core.xsd has the following, “

                <xsd:element name="CaseDocketID" type="niem-xsd:string" nillable="true">

                                <xsd:annotation>

                                                <xsd:documentation>An identifier used to reference a case docket.</xsd:documentation>”

legalxml-courtfiling message