May 23, 2008

Based on my recent experience at the Los Angeles Superior Court, I gained both insights and considerable body of records regarding computerized systems and their implementation in the courts today. Such data may be hard to get access to otherwise. I have some formal education in computer science, and I was intrigued by the Los Angeles County Superior Court's case management system "Sustain". It appeared that the subject of Case Management Systems - systems running the courts, in general, has not been given sufficient attention.

The problem is similar in its implications to the problem of Voting Machines, but the underlying legal body that is supposed to be implemented or coordinated with such machines is much larger, and logically - much more complex. Also like voting machines - case management systems can help enhance Due Process, or can easily be used for wholesale abuse of Due Process.

To my surprise, based upon limited review, I found major deficiencies in the Los Angeles County system. But more alarming was the fact that when the current system, Sustain, was introduced, over 20 years ago (it is a dBase/Unix package, I believe), there wasn't sufficient public awareness, and certain changes were introduced into the overall court system as a result, that normally would have been regulated by careful legal procedures.

For example - the traditional "Books of Court" were eliminated, including the "Book of Judgments". Any change in Rules of Court, even of lesser significance, by U.S. Law (Rule Enabling Act) would have required specific procedures, including publication of the proposed rules, and reasonable opportunity for public challenge. There is no evidence that any of that was done at the time.

Moreover, nowhere in the Rules of Court of Los Angeles County is there any reference or specific description of the computerized procedure that replaced such "Books of Court", or for that matter the procedures for currently valid "Entry of Judgment", which is typically very carefully prescribed. In fact, that computer system - "Sustain" - which is in fact the Governing system in the Court today, is never mentioned even once in the Los Angeles Rules of Court - a document of 500-1000 pages.

Another glaring deficiency is related to time stamps and signatures, which were always a critical issue in Books of Court and court files. The practical and ceremonial procedures related to the seal and carrying the seal were the center of power of the Ministerial (clerical) arm of the court. But that balance of power, between the Judicial and the Ministerial was completely eliminated in the case management systems, and there is no good implementation in systems I have seen of any digital signature protocol, except for the traditional user login and login time stamp.

Otherwise, it appears that there was insufficient awareness of security - various Court Houses went on manipulating the system over the decades, with no central direct supervision, or law for that purpose.

Similarly - there is no good control of authorities - I have records showing changes implemented in data by persons who should never have had authority at particular time to enter or change such data.

In addition, litigation records - per the U.S. Constitution are "Public Records", and the California Rules of court are explicit that the same is applicable also to electronic litigation records. But the Los Angeles Superior Court holds that court file data in "Sustain" - the case management system - is "privileged - for the Court only".

Case management systems are the governing systems in the courts today, although most practicing attorneys would like to believe that the paper court file is the governing system. The reason is that the "governing document" of the courts in the English speaking countries - the "Register of Actions" (at time also referred to as the "Docket")- is computerized in all courts, practically without exception. But the implementation of this critical document, which carried with it traditions of hundreds of years, intended to safeguard due process, is variable as well. One simple example - implied in the name of the document itself, Register of Actions, is that it assigns running numbers to actions. And such running numbers are obviously one of the checks intended to safeguard Due Process. But both "Sustain"- the case management system of LA County Superior Court, and "C|C" - the case management system of the California Court of Appeal today show the public documents that are represented as Dockets, or Registers of Actions, where actions are not numbered at all...

The subject is of relevance to the U.S. Court system - and the Federal case management system "Pacer" - as well, and I have significant data in that regard as well.

I would be delighted to transfer both raw data and preliminary analysis to any academic institute that would preserve it. Surprisingly, I realize that this collection of records and its analysis from the perspectives listed above is unique today.

Please let me know if you have interest in this subject, or if you know who would be interested in obtaining such records.

Joseph Zernik
Los Angeles