The California judicial branch faces significant technology challenges. Many courts need to replace their antiquated and failing case management systems and cannot currently afford to do so. The Judicial Council and its Technology Committee are working with the courts to set a direction to help meet those challenges.
March 2012: Judicial Council Stops CCMS Deployment
On March 27, 2012, the Judicial Council voted to stop deployment of CCMS V4 as a statewide technology project. At that time, programming, testing, and validation of V4 was completed, but the council canceled implementation because of the branch’s significant budget constraints. The council directed the Technology Committee (then known as the CCMS Internal Committee) to partner with the trial courts in developing timelines and recommendations to the Judicial Council to find other ways to use the CCMS technology and the state’s investment in the software system, as well as develop new strategies to assist courts with failing case management systems.
July 2012: Legislative Restriction
As part of the 2012–2013 Budget Act, the state Legislature amended Government Code section 68085 to prohibit the Judicial Council from expending Trial Court Trust Fund monies beginning in fiscal year 2012–2013 on CCMS without the consent of the Legislature. However, the legislation specifically excluded the operations and maintenance of CCMS V2 and V3, currently used by six courts.
August 2012 to Present: Judicial Council Technology Committee Oversight and Planning
Since CCMS was decommissioned, the Judicial Council Technology Committee has led collaborative planning to address several branch technology issues, including development of a technology roadmap, addressing maintenance and support issues for courts using V2 and V3 of the case management system, furthering e-filing, and development of a shared request for proposal for case management system procurements.
Current Status and Direction of V3
The five courts who use V3—the Superior Courts of Orange, Sacramento, San Diego, San Joaquin, and Ventura Counties—represent approximately 25 percent of the civil cases filed in California. These courts have been working collectively to plan the future of V3. Two of these courts—in Ventura and San Diego Counties—proposed to the Technology Committee that family law and juvenile dependency case types be added to the system. The three other courts who use V3—in Orange, Sacramento, and San Joaquin Counties—opposed the proposal. On Monday, April 29, the Technology Committee reviewed the potential costs and benefits of the two different approaches and concluded that it was impractical to add the two case types to the existing case management system.