Comments on User Use Cases

I attach a Word Document containing a number of proposed changes and additions to the User Use Cases.

Here are my overall comments:

- I believe the filing assembly component is misnamed, because it conveys a one directional function – from the filer to the court. The reality is that it is a two way transmitter of information from the filer to the court and from the court to the filer.

- In general the use cases fail to pay any attention to the filing of court generated documents.

- The query and response description is too vague for me, referring to a “system” that is not defined anywhere else in the use case. Why doesn’t the use case employ the standard components for query and response transactions?

- I believe that we all need to discuss the time sequence of the payment processing specified in the proposed use case. The use case provides that payment happens after the filing is accepted by the Clerk for filing; that does not accord with my understanding of court processes, which require the payment as a precondition of acceptance of the filing.

- I am confused by the description of the interaction between the Filing Review Component and the Court Record Component. In my experience, the Filing Review Component calls up data from the court record for use in both automated and human “clerk review” of the proposed filing. This data ranges from the next case number for assignment to a new case to docket information for an existing case to allow the clerk to determine whether the filing is appropriate and timely. I assume that the Court Record Component facilitates the retrieval of such information but that is not explicit in the use cases. The filing can be rejected at that point – either automatically by a human decision. But once the clerk accepts the document for filing, the Court Record Component does not subsequently reject the document. But such rejections are supported by the use case.

- The only situation in which a Service Provider Component is needed is when the court authorizes electronic service but does not facilitate it through its own operation. If the court does facilitate electronic service, the Filing Assembly Component delivers the eService message just as it would any other message from the court to the litigant/attorney/interested party. I find the references to the Service Provider Component in the current draft of the use cases to be almost always inappropriate.

- The definitions of components are singular. But the use cases sometimes use them in the plural form, e.g., Court Record Components. Is this a typo or an intentional use of the plural? If so, why?

John M. Greacen

Greacen Associates, LLC

HCR 78, Box 23

Regina, New Mexico 87046

505-289-2164

505-289-2163 (fax)

505-780-1450 (cell)

legalxml-courtfiling message