1 Look for the new Case Type Quick Reference Guide.
There is now a quick and easy tool that court and clerk staff can use to find out what case type they should assign to unusual proceedings. Detailed instructions about how cases should be designated and counted are part of the statistical reporting system and are available at courts.in.gov/admin under Forms > Statistics Reporting Forms. In addition to the detailed instructions, the Division of State Court Administration has created a handy Case Type Quick Reference Guide with a list of less typical proceedings and their case type designation. The Guide can be found at the link listed above. Court and Clerk staff that initiate cases and assign case types should consider printing it out for quick reference.
2 Case type for parental obligation to pay expenses when a juvenile’s record is expunged.
One of the questions addressed in the Case Type Quick Reference Guide asks what sort of case type should be assigned to an order assessing costs against the parent of a juvenile (for services or other expenses) after the juvenile case has been expunged.
The expungement of a juvenile’s court records may have unintended consequences on the parents’ obligation to pay expenses for services that may have resulted from the juvenile proceeding. Expunging the juvenile’s records expunges all records, including an order directing the parents to pay for services, unless the court orders that the obligation to pay survives the expungement. If the court orders that the parents’ obligation to pay survives the order of expungement, then the order assessing charges to the parents should be assigned a “court business,” CB, case type. However, if litigation over the outstanding liability becomes necessary because the parents fail to pay, and other pleadings such as a petition for proceedings supplemental are filed, the case should at that time be assigned a new MI case type and be counted as a new case.
3 Primer for developing electronic filing pilot project.
Administrative Rule 16 authorizes courts to establish electronic filing and electronic service pilot projects. A project plan and a written request for approval must be submitted to the Division of State Court Administration before e-filing or e-service may be implemented. The Division has posted to its website a primer for developing an electronic filing system for courts interested in adopting electronic filing pilot projects. A model electronic filing plan as well as a model local rule and accompanying forms are illustrated on the website. The model plan and local rule are intended to guide interested courts through the process and facilitate the approval of local plans and rules by the Division. The primer and the model plan and local rule are found at courts.IN.gov/admin under Publications.
4 Administrative Rule 9 requirements regarding contracts for information technology services involving court information.
Administrative Rule 9 provides comprehensive guidance to courts and clerks about confidentiality and access to court records and also about what courts must require of vendors providing information technology services. Among other things, it provides that all personal notes and e-mail, and deliberative material, of judges, jurors, court staff and judicial agencies, and information recorded in personal data assistants (PDA’s) or organizers and personal calendars in case records are excluded from public access and is confidential. Admin.R. 9(G)(1)(h).
To assure that this and other provisions of the rule are complied with, Administrative Rule 9(K) contains special requirements about contracts with vendors providing computer services for court information. The rule states:
(K) Contracts with Vendors Providing Information Technology Services Regarding Court Records
(1) If a court or other private or governmental entity contracts with a vendor to provide information technology support to gather, store, or make accessible court records, the contract will require the vendor to comply with the intent and provisions of this access policy. For purposes of this section, the term “vendor” also includes a state, county or local governmental agency that provides information technology services to a court.
(2) Each contract shall require the vendor to assist the court in its role of educating litigants and the public about this rule. The vendor shall also be responsible for training its employees and subcontractors about the provisions of this rule.
(3) Each contract shall prohibit vendors from disseminating bulk or compiled information, without first obtaining approval as required by this Rule.
(4) Each contract shall require the vendor to acknowledge that court records remain the property of the court and are subject to the directions and orders of the court with respect to the handling and access to the court records, as well as the provisions of this rule (emphasis added).
(5) These requirements are in addition to those otherwise imposed by law.”
Commentary
This section is intended to apply when information technology services are provided to a court by an agency outside the judicial branch, or by outsourcing of court information technology services to non-governmental entities. Implicit in this rule is the concept that all court records are under the authority of the judiciary, and that the judiciary has the responsibility to ensure public access to court records and to restrict access where appropriate. This applies as well to court records maintained in systems operated by a clerk of court or other non-judicial governmental department or agency. This section does not supercede or alter the requirements of Trial Rule 77(K) which requires that, before court records may be made available through the internet or other electronic method, the information to be posted, its format, pricing structure, method of dissemination, and changes thereto must receive advance approval by the Division of State Court Administration.
Even when the contracts are entered into by other county officials, it is important that courts review their contracts for compliance with Admin.R. 9 and with Administrative Rule 10, which further provides that:
Rule 10. Security of Court Records
(A) Court Responsibilities. Each judge is administratively responsible for the integrity of the judicial records of the court and must ensure that measures and procedures are employed to protect such records from mutilation, false entry, theft, alienation, and any unauthorized alteration, addition, deletion, or replacement of items or data elements.”
Commentary
The court is required to preserve the integrity of audio and video recordings of court proceedings. The judge may employ various methods for ensuring the recording is not altered, including but not limited to supervised playback for listening or copying, creating a copy of the recording for use during said playback, serving notice to the parties that the recording is being accessed, and providing a copy, clearly identified as such. As prescribed by Indiana Judicial Conduct Rule 2.17 [former Canon 3(B)(13)], because the court is further required to prohibit broadcasting or televising court proceedings, the court may employ methods to restrict publication of copies of court proceedings made during the pendency of the case.
(B) Clerk Responsibilities. Each Clerk is responsible for the maintenance of court records in a manner consistent with the directives of the Supreme Court of Indiana, judge of court, and other pertinent authority. In all instances, the Clerk of the court must safeguard the integrity and security of all court records in his or her custody and diligently guard against any prohibited practice.”
It is also helpful to know that courts can charge for the fair market value for bulk court records provided to vendors under administrative Rule 9(F), which rule states:
9(F) Bulk Distribution and Compiled Information.
(1) Upon written request as provided in this section (F), bulk distribution or compiled information that is not excluded by Section (G) or (H) of this rule may be provided.
(2) Requests for bulk distribution or compiled information shall be made to the Executive Director of the Division of State Court Administration or other designee of the Indiana Supreme Court. The Executive Director or other designee may forward such request to a court exercising jurisdiction over the records, and in the instance of records from multiple courts, to the Indiana Supreme Court, for further action. Requests will be acted upon or responded to within a reasonable period of time.
(3) With respect to requests for case record information not excluded from public access by Sections (G) or (H) of this rule, the request for bulk distribution or compiled information may be granted upon determination that the information sought is consistent with the purposes of this rule, that resources are available to prepare the information, and that fulfilling the request is an appropriate use of public resources. The grant of said request may be made contingent upon the requestor paying an amount which the court determines is the fair market value of the information.” (emphasis added)