Back to Table of Contents

Indiana State Court Administration-Criteria for Approval

This section references all of the criteria that State Court Administration utilizes in granting approval for an imaging system. The majority of this information is set forth in administrative rule. Other comments or rules are meant purely for understanding by State Court Administration, as to who will be responsible for what work, and that workflow processes and responsibilities are clearly defined.

General Rules and Guidelines

I. Basis for Authority

A. Trial Rule 77 (J)
B. Administrative Rule 6 (E) and (F)
C. Administrative Rule 16 (B) and (H)

II. Issues under Review

A. Compliance to standards set forth in Administrative Rule 6
B. Review of specific considerations

1. Certification page is signed by clerk/court officer
2. Selection of specific types of records to be scanned:

a. New Cases
b. Pending Cases
c. Re-docketed Cases
d. Closed Cases
e. CCS/Docket sheets [requires “enhanced” certification]
f. RJO/Order Books [requires “enhanced” certification]

3. Review of the indexing structure of scanned images [for compliance with Trial Rule 77 (E) and for standardized data fields] and of the “data designation” fields, as coding cases that have been dismissed or for documents within the case file that are deemed “permanent”
4. Procedures for handling re-docketed cases if original case has already has been scanned and digital master has been created
5. Procedures for designating permanent files within new and pending cases for conversion to digital master
6. Procedures for processing closed cases to guarantee that the appropriate retention schedules are implemented before scanning as well as a signed weeding policy has been approved by the appropriate court(s) Dismissed cases, and where appropriate, 2% sampling occurs. Verification that person knowledgeable about court records performs these functions. No approval can occur unless this is documented.
7. Review of the intellectual auditing procedure that guarantees that once a document has been scanned and verified (either in individual or batch mode) that no alterations, replacements or additions can occur to meet the standards found in Administrative Rule 10
8. Scanning procedures meet the requirements of Administrative Rule 9
9. Review of submitted samples if enhancing software is being used
10. Review of the timing of the creation of the digital master
11. Review of assignment of responsibilities of each party when outsourcing of scanning occurs.

• ODYSSEY COMPATIBILITY •

Because no firm commitments have been made, yet, regarding either scanning equipment or services, the Indiana Supreme Court’s Division of State Court Administration, Judicial Technology and Automation Committee (JTAC), is unable to indicate at this time whether or not the scanning equipment or services for which a Clerk may contract is Odyssey-compatible. Each individual Clerk who may contemplate entering into a contract to purchase scanning equipment or services is urged to contact David E. Griffith, JTAC’s Staff Attorney, at 317-234-5679, or by email at dgriffith@jtac.in.gov. Once JTAC knows what scanning equipment might be used, a determination can be made regarding its compatibility with Odyssey.

Back to Table of Contents