Issues regarding court data security/confidentiality with re:SearchIL

Contents

  1. 1 Security prior to JIMS integration with re:SearchIL (during "repository mode")
  2. 2 Security once JIMS is integrated with re:SearchIL
    1. 2.1 Ultimately, it's the AOIC who decides who sees secured cases/documents
    2. 2.2 re:SearchIL is supposed to show only the court's documents, controlling access based availability on the court's security status flags.
    3. 2.3 Setting the proper subtype should secure the case
    4. 2.4 If a case is secured in JIMS you should not have to secure the documents in Imaging
    5. 2.5 re:SearchIL doesn't keep copies of your documents
    6. 2.6 Worried that you have cases or documents on re:Search which you secured in JIMS/Imaging, but not in re:Search?
    7. 2.7 Key limitations on court document access (as of mid-October 2018, though this will likely change)
    8. 2.8 If you put old documents on a case in Imaging, you may need to secure them, or the entire case

Security prior to JIMS integration with re:SearchIL (during "repository mode")

  1. Only e-filed documents are available.
  2. Whenever you secure a  case/document in JIMS/Imaging, you need to secure it manually in re:SearchIL.
  3. If you put items such as the following into Imaging after 7/1/2018, you should secure them manually, because they could contain sensitive information.
    1. Old  case files (all or a portion)
    2. Exhibits
    3. Written/paper record sheets

Security once JIMS is integrated with re:SearchIL

Disclaimer: Any information regarding the operations of re:SearchIL is based on our Goodin Associates' understanding of how re:SearchIL uses the data and documents we provide it.  Goodin recommends that you confirm all such information with the AOIC or re:SearchIL staff.

Ultimately, it's the AOIC who decides who sees secured cases/documents

Why?  When Tyler requests a case, we can't tell whether the request is from eFileIL or re:SearchIL. So to make sure that a cases is always available for e-filing, we return the case even if it's secured individually or based on case type/subtype (e.g. adoption and search warrant). This means that only re:SearchIL can control what someone sees on re:SearchIL. For this reason, we recommend you direct your questions on re:SearchIL document availability to the AOIC or re:SearchIL staff.

Note #1: When an entire case is secure, we are (as of spring 2019) changing the names of case parties to "SECURED".  

Note #2: Documents which are individually secured in Imaging: the AO has allowed us to exclude these from re:SearchIL, due to a technical problem we pointed out on Tyler's end.  But they could change their mind any time. 

re:SearchIL is supposed to show only the court's documents, controlling access based availability on the court's security status flags.

As noted in How re:SearchIL integration works), we notify re:SearchIL when there is a new document at the court, or a change in the case/document security.  They are then supposed to request a new snapshot of all the data from the court.  In the summer of 2018, Tyler stopped trying to weave in e-filed documents in with what the court told them about, because it was creating duplicates.  Hopefully, that practice will continue.  

Setting the proper subtype should secure the case

Assuming the case has the proper subtype, JIMS and Judici will secure it in accordance with the Manual on Recordkeeping (e.g. case type AD or subtype 419 for search warrants).  It is the responsibility of re:SearchIL to do the same.  The Clerk should not have to secure each case individually.

If a case is secured in JIMS you should not have to secure the documents in Imaging

Appendix 3 of the Manual on Recordkeeping indicates which kinds of documents should be secured.  Goodin isn't aware of any other obligations to secure documents, other than  2(c) of Section L of the Manual on Recordkeeping (as follows) which clearly allows for case-level codes to control access to documents on impounded cases, saying:

Any record of an impounded case that is maintained on an automated case management system, including any portion of the Basic Record such as the Record Sheet, may be restricted by the use of access codes limited to authorized personnel.

re:SearchIL doesn't keep copies of your documents

They only store the document index.  They only get documents from the court when someone asks for it... and they don't keep that copy very long.

Worried that you have cases or documents on re:Search which you secured in JIMS/Imaging, but not in re:Search?

You're right to worry- since early on, and through spring 2019, re:Search did not always secure cases and documents when you secure them in JIMS/Imaging.  So you may want to check re:Search a few hours after your update, and secure the case/document if they didn't.  For more on how to do this, contact re:Search support using the e-mail address or phone number at the bottom of re:Search web pages.

That being said, remember that the next time case parties, attorneys or documents are changed, re:Search requests a full snapshot of all the data, including case/document security status. So they might catch the security change after it was originally made at the court.

Key limitations on court document access (as of mid-October 2018, though this will likely change)

  1. re:SearchIL access is limited to Clerk staff, judges and the attorneys of record on the case, though the AOIC says that the public will have access someday.  
  2. At one point, re:SearchIL added a feature to make sure they don't show documents from prior to the 7/1/2018 re:SearchIL mandate, because:
    1. Some Clerks operated in repository mode prior to that date and aren’t confident that things were getting secured manually back then.
    2. If JIMS updates re:Search on an old case from a time prior to when SCR 138 put the burden of redaction on filers, unsecured documents containing confidential information not redacted by Clerks would wind up public.

If you put old documents on a case in Imaging, you may need to secure them, or the entire case

Document which predate the filer's obligation to redact sensitive information, may show sensitive information to re:SearchIL users.  As noted above, re:SearchIL isn't supposed to show anything prior to 7/1/2018.  This makes it important for "old" documents to have an accurate re:SearchIL "document date".  Here is how Goodin determines this:
  • If there is a record sheet entry for a document, we use that.  Otherwise, we use...
  • ... the Imaging file date, unless there isn't one, at which point we use...
  • ...the Imaging document creation date 
This has a couple of security considerations for the Circuit Clerk in order to make sure re:Search doesn't give out sensitive information:
  • If you get a Change of Venue case record from an older case e-filed into your court, the record sheet entry will reflect the current (filed) date.  So you may want to secure such documents to protect old unredacted documents from being public.
  • If you need to consolidate an old case into a another case, consider setting the Imaging file dates to that on the original case. 
The AOIC suggests that you get an administrative order which allows you to secure a document or case when necessary (as described above).

Comments