The federal courts can reduce their reliance on paper records by using new technology to file, maintain, and retrieve case file information in "digitized" form. The transition towards electronic case files ("ECF") in the federal courts is underway. Some courts already are working to identify and acquire appropriate technology. New federal rules facilitate a court's decision to accept electronic filings. And the Judicial Conference's Committee on Automation and Technology has designated ECF as a top priority initiative and has set a goal to proceed with ECF within the next three to five years.
The benefits of ECF--for the judiciary, for lawyers, and for the public--seem profound and irresistible. The key questions are: How soon? How will it work? At what cost? Producing what benefits? This paper is intended to stimulate discussion, both inside and outside the judicial branch, and suggest possible approaches for resolving those basic questions as well as related policy issues that need to be addressed. It recommends a preliminary "action plan" for implementing ECF, describes a hypothetical ECF system, anticipates its potential benefits and basic functional characteristics, identifies the principal issues to be addressed as courts move towards ECF, and discusses the proposed interim Technical Standards for ECF. The ideas expressed will provide a conceptual framework for the Judicial Conference and its committees as they consider the policy implications of ECF for the federal courts and determine the manner in which the initiative should be pursued.
Key Benefits, Costs and Capabilities
It is anticipated that ECF will produce an impressive range of benefits to the courts and the people who use the courts, including--
The primary costs of an electronic case files system will be: (1) the staff costs for planning and implementation (including identification of new business processes and training), and (2) the costs of equipment and communication services. For all proposed implementation, a business case will be prepared to show that the benefits will exceed the costs.
A fully developed ECF system will capture documents electronically at the earliest possible point, ideally from the person who creates the document. The system will not only contain everything presently included in a paper case file but could also encompass the court's internal case-related documents. It will provide access to case files in ECF systems throughout the federal judiciary and include links to relevant information in automated court financial and other records, and perhaps even to texts of case law, statutes, and other legal authority such as those accessible through the Internet.
To meet the needs of all users, an ECF system will include capabilities to--
Key Issues
Cultural, policy, legal, technology, and staffing issues related to ECF must be--and, in some respects, are already being--addressed through the judiciary's normal decision-making processes (e.g., coordinated action by the Judicial Conference and its committees). Among those issues that must be resolved either before or early in the system implementation process are ones relating to--
Some of these issues will require policy decisions by the Judicial Conference or by individual courts. Others may require legislative or rules changes. And some will be resolved by making choices based on practical considerations. In all cases, the judiciary will find it easier to answer difficult questions of court administration and policy if ongoing experiments and pilot projects are used to test alternative approaches and provide sound empirical data.
Prototypes, Products, and Services
An electronic case files system provides electronic versions of documents traditionally stored as papers in a case file folder. These electronic documents can be easily retrieved by the court, the bar, and the public who can view them on a computer screen or print them to paper. Some of the electronic documents might be stored as scanned images, but eventually most documents should be electronic text files submitted directly by the attorney or other filer and automatically docketed and stored by the system.
A number of federal and state courts are already operating prototype systems. Using an ECF system developed by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the Northern District of Ohio began receiving electronic filings in maritime asbestos cases via the Internet in January 1996. Their system now manages over 5,000 such cases and has saved the court from handling over 100,000 paper documents. Nearly 50 attorneys from around the country have not only submitted those documents in electronic form, but also simultaneously and automatically created the court's official docket entries. A similar Internet-based system began operation, with Administrative Office assistance, in the Southern District of New York (Bankruptcy) in November 1996, and another will begin operation in the District of New Mexico early in 1997. A number of courts, including the Southern District of Texas, the Western District of Oklahoma (Bankruptcy) and the District of Kansas (Bankruptcy), have begun constructing their own electronic case files by having court staff scan paper documents into their systems. In addition to prototypes developed in the judicial branch, commercial vendors like LEXIS-NEXIS, West Publishing, Andersen Consulting and Ameritech are experimenting with products and offering services to courts and attorneys. These prototypes demonstrate not only that technology is available today, but also that many in the judiciary and the bar are ready to move forward and tackle the many cultural, legal, and policy issues that arise.
Recommended Course of Action
A consensus is beginning to emerge, among many who have studied and discussed electronic case filing, in favor of a few basic principles to guide the implementation of ECF in the federal courts:
Acquiring and implementing a system that reflects those central ideas will require cooperation, information sharing, and accommodation of different user interests. The process must adaptto rapidly advancing technology but will, at a minimum, require prototype development, experimentation, broad consultation, and development of national standards for data the system will handle.
On a national level, action is underway to develop a centrally funded, centrally supported "core" system that interested courts can use, and build upon, to implement ECF. If the requisite resources are allocated, such a system can be made available within the next three to five years. This study effort, various prototypes, and other efforts will continue moving toward that objective. Identification of requirements and alternatives should be completed by mid-to-late 1997. Then, acquisition can begin and that process could take anywhere from a number of months to a few years. A decision to adopt and adapt an available prototype or commercial system could lead fairly rapidly to implementation, while a decision to fully develop a new system would probably require more than a year of development time before implementation.
The action that is most needed now is for the judiciary's decision makers to become familiar with the information and issues*, and to formulate and express their opinions. Individual courts that are eager to move forward should also begin the critical and time consuming preparatory work of reviewing their paper flow and associated business processes in light of ECF's potential; meeting with court staff, the bar, and other users and providers of case documents to assess their functional requirements; and developing a plan for implementation.
*In a memorandum to judges and clerks dated November 22, 1996, the Director of the Administrative Office identified some of the key issues to be considered as courts proceed to authorize electronic filing pursuant to the revised Federal Rules. See Appendix A.
This paper was prepared by staff of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, with substantial assistance from judges and court staff, to aid the deliberations of the Judicial Conference of the United States and its committees. The ideas expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the policies of the Conference or any committee thereof, any court of the United States, or the Administrative Office.