House Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence Committee: Interim Charge - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

House Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence Committee: Interim Charge 7 April 27, 2018

re:SearchTX Overview Summary • Search for case records through all jurisdictions across the state of Texas • View the register of actions of a case including parties, attorneys, case events and more • View all case documents online 2

Document Access Models *Courts have two models to make their case records available through re:SearchTX Repository Model Integrated Model CMS Metadata and copies of accepted Metadata and document IDs of documents are sent from eFileTX to accepted filings are sent from eFileTX re:Search upon clerk acceptance. This to re:Search upon clerk acceptance. Users search the metadata and information is provided to authorized documents are retrieved from the CMS, users. upon request. *Note: Courts may begin with the repository model and migrate to the integrated model once the CMS establishes the integration. 3

re:Search – Repository Model 5 1 2 3 4 6 7 Documents 24X7 Stamped Filing Filer Prepares and Meta Data Submission to Clerk Accepts Documents 24X7 Access Prepared for Documents or Rejects Passed to Passed to EFSP of to Documents Clerk Review Choice CMS and Filer re:Search Summary • Case metadata and documents will be Judge passed to re:Search from OFS • The documents will be copies of the file stamped document and can be considered the “unofficial record” Data • Courts may upload additional documents to re:Search and can Filer manage the security directly from EFSP Attorney of Record within re:Search • Provides a free document management system and online presence to Courts that is integrated with OFS • These documents may be purchased Legend for a price determined by the Court eFileTexas Step • All revenues from document purchase Authorized User transactions would go to the re:SearchTX Step CMS originating jurisdiction Clerk 4

re:Search – Integrated Model 1 2 4 5 6 3 7 8 Stamped Users Filing 24X7 Filer Clerk Documents Metadata Search & Documents Prepared Submission Prepares Accepts or Passed to Passed to Make are fetched for Clerk to EFSP of Documents Rejects CMS and re:Search Requests for from CMS Review Choice Filer Documents Summary • An integration is established between the CMS and re:Search Judge • Metadata in re:Search is obtained from OFS filings • Documents are fetched, on-demand Data from the CMS and are not stored within re:Search Filer • Metadata will be passed to re:Search EFSP Attorney of Record from the CMS for filings that bypass OFS • These documents may be purchased for a price determined by the State • All revenues from document purchase Legend transactions would go to the originating jurisdiction eFileTexas Step Authorized User • Broadens the audience seeking access re:SearchTX Step to electronic court records CMS Clerk 5

3 Phased Implementation Approach Jan Jul ‘16 Dec ‘17 2018 ‘16 Phase 1 Pilot Judges Program Judges need a simplified way Dedicated to view case information • Hardware across multiple jurisdictions Document Access • Basic Roles • Judges’ Credentials • Jurisdictions of • Phase 2 Practice Attorneys of Record Payment and • Attorneys demand a consistent, Distribution online experience to access case • Manual Expunction information (Pacer analogue) • Extensive Security Testing Scalability and • Phase 3 Performance Testing Registered Case Grouping • Public Advanced Roles • Access Throttling • The registered public demands Court Upload API • online access to court documents 6

Revenue potential from re:SearchTX • PACER generates $150 million in fees annually • Texas has more documents added per year than the Federal Courts • 8+ million documents eFiled in 2016 • Over 20,000,000 documents eFiled to date • Virginia‘s clerks records were just uploaded to a free site by a third-party • Fees will be set by Supreme Court • Recommendation forthcoming from JCIT • All Clerks should be involved in this process 7

re:SearchTX Implementation Timeline 254 County-Wide Engagements Over 12-Month Span Access for Integration Attorneys of Functionality Access for Access for Attorneys Registered Users Record Available Complete 1/1/2018 5/1/2018 8/1/2018 10/1/2018 2018 2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Repository Courts Integrated Courts Courts remaining on the repository model will adopt a move- General availability for integrated model available 4/15/18 • • Courts will be required to sign the Participation Agreement in forward approach for visibility of case records • Adoption of the integrated model will remain available after order to move to this model • the 4/15/18 general availability Estimated implementation timeline is <1 month • Integration with CMS alleviates additional court workload Redaction can be leveraged with these courts • • 8

Redaction Solutions Are Leveraged At Three Automated Redaction Key Points In The E-Filing Process Flow Manual Redaction Phase 1 re:Search Non-Tyler CMS Attorneys EFSP (3 rd Party) Phase 2 Tyler CMS Tyler EFSP Government Filer Electronic Filing Non-Tyler CMS Manager Pro Se Filer Odyssey Guide & File Clerk Review Tyler CMS 9

Redaction Process Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, Summary consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do - After the clerk accepts the eiusmod tempor incididunt ut eiusmod tempor incididunt ut document with the redaction labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis enim ad minim veniam, quis selections, the redaction elements nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris are burned into the document nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo - OFS sends the redacted, stamped consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in document to the filer and reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla *re:Search pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat - OFS sends the redacted and cupidatat non proident, sunt in cupidatat non proident, sunt in unredacted documents to the CMS culpa qui officia deserunt mollit culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum anim id est laborum for consumption *if in repository model 10

TX Pilot Participants Large Medium Large Medium Small Integrated Integrated Odyssey Odyssey Odyssey County Population County Population County Population County Population County Population Harris DC Jefferson DC Collin 914,127 Fort Bend 685,345 Randall 130,269 4,589,928 254,308 (In-House) (In-House) Denton 716,087 Cameron DC 406,220 Large Medium Small Small Integrated Non-Integrated Non-Integrated Non-Integrated County Population County Population County Population County Population Rains McLennan DC Bandera N/A 11,161 239,542 21,269 (LGS) (In-House) (Superion) Erath 41,122 (NetData) 11

12

Next Steps Establish integrations with various Case Management Systems Continue exploring redaction opportunity Conduct steering committee meetings to obtain valuable feedback Agree on policy decisions that will help drive the program’s direction 13

Questions 14