I believe all members of the subcommittee would recommend the ecf:CaseOtherParty option to be used when the litigant’s role in the case (e.g. plaintiff, crossdefendant, etc.) does not well fit any of the current
three party elements. I do not think a party would need to have both, but I am not sure what you mean by “also map those litigants”.
So if the entity is a case party (e.g. litigant), and the elements j:CaseDefendantParty, j:CaseInitiatingParty, or j:CaseRespondentParty are not appropriate per the definitions for those elements, then ecf:CaseOtherParty
would be used. This case party would not have both ecf:CaseOtherParty and j:CaseInitiatingParty (or j:CaseDefendantParty or j:CaseResondentParty) and would not also have CaseOtherEntity.
Jim or Barbara, if you think otherwise, please chime in.
Gary Graham
Thanks to the subcommittee. After reviewing the draft, I think we can distill the entirety of it down to 3 things:
- A rule in the specification that attorneys and judges MUST be represented as Persons while litigants and other participants MAY be represented as Persons, Organizations or Items.
- A mapping in Genericode (or the specification) of the role elements contained in j:CaseAugmentation to allowable CaseParticipantRoleCodes.
- A rule in the specification that CaseParticipantRoleCode SHOULD be provided whenever a generic participant role element (j:CaseJudge, j:CaseOfficial or j:CaseOtherEntity) is used.
See my attached spreadsheet which builds out the committee’s suggested role codes and maps them to each of the role elements currently in the specification. This looks very doable.
However, I have an important question for the subcommittee. Note that if we map “Other” participants to j:CaseOtherEntity, we do not currently have a role specific to litigants other than j:CaseDefendantParty, j:CaseInitiatingParty and
j:CaseRespondentParty. Should we also map those litigants to j:CaseOtherEntity or should we create another role such as ecf:CaseOtherParty?
__
Jim Cabral
502 509-4532
At the May 9, 2017 ECF TC conference call, a subcommittee was asked to establish a normative default value list for CaseParticipantRoleCode and CaseOfficialCode. This subcommittee, consisting of Jim Price, Barbara Holmes, and Gary Graham
have completed this task. Attached you will find a spreadsheet containing the recommended code values and a cover-page document which provides additional explanatory information.