Facing the Challenges of an Electronic Court Environment: The Arizona Experience

1. Facing the Challenges of an Electronic Court Environment: The Arizona Experience National Association for Court Management Annual Conference July 17, 2014 Scottsdale, Arizona

2. Guiding Principles • One-stop access to court services • 24 x 7 on-line records and court services, “anywhere anytime” • Improved efficiency in staffing and customer service • Fully integrated systems: CMS, e-records and financials • Self-sustaining business model through user fees and subscription services

3. Challenges • Number of Disparate Systems • Case Management Systems • Document Storage Systems • Financial Systems • Multiple Vendors • Geographically Distributed Systems • Increasing Bandwidth Demands • Integration Needs (Data warehouse, CCI, CDR) • Workflow changes required to fully leverage digital records • Paper based policies limited applicability in digital world

4. Electronic Records Management Policy Retention Periods Public Access • Destruction: • Mandatory • Permissive

5. Electronic Records Management Policy EVALUATION Public Access Retention Periods • Assessment • Policy Formulation • Project Initiatives • Destruction: • Mandatory • Permissive

6. eCourt Services Program:An Integrated Project Approach eFiling eAccess eBench

7. Digital Court User Groups eAccess eFiling eBench

8. Integrated eCourt System Input eAccess eFile CMS eBench Receive Request Output

9. Arizona Committee Charge – (A.O. 2013-33) Should the length of time case documents and data are made available to the public online be consistent across court levels and within the same court level? Given that it is easier to systematically destroy electronic records, are the current records retention time periods adequate?

10. Arizona Committee Charge – (A.O. 2013-33) When the minimum retention period has been met, is destruction of electronic case documents and data mandatory or permissive? Once the retention deadline is reached, should documents or data be retained for purposes of government research, and, if so, should those records continue to be publicly available or released only pursuant to court order?

11. Scope of Committee Research • National Center for State Courts • COSCA White Paper, “To Protect and Preserve” • Arizona State Library & Archives • Private investigators who use court records for employment screenings and background checks • Policies of federal courts and other state courts • National Archives and Records Administration • Technology resources required for long term electronic records storage

12. Unintended Consequences of Infinite Electronic Record Storage • Inconsistent court record retention practices across the state • Potential harm to individuals whose case data remains on the public access websites, e.g., housing, employment, licensing and certification • Staffing and resources required to respond to requests for public records • High cost of retaining and managing electronic case records – storage, maintenance, system upgrades

13. Future Cycles of Storage Technology Cycle Length Estimate = 5 Years Re-Architecture Project Re-Architecture Project 2X Capacity 2X Capacity Increase Current Capacity

14. Future Cycles of Storage Technology Cycle Length Estimate = 5 Years Re-Architecture Project Re-Architecture Project 2X Capacity 2X Capacity Increase Current Capacity Foundational items include security, servers, operating systems, database mgt system, EDMS application, SAN support personnel, management, documentation, vendor support/maintenance contracts, backup software, testing resources

15. IT Support: Factors Related to Records Storage • Backup Procedures and Increased Time • Hardware Costs & Maintenance • Required for Nightly Updates • Recovery Time • Access Speed • Testing

16. Locating the “Sweet Spot” for Retention Likelihood of Need Too Little TimeInsufficient for Justice Processes Too Much Time Costly, Perceived Harm

17. Committee Recommendations • Establish consistent statewide, policies for the length of time electronic records are on-line • Establish policies for mandatory destruction of electronic records, pursuant to revised retention schedules • Modify Record Retention Schedules • For LJ courts, establish separate retention periods for paper records, online public access and CMS & EDMS • Technical amendments

18. LJ Retention Schedule for Paper Records, Public Access Websites, Case & Document Systems

19. LJ Retention Schedule for Paper Records, Public Access Websites, Case & Document Systems

20. Committee Recommendations (cont’d) • Given the revised retention schedules, no special provision required for research data • Develop a process to request that particular case records be permanently retained, akin to the historical records provisions (ACJA § 3-402(F) ) • Implementation Issues: • 24 month preparation period required for computer support • Applicable to case records reaching retention periods after implementation of new policy • Develop plans for destruction of case records that met retention periods prior to implementation of the new policy • Establish a process for courts to request more time for implementation based upon IT resources and funding constraints • Remove electronic records from the Supreme Court and local court public access websites, pursuant to the adopted retention schedules

21. Cost Considerations -- LJ eDocs on AOC Shared System

22. QUESTIONS: Karl Heckart, Director, Information Technology Department Administrative Office the Courts Arizona Supreme Court kheckart@courts.az.gov Marcus Reinkensmeyer, Director, Court Services Division Administrative Office of the Courts Arizona Supreme Court mreinkensmeyer@courts.az.gov