This document is a specification developed by the OASIS
LegalXML Electronic Court Filing Technical Committee. It defines a technical
architecture and a set of components, operations and message structures for an
electronic court filing system, and sets forth rules governing its
implementation.
This specification describes the technical architecture and
the functional features needed to accomplish a successful electronic court
filing system, and defines both the normative (required) and non-normative
(optional) business processes it supports. The non-functional requirements
associated with electronic filing transactions, as well as the actions and
services needed to accomplish the transactions, such as network and security
infrastructures, are defined in related specifications, namely:
·
Service interaction profile specifications that define communications
infrastructures, within which electronic filing transactions can take place
·
Document signature profile specifications that define mechanisms
for stating or ensuring that a person signed a particular document
This specification supports the following automated
information exchanges:
·
Transmission of documents in electronic form from law firms and
from other persons and organizations to a court for entry (“official filing”)
into the court’s official case records
·
Recording of documents in electronic form from members of the
court and court administrators into the court’s official case records
·
Transmission of data needed to complete (or demonstrate the
previous completion of) financial transactions involving filing fees or the
payment of any other court fees, fines and financial obligations
·
Transmission of the metadata needed to initiate a new case record
in a court’s automated case management system (CMS) when the document being
transmitted is one that commences a new case in that court
·
Transmission of the metadata needed to create an entry that
records (indexes) a filed document in a court’s electronic listing of cases and
their contents (variously called a “docket” or “register of actions”)
·
Transmission of the metadata needed to update the information
recorded about a case that is maintained in a court’s CMS
·
Messages returned to the sender that confirm a court’s receipt of
the sender’s filing message
·
Messages notifying the sender of events such as the entry of the
document(s) submitted by the sender into the court record (or an error message
stating that the document[s] could not be accepted for filing and stating the
reason[s] why)
·
Queries to the court seeking information about data and documents
held within the court’s official electronic records and the return of information
in response to those queries
·
Queries from filers for the court rules and requirements for
electronic filing
·
Queries by filers seeking from the court record system the names
and addresses of parties in a case who must be served and whether by traditional
or electronic means
·
Transmission of copies of documents submitted for filing to the
other parties in a case who are registered to receive service electronically
In addition to filing of court case documents, this
specification supports “secondary service” – the delivery of copies of filed
documents to persons who have already been made parties to a case. This
specification does NOT support “primary service,” which entails the service of
summonses, subpoenas, warrants and other documents that establish court
jurisdiction over persons, making them parties to a case. Therefore, this
specification does NOT support the following automated information exchanges:
·
A query by a filer seeking from the court record system the names
and addresses of parties in a new case who must be served to establish court
jurisdiction over them in the new case
·
Transmission of copies of or links to documents submitted for
filing to any party in a new case or any newly added parties in an existing
case
This specification defines a set of core structures that are
common to most types of court filings and defines specific structures that
apply to filing documents in the following types of court cases:
·
Appellate
·
Bankruptcy
·
Civil (including general civil, mental health, probate and small
claims)
·
Criminal (both felony and misdemeanor)
·
Domestic relations (including divorce, separation, child custody
and child support, domestic violence and parentage, i.e., maternity or
paternity)
·
Juvenile (both delinquency and dependency)
·
Violations (including traffic, ordinances and parking)
Although ECF 4.01 does not define data structure elements
specific to other case types (e.g., administrative tribunals), the basic
structure will support other types of court filings and is extensible through
court-specific and case-type-specific extensions.
Electronic Court Filing 4.0 superseded the LegalXML
Electronic Court Filing 3.0, 3.01 and 3.1 specifications developed by the
predecessor organizations to the OASIS Electronic Court Filing Technical
Committee. Those specifications were prepared for and approved by the COSCA/NACM
Joint Technology Committee as proposed standards.
Relative to the ECF 3.0, 3.01 and 3.1 specifications, the
ECF 4.0 and 4.01 specifications provide a number of enhancements including:
·
Leveraging of the National Information Exchange Model ([NIEM]), a national standard for information sharing
·
Leveraging of the updates to the OASIS Universal Business
Language ([UBL]), for describing payments
·
The inclusion of the data elements needed for appellate cases
This specification does not assume that prior specifications
will be deprecated. However, ECF 4.0 is not backward-compatible and
applications using the ECF 3.0, 3.01 and 3.1 specifications will not
interoperate successfully with applications using these specifications. This
fact is indicated by the assignment of a new major version number to the ECF
4.0 and 4.01 specifications.
ECF 4.01 is a maintenance release to address several minor
schema and definition issues identified by implementers of the ECF 4.0
specification. All references in this document to ECF 4.0 apply to ECF 4.01 as
well. Relationship to other XML Specifications
The ECF specification incorporates other existing,
non-proprietary XML specifications wherever possible. In particular, the
specification has dependencies on the [NIEM], the [UBL] data library and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
XML Digital Signatures specification. The terminology used in this specification
to describe the components of the ECF technical architecture conforms to the
OASIS Reference Model for Service Oriented Architecture.
It is recommended that implementations cache external
schemas locally to improve performance and reliability. (The alternative would
be to rely on the external schemas as they are, in someone else’s control, and
assume they will not be changed or become hard to access due to Internet or
network problems.) The copies of external schemas that are cached in this way should
be updated and refreshed often to ensure changes will be quickly learned and
addressed.
[NIEM] conformance, as defined by the NIEM Implementation
Guidelines ([NIEM Guide]), is
a core objective of this specification. The [NIEM] is an XML standard
designed specifically for justice information exchanges, providing law enforcement,
public safety agencies, prosecutors, public defenders and the judicial branch
with a tool to effectively share data and information in a timely manner. The [NIEM]
provides a library of reusable components that can be combined to automate
justice information exchanges. The [NIEM] removes the burden from
agencies to independently create exchange standards. Because of its
extensibility, there is more flexibility to deal with unique agency
requirements and changes. Through the use of a common vocabulary that is
understood system to system, [NIEM] enables access from multiple sources
and reuse in multiple applications. The use of [NIEM] element names does not
require any change in local legal terminology. XML tag names are invisible to
the user of an application employing them.
The [NIEM] is most useful for describing common
objects such as persons and locations, and criminal justice-specific processes
such as arrest, booking, jail and prosecution. The [NIEM] is not as
well developed for describing non-criminal information exchanges and
processes. ECF 4.0 uses the [NIEM] version 2.0 where the structures and
definitions correspond to the requirements of ECF 4.0. The development
process, including the [NIEM] modeling process, is described in Appendix
B.
[UBL] is an OASIS Standard that provides a single
ubiquitous language for business communication, and takes into account the
requirements common to all enterprises. [UBL] provides a shared
library of reusable components, essential to interoperability that can be
combined to create electronic business schemas. Without a common set of base
components, each document format would risk redefining addresses, locations and
other basic information in incompatible ways.
ECF 4.0 employs the following structures in the [UBL]
to describe filing payments and payment receipts:
<AllowanceCharge>
Information about
a charge or discount price component.
<Address>
Information about
a structured address.
<Payment>
Information
directly relating to a specific payment.
1.3.3 W3C XML-Signature Syntax and Processing
The W3C XML Signature Syntax and Processing ([XMLSIG])
specification describes a mechanism for signing electronic documents. This
mechanism allows recipients of electronic documents to identify the sender and
be assured of the validity of the electronically transmitted data. [XMLSIG]
defines standard means for specifying information content that is to be
digitally signed.
ECF 4.0 employs the [XMLSIG] specification to
describe digital signatures applied to the entire ECF 4.0 message transmission
in order to provide authentication, encryption and message integrity. [XMLSIG]
is also used in the ECF 4.0 XML Document Signature Profile.
The [SOA-RM] is a framework for understanding
significant entities, and the relationships between those entities, within a
service-oriented architecture. ECF 4.0 describes such an architecture and
includes terminology that conforms to the [SOA-RM].
The OASIS Code List Representation format, [Genericode],
is a model and XML schema that can be used to encode a broad range of code list
information. The XML format is designed to support interchange or distribution
of machine-readable code list information between systems. All ECF 4.0 code
lists that are not defined in the NIEM are provided in [Genericode] 1.0 format.
1.4 Terms and Definitions
The keywords “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL
NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY” and “OPTIONAL” in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
This section defines key terms used in this specification.
Attachment
See definition in Section 2.3.2.
Callback message
A message transmission returned by some operations some
time after the operation was invoked (asynchronously).
Document
An electronic equivalent of a document that would otherwise
be filed on paper in a traditional, non-electronic fashion.
Document hash
A condensed representation of a document intended to
protect document integrity, calculated according to the FIPS 180-2 SHA 256 algorithm.
Docketing
The process invoked when a court receives a pleading, order
or notice, with no errors in transmission or in presentation of required
content, and records it as a part of the official record.
Filer
An attorney or a pro se (self-represented) litigant
acting as an individual who assembles and submits one or more filings (combinations
of data and documents).
Filing
An electronic document (with any associated data,
attachments and the like) that has been assembled for the purpose of being
filed into a specified court case.
Hub Service MDE
A centralized Service MDE capable of receiving a single set
of service notifications for all parties registered for electronic service in a
case and transmitting the service notifications to the Service MDEs registered
to each party in the case.
Major Design Element (MDE)
A logical grouping of operations representing a significant
business process supported by ECF 4.0. Each MDE operation receives one or more
messages, returning a synchronous response message (a reaction to a message received)
and, optionally, returning an asynchronous (later) response message to the
originating message sender.
Message
See definition in Section 2.3.1.
Message Transmission
The sending of one or more messages and associated attachments
to an MDE. Each transmission must invoke or respond to an operation on the
receiving MDE, as defined in the ECF 4.0 specification.
Operation (or MDE
Operation)
A function provided by an MDE upon receipt of one or more
messages. The function provided by the operation represents a significant step
in the court filing business process. A sender invokes an operation on an MDE
by transmitting a request with an operation identifier and a set of messages.
Operation signature
A definition of the input message and synchronous response
message associated with an operation. Each message is given a name and a type
by the operation. The type is defined by a single one of the message
structures defined in the ECF 4.0 specification.
Synchronous response
A message transmission returned immediately (synchronously)
as the result of an operation. Every operation has a synchronous response.
This section defines key symbols and abbreviations used in
this specification.
ECF 4.0
Electronic Court Filing 4.0
IEPD
Information Exchange Package Documentation
MDE
Major Design Element
NIEM
National Information Exchange Model
OASIS
Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information
Standards
XML
eXtensible Markup Language
W3C
World Wide Web Consortium
WS-I
Web Services Interoperability Organization
[FIPS 180-2]
Secure Hash Standard, http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips180-2/fips180-2withchangenotice.pdf,
National Institute for Standards and Technology, August 2002.
[Genericode]
A. B. Coates, Code List Representation
(Genericode) 1.0,
http://docs.oasis-open.org/codelist/ns/genericode/1.0/, OASIS Committee Specification, December 28, 2007
[NIEM]
National
Information Exchange Model 2.0, http://niem.gov, US
DOJ and DHS, 2007.
[NIEM Guide]
NIEM Implementation Guidelines, http://www.niem.gov/implementationguide.php, US DOJ and DHS, 2007.
[NIEM Techniques]
Techniques for Building and Extending NIEM,
http://www.niem.gov/topicIndex.php?topic=techPDF, Georgia Tech Research Institute, August 2007.
[Namespaces]
T. Bray, Namespaces in XML, http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114,
January 14, 1999.
[RFC2046]
N. Freed, Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2046.txt,
IETF RFC 2046, November 1996.
[RFC2119]
S. Bradner, Key words for use in RFCs
to Indicate Requirement Levels, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt,
IETF RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4122]
Leach, et al., A Universally Unique
IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4122.txt,
IETF RFC 4112, July 2005.
[Schema Part 1]
H. S. Thompson, D. Beech. M. Maloney, N.
Mendelsohn, XML Schema Part 1: Structures Second Edition, http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/, W3C Recommendation, October 28, 2004.
[Schema Part 2]
P. Biron, A. Malhotra, XML Schema Part
2: Datatypes Second Edition, http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/, W3C Recommendation, October 28, 2004
[UBL] Universal Business
Language Version 2.1 30 May 2011. 30 May 2011. Committee Specification
Draft 02 / Public Review Draft 02. http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/prd2-UBL-2.1/UBL-2.1.html
J. Bozak, T. McGrath, G. K. Holman (editors), Universal Business Language 2.0, ,
OASIS Standard, December 12, 2006.
[XML 1.0]
T. Bray, Extensible Markup Language
(XML) 1.0 (Third Edition), http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/REC-XML-20040204,
W3C Recommendation, February 4, 2004.
[XMLENC]
D. Eastlake,
J. Reagle, XML Encryption Syntax and Processing, http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xmlenc-core-20021210/, W3C Recommendation, December
2002.
[XMLSIG]
D. Eastlake,
J. Reagle, D. Solo, XML-Signature Syntax and Processing, http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xmldsig-core-20020212/, W3C Recommendation, February
2002.
[Court Document]
OASIS LegalXML Court Document Subcommittee,Charter, July 2006, http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/19120/DocumentSC-Charter-Rev6-1.txt.
[NIEM MNDR]
W. Roberts, S Liebeskind, M. Kindl National
Information Exchange Model Naming and Design Rules Draft 1.2, http://www.niem.gov/topicIndex.php?topic=file-NDR-lineNum,
August 7, 2007.
[Juvenile XML]
S. Rondendell, et. al., Juvenile
Justice XML Report, http://www.ijis.org/db/share/public/Library/Publications/juvenile%5fjustice%5fxml%5ffinal%5freport%5f20050630.pdf, IJIS Institute, July 2005.
[NIEM]
NIEM Concept of Operations, http://www.niem.gov, DOJ/DHS, October 7, 2005.
[NCSC Guide]
State Court Guide to Statistical Reporting, http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/csp/2003_Files/CompleteGuide11_02_04.pdf, National Center for State
Courts, November 2004.
[Rap Sheet]
Interstate Criminal History Transmission
Specification XML Version 3.00, http://www.search.org/files/pdf/CH_transmission_spec.pdf, Joint Task Force on Rap Sheet
Standardization, February 2005.
[SOA-RM]
MacKenzie, et al., Reference Model for
Service Oriented Architecture 1.0, http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=soa-rm, OASIS Public Review Draft 1.0, February 10, 2006.
[Traffic IEPD]
Traffic Citation IEPD, http://www.ncsconline.org/d_tech/gjxdm/iepd/citation/Traffic_Citation_08_08_2005.zip,
National Center for State Courts, August 8, 2005.
The ECF 4.0 architecture consists of four Major Design
Elements (MDEs), which support operations and messages. An MDE is a logical
grouping of operations, such as the operations involved in creating a filing or
the operations involved in receiving and recording a filing, that is, incorporating
the constituent documents into a court document management system. A message
is the data exchanged between MDEs in the form of an XML document that may
include one or more additional binary attachments. These messages contain the
information to be filed with the court. This section describes the ECF 4.0
architecture including the MDEs, the operations and the messages.
The ECF 4.0 architecture can be divided into three principal
elements:
·
Core Specification – This core specification defines the
MDEs and the operations and messages that are exchanged between MDEs.
·
Service Interaction Profiles – Service interaction profiles
are specifications that describe communication infrastructures that deliver messages
between MDEs.
·
Document Signature Profiles – Document signature profiles
are specifications that describe mechanisms for signing electronic documents.
In order to be compliant, an implementation of the ECF
specification MUST implement the core specification and at least one service
interaction profile and one document signature profile.
The MDEs and messages that make up the core specification
are discussed in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 below, respectively. Service interaction
profiles are discussed in Section 5 below. Document signature profiles are discussed in Section
6 below.
ECF 4.0 defines four MDEs. They are:
·
Filing Assembly MDE – enables a filer to create a filing
message for submission to a court, and for service on other parties in the
case, returning a response from the court to the filer.
·
Filing Review MDE – enables a court to receive and review
a filing message and prepare the contents for recording in its case management
and document management systems, sending a response concerning the filing to
the Filing Assembly MDE. The Filing Review MDE also enables filers to obtain
court-specific policies regarding electronic filing and to check on the status
of a filing.
·
Court Record MDE – enables a court to record electronic
documents and docket entries in its case management and document management
systems and returns the results to the Filing Review MDE. The Court Record MDE
also enables filers to obtain service information for all parties in a case, to
obtain information about cases maintained in the court’s docket, register of
actions and calendars, and to access documents maintained in the court’s
electronic records.
·
Legal Service MDE – enables a party to receive service
electronically FROM other parties in the case. Note that service TO other
parties in the case is performed by the Filing Assembly MDE.
The MDEs defined in the ECF 4.0 specifications are meant
only to define the “interface” to each operation; the specification is not
intended to define how operations must be implemented. This strategy allows
MDE implementations to interoperate while leaving room for vendors and courts
to have differing implementations (e.g., an implementation that supports a
particular CMS).
An ECF 4.0-compliant implementation may implement one or
more of the MDEs defined in the specification but a complete ECF 4.0 system
MUST include at least one each of the Filing Assembly, Filing Review and Court
Record MDEs. For instance, a court may decide to provide certain MDEs and
allow private providers to furnish the remaining MDEs. When multiple MDEs are
implemented by a single court, vendor or application, the application MUST
maintain the ECF 4.0 specified operations between each MDE so that other
applications will be able to interoperate with it.
Each of the operations supported by an MDE accepts one or
more messages as input and returns an immediate, synchronous response message
to the calling MDE. For some operations, the MDE will also return an asynchronous
(callback) message at a later time that reports the result of a business
process implemented within the MDE. In order to be compliant with ECF 4.0, an
MDE must support all messages required for that MDE. However, in an ECF 4.0
system that does not support electronic service, the operations associated with
the Legal Service MDE are not required.
An MDE defines an information model and behavior model of a
service as described in the [SOA-RM]. One must remember that “service”
in the service oriented architecture sense is not the same as the business
function of “service of filing” used throughout in this document.
The ECF information model describes the messages that may be
exchanged between MDEs. All ECF 4.0 operations use the same core message
stream structure, which is implemented in the service interaction profiles.
Each ECF core message stream is a stream of bytes that contains at least one
message and may also contain attachments.
A message is an XML document that
is a well-formed XML data structure with a single root element that is transmitted
between MDEs and is valid as defined by one of the defined message structure
schemas in the ECF 4.0 specification. A message may be related to one or more
attachments. A message contains the following information:
·
Message information about the filing and court case, such as
identifiers for the sender and receiver, the sending and receiving MDEs, and
the submission date and time, typically a composition of:
–
A core message which includes basic information common to all courts and
case types and Information about each of the documents associated with the
message
–
Case-type-specific extensions that includes information appropriate only
for a particular type of filing
–
Court-specific extensions that includes information appropriate only for
cases in a particular court
·
Information about each of the documents associated with the
message. A document in this sense is the electronic representation of what
would be recognized as a “document” if it were a single, whole, physical paper
object. This includes both a lead document, one that will be placed on the
court’s register of actions (docketed, indexed) and any supporting document(s),
which are present to supplement the lead document in some way. The message
includes the document’s metadata, for example, its title, type, identifier,
parent document identifier and document sequence number. Each document
structure may reference one or more attachments, including attachment
identifiers and sequence numbers. When included in attachments, a logical
document MAY be split into several physical parts if necessary to satisfy a
court requirement regarding maximum document size. The actual binary
encoded electronic document MAY be either included in one or more attachments
to the message or embedded in the message using the following structure: The actual binary encoded electronic document SHOULD be
included in one or more attachments to the message or MAY be embedded in the
message using the following structure:
<FilingLeadDocument> (or
<FilingConnectedDocument>)
<ecf:DocumentRendition>
<DocumentRenditionMetadata>
<DocumentAttachment>
<BinaryBase64Object>2345klj345h…<BinaryBase64Object>
</DocumentAttachment>
</DocumentRenditionMetadata>
</ecf:DocumentRendition
</FilingLeadDocument> (or </FilingConnectedDocument>)
Elements defined
by this specification, whether in core messages, case type-specific extensions
or court-specific extensions, are intended to be useful to an automated case
management system for the purposes of partially or fully automating case
workflow after filing (e.g., filing review, noticing, docketing, judicial
assignment, calendaring, standardized forms receipt and generation, fee
processing) or ascertaining the adequacy or appropriateness of the filing
(e.g., fee or fine calculation, jurisdiction). Elements defined by this
specification are not intended to fully populate the automated case management
system with all data contained within filed documents. That is, these elements should
be useful as “filing metadata” about the case, the filing transaction, parties
or documents. These elements may also be “filing data”, or the contents of the
filings. For instance, information found on a filing cover sheet can generally
be considered filing metadata, even if the information is also repeated in the
document(s) being filed.
The scope of the
ECF core messages and extensions is limited by the following criteria:
·
Elements in the ECF core messages should be applicable to most
courts and case types
·
Elements in the ECF case-type-specific extensions should only be
applicable to one of the seven case types defined in National Center for State
Courts (NCSC) statistical standards
·
Elements in locally-defined court-specific extensions should only
be applicable to a particular court or court system but not to courts in
general
All “filing
data” elements should be described in the filed documents, whose structure is
outside the scope of the ECF specification.
2.3.2 Attachment
An attachment is a series of bytes
in the message stream transmitted between MDEs that constitutes, in whole or in
part, an electronic document whose conventional equivalent would be a document
on paper. The contents are preceded by one or more “headers” that uniquely
identify the attachment (using a content identifier) and specify the format or
type of the attachment. Note that the contents of an attachment can be binary
octets (the “raw” binary data of the document), binary data encoded in text
(e.g., via base-64 or some other algorithm), XML text or plain text.
Attachments appear in the message
stream after the messages. The order of attachments within the message stream is
not important and cannot be treated as significant. In particular, this means
that the series of bytes representing the content of a lead document need not
appear before the attachments representing the content of documents supporting
that lead document.
The following conceptual diagrams illustrate the containment
structures involved in the message stream.
Figure 1 illustrates a message stream involving two lead
documents, the first of which has two supporting documents. The second lead
document has no supporting documents. Each document is associated with a
single attachment.
Figure 1. Simple Message Stream
Figure 2 illustrates a message stream involving two lead
documents, the first of which has a single supporting document. The second
lead document has no supporting documents. The supporting document associated
with the first lead document is split into two pieces, each treated as an
attachment, presumably due to limits set by the court on size. Each lead
document is associated with a single attachment, and the one supporting
document is associated with two attachments.
Figure 2. Message Stream with a Document in Multiple
Attachments
2.4 Court Policy
A court’s customary practices may influence many aspects of
its ECF 4.0 implementation, and those local practices and variations are
expressed through the “court policy” component of e-filing, which includes:
·
Human-readable court policy – a textual document
publishing the court’s rules and requirements for electronic filing.
·
Machine-readable court policy – an ECF 4.0 message that
describes the features of the ECF 4.0 implementation supported by this
specification, the court’s code lists and any other information a Filing
Assembly MDE would need to know in order to successfully submit an electronic
filing into that court.
The court MUST have only one active, authoritative version
of its policies at a given time; both the human-readable and the
machine-readable statements of those policies MUST have the same release dates
for the court.
The court’s human-readable and machine-readable court
policies MUST each have a version numbering method associated with it. The
court’s versioning process SHOULD comply with the following rules: 1) Versions
are denoted using a standard triplet of integers: MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH; 2)
Different MAJOR versions are to be considered incompatible, large-scale
upgrades of the Policy; 3) Different MINOR versions are to be considered to
retain source and binary compatibility with earlier minor versions, and changes
in the PATCH level are perfectly compatible, forward and backward. It is
important to note that a policy that has not reached version 1.0.0 is not
subject to the guidelines described in this document. Before a 1.0 release is
achieved (i.e., any version numbered 0.x.y), court policy can be changed freely
without regard to the restrictions on compatibility between versions.
Court policy is not directly equivalent to “service policy”
in the [SOA-RM]. However, thinking about court policy from a policy
assertion, policy owner and policy enforcement framework as described in the [SOA-RM]
is helpful. Note that “court policy” refers to a set of constituent rules and
requirements, while the [SOA-RM] looks at each individual item as a
“service policy.” In all cases the policy owner is the court where the
document is to be filed. Also note that none of the elements of court policy
rise to the level of a “service contract” as defined by the [SOA-RM].
To be compliant with the ECF 4.0 specification, each court
MUST publish a human-readable court policy that MUST include each of the
following:
1. The unique
court identifier
2. The
location of the machine-readable court policy
3. A
definition of what constitutes a “lead document” in the court
4. A
description of how filer identifiers are to be maintained during electronic
communications regarding the case
5. A
description of how the court processes (dockets) filings
6. A
description of any instances in which the court will mandate an element that
the ECF 4.0 schema makes optional
7. A
description of any restrictions to data property values other than code list
restrictions. (This restriction may be removed in later versions of the ECF
specification)
8. Any other
rules required for electronic filing in the court
Machine-readable Court Policy includes structures for
identifying run-time and development-time policy information.
Run-time information includes information that will be
updated from time to time, such as code lists (e.g., acceptable document types,
codes for various criminal charges and civil causes of action) and the court’s
public key for digital signatures and encryption.
Development-time information includes court rules governing
electronic filing that are needed at the time an application is developed but
which are not likely to change. These include:
1.
The service interaction profile(s) that the court supports
2.
The MDEs, query operations and case types supported by the court’s ECF 4.0
system
3.
Whether a court will accept the filing of a URL in lieu of the
electronic document itself
4.
Whether the court accepts documents requiring payment of a filing fee
5.
Whether the court accepts electronic filing of sealed documents
6.
Whether the court accepts multiple (batch) filings
7.
The court-specific extensions to the ECF 4.0 specification, including
the required elements (see below)
8.
The maximum sizes allowed for a single attachment and a complete message
stream
The machine readable court policy MUST be provided to the
Filing Assembly MDE either by the Filing Review MDE through the GetCourtPolicy
query or some other means.
Schemas for
initiating specific case types (e.g. criminal, civil) are included in the
specification. Case-type and court-specific extensions to the ECF core
messages are implemented through the methods described in [NIEM Techniques].
The primary extension technique is the use of element substitution, as
described in Section 5.3.3 of [NIEM Techniques], in which a more
specific element defined in a case-type or court-specific extension is used in
place of a generic element in a core message. For instance, a court may add
elements required for a particular case type (e.g. civil) by defining an
extension schema that includes types (e.g. court:CivilCaseType)
and elements (e.g., court:CivilCase) that substitute
for ECF types (e.g. civil:CivilCaseType) and
elements (e.g., civil:CivilCase). Similarly, an
implementation may substitute a court-specific code list for a generic code
list defined in this specification.
Code lists are used to constrain the allowable values for
certain information in an ECF 4.0 message. The court SHOULD publish [Genericode]
1.0 code lists for each of the following code lists and reference each of
these code lists in its court policy:
·
ECF
Code Lists
·
Civil Case Type
·
<FiduciaryTypeCode>*
·
<JurisdictionalGroundsCode>
·
<ReliefTypeCode>
·
Domestic Case Type
·
<NoContactCode>*
·
<RequestToVacateCode>
·
Common Types
·
<AliasAlternateNameTypeCode>*
·
<CaseAssociationTypeCode>*
·
<CaseOfficialRoleText>*
·
<CaseParticipantRoleCode>*
·
<CauseOfActionCode>
·
<CourtEventTypeCode>
·
<EntityAssociationTypeCode>
·
<ErrorCode>*
·
Juvenile Case Type
·
<DelinquentActApplicabilityCode>
·
<DelinquentActDegreeCode>
·
<DelinquentActSeverityCode>
·
<DelinquentActSpecialAllegationCode>
·
<DependencyAllegationCode>
·
<GuardianAssociationTypeCode>*
·
<PlacementTypeCode>
·
NIEM
Code Lists
·
JXDM
·
<ChargeEnhancingFactorText>
·
<CourtLocationCode>
·
<RegisterActionDescriptionText>
·
<StatuteCodeIdentification>
·
<StatuteCodeSectionIdentification>
·
<StatuteOffenseIdentification>
·
<StatusOffenseCodeIdentification>
·
NIEM Core
·
<BinaryDescriptionText>*
·
<CaseCategoryText>
·
<DriverLicenseCommercialClassCode>
·
<FamilyKinshipCode>*
A non-normative [Genericode] code list with default values
is provided for each of the code lists above with asterisks (*).
If a court does not define allowable values for any of the
above code lists in court policy, then any value MUST be considered acceptable
for that code.
The cardinality of elements in the NIEM subset imported by
the ECF is applied through the use of constraint schemas that define the
minimum and maximum occurrence of elements in the NIEM subset. Courts MAY
enforce court-specific rules and code lists by creating court-specific
constraint schemas. This process creates a duplicate set of the ECF schemas
and allows the customization of the cardinality of elements as needed. If
court-specific constraint schemas are used, instance documents MUST validate
against both the ECF schemas and the court constraint schemas.
This section details the interactions of the ECF 4.0 MDEs
and the role of each MDE in the electronic filing and electronic service
processes. This section also enumerates the operations provided by each MDE and
points to the operations, provided by other MDEs, that each MDE consumes.
This model describes the sequence of operations in a basic
filing cycle from Filing Preparation to Docketing. This model involves three
parties: a Filer (represented by the Filing Assembly MDE), a Court
(represented by the Filing Review and Court Record MDEs) and a Service
Recipient (represented by the Legal Service MDE). The operations defined by
ECF 4.0 to support the processes in this cycle are listed below. The
operations in bold are required and MUST occur in every successful filing as
long as sending and receiving MDEs are implemented. The other operations are
optional and MAY occur within a given filing:
·
GetPolicy
·
GetServiceInformation
·
GetFeesCalculation
·
ReviewFiling
·
ServeFiling
·
RecordFiling
·
NotifyDocketingComplete
·
NotifyFilingReviewComplete
At any point during or after the ReviewFiling operation, if
the filing is accessible, a party MAY access information through the following
operations:
·
GetFilingList
·
GetFilingStatus
At any point after the NotifyFilingReviewComplete operation,
if the case is accessible, a party MAY access information through the following
operations:
·
GetCaseList
·
GetCase
·
GetDocument
These operations are depicted in the sequence diagram
below. The solid lines indicate invoked operations and the dashed lines
indicate the synchronous responses to those operations.
Figure 4. Filing Preparation to Docketing Process
Model
This section describes the business rules of the generic
filing-preparation-to-docketing process that govern the ECF 4.0 operations.
ECF 4.0 includes an <ecf:ErrorCode> element for returning errors in response to
a query request. Successful queries MUST return an <ecf:ErrorCode> of “0”.
Failed queries MUST NOT return an <ecf:ErrorCode> of “0” and SHOULD return an appropriate <ecf:ErrorCode>
value as defined in court policy.
The Filing Assembly MDE MAY obtain a court’s
machine-readable court policy at any time by invoking the GetPolicy operation
on the Filing Review MDE with the identifier for the court. The Filing Review
MDE returns the machine-readable court policy in a synchronous response. The content
of the machine-readable court policy is described in Section 2.4.2. This step may be omitted if the Filing Assembly MDE already has the current court policy.
The Filing Assembly MDE MAY obtain the Court’s service
information for all parties in an existing case at any time by invoking the
GetServiceInformation operation with the appropriate case number on the Court
Record MDE. The service list returned by the GetServiceInformation operation
assists the filer in maintaining the filer’s service list and is not a
substitute for the filer’s service list. To provide this information, the
Court Record MDE MUST have access to the court’s registry with all updated
information about case participants. There MUST be only one such registry per
court, though multiple courts MAY share the same registry. The Court Record
MDE responds synchronously to the Filing Assembly MDE with a service list
reflecting the most current contact information available to the court, which
is necessary to complete secondary service, whether electronically or by other
means.
If the court provides a Hub Service MDE, the electronic
service information returned from this query MUST include the court’s Service
MDE ID for all case participants who have one.
A party to a case is always the official target of service.
In practice, the system will actually deliver to pro se litigants and to
attorneys as intermediaries.
The duty to complete secondary service is upon the filer,
and not the court, except when the court is the filer.
The GetServiceInformation operation returns a service list
current as of the transaction. No assumption can be made that the data
returned by the operation will remain current for use at any future point in
time.
3.2.3 GetFeesCalculation
The Filing
Assembly MDE MAY query for the fees associated with a filing by invoking the
MDE’s GetFeesCalculation operation, with a filing as a parameter, on the Filing
Review MDE. The Filing Review MDE responds synchronously with the fee calculation
and, optionally, a list of the included charges. This step may be omitted if
there are no fees associated with filings in the court or the calculated fees
are already known.
The Filing
Assembly MDE MUST submit the filing to the court by invoking the ReviewFiling
operation on the Filing Review MDE. The ReviewFiling operation includes
messages for the core filing, including the case type-specific and court-specific
extensions and the filing payment. The Filing Review MDE responds synchronously
with a receipt message that includes the filing identifier issued by the court.
At approximately the same time the Filing Assembly MDE
submits the filing to the court, the Filing Assembly MDE MAY serve the entire
filing, to other parties in the case by invoking the ServeFiling operation on
the ServiceMDE associated with the service recipient. This operation MUST NOT
be used to serve parties in a new case or to persons or organizations that have
not yet been made party to the case. The Legal Service MDE responds
synchronously with an acknowledgement that the message will be delivered to the
service recipient or with an error.
If the court hosts a hub Service MDE, the Filing Assembly
MDE MAY send a message to the hub Service MDE’s ServeFiling operation. The hub
Service MDE MUST then broadcast the message to each of the individual Legal Service
MDE’s ServeFiling operations and respond synchronously with a single
ServiceResponseMessage to the Filing Assembly MDE, conveying the results of
each individual service transaction.
If a court
chooses to support electronic service, then each Filing Assembly MDE MUST
support service operations for the clients for which it provides Filing
Assembly functionality.
If the clerk
reviews and accepts the filing, the Filing Review MDE MUST invoke the
RecordFiling operation on the Court Record MDE. The RecordFiling operation
includes information from the ReviewFiling operation with any modifications or
comments by the clerk. The Court Record MDE responds synchronously with an
acknowledgement of the request.
The Court Record
MDE MUST invoke the NotifyDocketingComplete operation on the Filing Review MDE
as a callback message to the RecordFiling operation to indicate whether the
filing was accepted or rejected by the court record system. If the Court
Record MDE rejected the filing, an explanation MUST be provided. If the Court
Record MDE accepts the filing, the docketing information (e.g. date and time
the document was entered into the court record, judge assigned, document
identifiers and next court event scheduled) MUST be provided. The Filing
Review MDE responds synchronously with an acknowledgement of the callback
message.
If the clerk
rejects the filings or the Filing Review MDE receives the Notify Docketing
Complete message, the Filing Review MDE MUST invoke the
NotifyFilingReviewComplete operation on the Filing Assembly MDE as a callback
message to the ReviewFiling operation to indicate whether the filing was
accepted and docketed by the clerk and court record system. The operation MAY
return the filed documents or links to the documents, but MUST include the [FIPS
180-2] SHA 256 document hash, a condensed representation of a document intended
to protect document integrity.
If the filing
included a payment, and the filing was accepted by the clerk and court record
system, a receipt for the payment MUST be included in the operation. The
Filing Assembly MDE responds synchronously with an acknowledgement of the
callback message.
The Filing
Assembly MDE MAY invoke the GetFilingList query operation on the Filing Review
MDE to return a list of filings matching several criteria including the filer
identifier, the case number and the filed date within a certain time range.
The Filing Review MDE responds synchronously with a list of matching filings
and the status of each filing.
The Filing
Assembly MDE MAY invoke the GetFilingStatus query operation with the filing
Identifier on the Filing Review MDE to return the status of the selected
filing. The Filing Review MDE responds synchronously with the matching filing
and the status of the filing.
The Filing
Assembly MDE MAY invoke the GetCaseList query operation on the Court Record MDE
to return a list of cases matching several criteria including case number, case
participant, or the filed date over a specific time range. The Court Record
MDE responds synchronously with a list of matching cases.
The Filing
Assembly MDE MAY invoke the GetCase query operation with a case number on the
Court Record MDE to return information about the case including the case
participants, court docket and calendar events. The Filing Assembly MDE may
also limit the amount of case detail returned from the Court Record MDE by using
a set of filters. The Court Record MDE responds synchronously with the
selected case information.
The Filing
Assembly MDE MAY invoke the GetDocument query operation, including the case number
and document number, on the Court Record MDE to retrieve a particular document
from a case. The Court Record MDE will respond synchronously with the
requested document or instructions on how to access it.
Each operation includes one or more messages as parameters.
The following business rules apply to the content of ECF 4.0 messages:
Identifiers are used to uniquely label people, organizations
and things in the ECF 4.0 process. The following conventions will be used to
produce identifiers.
3.3.1.1 Attachment Identifiers
Attachment identifiers MUST be unique within a message
transmission. A convention for assigning identifiers to each message and
attachment in a message transmission has to be defined in each service interaction
profile.
3.3.1.2 Case Identifiers
Case identifiers (case numbers) are assigned by the court
record system and MUST be unique within a court.
3.3.1.3 Court Identifiers
Court identifiers are locally assigned by the court
administrator for a region (typically a state, provincial or federal court
administrator) and MUST be universally unique to a court but not necessarily to
a particular court house, branch or subunit of a court. Court identifiers MUST
conform to following convention:
<Internet domain of the court administrator>:<unique
identifier within the court system>.
Examples of conformant court identifiers include:
·
courts.wa.gov:superior.king
·
nmcourts.com:albd.civil
·
uscourts.gov:100
·
courts.gov.bc.ca:appeal
These are
strictly examples and do not necessarily indicate actual courts.
3.3.1.4 Document Identifiers
Document identifiers are assigned by the court record system
and MUST be unique within a court.
3.3.1.5 Filing Identifiers
Filing identifiers MUST be unique within a court and will be
generated by the court in response to a ReviewFiling operation.
3.3.1.6 MDE Identifiers
The address of an MDE MUST be unique within a given
communications infrastructure. The convention for defining MDE identifiers
will be defined in each service interaction profile.
3.3.1.7 Filer and Party Identifiers
Identifiers for filers and parties to a case, both persons
and organizations, MUST be unique within a case and will be generated by the
court in response to a ReviewFiling operation. The following is a
non-normative example of an identifier for filer number 100:
<nc:PersonOtherIdentification>
<nc:IdentificationID>100<nc:IdentificationID>
<nc:IdentificationCategoryText>ECFFilerID</nc:IdentificationCategoryText>
</nc:PersonOtherIdentification>
In addition to <nc:PersonOtherIdentification>,
other elements that may contain a filer identifier include <nc:OrganizationOtherIdentification>,
<ecf:FilingPartyID> and <ecf:FilingAttorneyID>.
Attorneys MAY reference the parties they represent with
party identifiers. Self-represented litigants MAY be represented using both
attorney and party elements for the same individual, with a reference from the
attorney element to the party element. The attorney elements for a
self-represented litigant SHOULD NOT include a bar number.
Code Lists are used to constrain the allowable values for
certain information in a message. The following normative code lists are normative
for all ECF 4.0 implementations. Court-specific code lists are listed in
Section 2.4.4.
·
ECF
Code Lists
·
Bankruptcy Case Type
·
<DebtorTypeCode>*
·
<EstimatedAssetsValueLevelCode>*
·
<EstimatedDebtsValueLevelCode>*
·
<NatureOfDebtCode>*
·
<NumberOfCreditorsValueLevelCode>*
·
Common Types
·
<FilingStatusCode>*
·
Court Policy Response
Message
·
<MajorDesignElementNameCode>
·
<OperationNameCode>
·
Service Receipt Message
·
<ServiceStatusCode>*
·
NIEM
Code Lists
·
ANSI NIST
·
<FingerPositionCode>
·
JXDM
·
<ChargeNCICCode>
·
<DrivingIncidentHazMatCode>
·
<DrivingJurisdictionAuthorityNCICLSTACode>
·
<IdentificationJurisdictionNCICLISCode>
·
<WarrantExtraditionLimitationCode>
·
NIEM Core
·
<DocumentLangageCode>
·
<DriverLicenseCommercialClassCode>
·
<DrivingRestrictionCode>
·
<LanguageCode>
·
<LengthUnitCode>
·
<LocationCountryFIPS10-4Code>
·
<LocationCountyCode>
·
<LocationStateUSPostalServiceCode>
·
<PersonCitizenshipFIPS10-4Code>
·
<PersonEthnicityCode>
·
<PersonEyeColorCode>
·
<PersonHairColorCode>
·
<PersonRaceCode>
·
<PersonSexCode>
·
<PersonUnionCategoryCode>
·
<PhysicalFeatureCategoryCode>
·
<VehicleColorPrimaryCode>
·
<VehicleMakeCode>
·
<VehicleModelCode>
·
<VehicleStyleCode>
·
<WeightUnitCode>
Code lists defined using [Genericode] 1.0 are
indicated with asterisks (*). The remaining code lists are defined in XSD
schema definitions.
The following business rules apply to specific messages:
3.3.3.1 CoreFilingMessage
A CoreFilingMessage MUST express the name or names of the
party or parties on whose behalf a document is filed, and the party whose
document is the subject of a responsive document being submitted for filing.
If a case refers to a single element using the legal term “In Re,” the filer
SHOULD use the NIEM <j:CaseRespondentParty>,
not the <j:CaseInitiatingParty>
element.
A CoreFilingMessage MAY NOT include documents for
transactions such as the payment of a criminal fine. If a CoreFilingMessage includes
documents, the message MUST include only one level of connected and supporting
documents. If a CoreFilingMessage includes multiple renditions of the same
document, the <nc:BinaryDescriptionText>
element SHOULD be used to determine how to process multiple renditions of the
same document. The <ecf:DocumentMetadata>
and <ecf:DocumentRenditionMetadata>
structures MAY be extended to support more sophisticated workflow processes.
3.3.3.2 FilingPaymentMessage
ECF 4.0 supports multiple particular payment processes. Information
about a payment is included in the FilingPaymentMessage including the method of
payment of the applicable fees, e.g., electronic funds transfer, credit or
debit card, charge to an escrow account held in the court or promise to pay in
the future. The payment MAY include a maximum amount for the payment if some
latitude is needed to accomplish the filing.
3.3.3.3 RecordDocketingMessage
The court record system SHOULD retain all complete message transmissions,
including any message envelopes and headers defined by the service interaction
profile, for evidentiary purposes.
This section describes the process for filing and
subsequently amending the Record on Appeal (ROA) using ECF 4.0.
- All ROA transactions, either the original filing or subsequent
amendments, MUST contain, as the lead document, an Index of Record
document that itemizes the content of the record on appeal.
- The documents that comprise the ROA transaction will be
identified as supporting documents.
- The supporting documents that comprise the ROA transaction MAY
also have additional attached documents.
- All ROA documents being submitted, including the Index of Record
document and each document within the record, MUST have at least one
court-defined document type that indicates the type of transaction to be
performed on the document, and whether the document is being added to or
stricken from the record.
- The Index of Record document and each document within the ROA
transaction MAY also have an additional document type or types, which
characterize the document for the Court Record MDE.
- When a document within the ROA transaction is being stricken from
the court record, the document MUST be identified by the unique document
identifier, which was provided by the Court Record MDE when the document
was initially filed (See section 3.3.1.4).
- A hierarchical structure of case lineage elements MUST be used to
express the target case’s predecessor cases at prior courts. Each
predecessor case MAY also have its own predecessor case, as necessary to
express the full lineage of an appellate case.
- When the ROA transaction is electronically transferred from one
court to another, the target case number in the destination court and the
case lineage, which includes the predecessor case number in the sending
court, MUST be provided.
- If the ROA transaction is a case initiating filing in the
destination court, then the FilingCase object MUST be present and the CaseTrackingID
MUST be absent.
- Each predecessor case identified in the target case’s case
lineage may include case type-specific and court-specific extensions. The
case type and the case type-specific extensions for each predecessor case MUST
be consistent throughout the case lineage.
- When a ROA amendment transaction is sent, the Index of Record
document MUST reflect the status of the record assuming that the
transaction will be accepted. If however the transaction is rejected,
there will be ramifications for other pending amendment transactions for
the same ROA in the same target case.
- While an ROA transaction is awaiting acceptance or rejection in
the destination court, and when the target case consists of multiple
records, courts SHOULD NOT send additional amendment transactions intended
for the same record for the same target case.
- Individual documents within the ROA transaction MUST not be
individually accepted or rejected. All documents within the ROA
transaction MUST have the same acceptance or rejection disposition.
The Court Filing XSD schemas are implementations of the ECF 4.0
exchange content models (see Appendix B.3 below). They are the only normative
representations of ECF 4.0 messages.
All of the ECF 4.0 XSD schemas are contained in the xsd/
subdirectory of the ECF 4.0 release package (see Appendix A for more
information regarding the structure of the release package). The xsd/ directory is further subdivided
into the xsd/casetype/, xsd/common/, xsd/constraint/, xsd/message/, and xsd/Subset/
subdirectories.
The XSD schemas that define extensions specific to certain
ECF 4.0 case types are included in the xsd/casetype/
directory, as listed below:
AppellateCase
xsd/casetype/ECF-4.0-AppellateCase.xsd
BankruptcyCase
xsd/casetype/ECF-4.0-BankruptcyCase.xsd
CitationCase
xsd/casetype/ECF-4.0-CitationCase.xsd
CivilCase
xsd/casetype/ECF-4.0-CivilCase.xsd
CriminalCase
xsd/casetype/ECF-4.0-CriminalCase.xsd
DomesticCase
xsd/casetype/ECF-4.0-DomesticCase.xsd
JuvenileCase
xsd/casetype/ECF-4.0-JuvenileCase.xsd
The XSD schemas that define the generic elements and types that
are common to multiple ECF 4.0 messages and/or case types are located in the xsd/common/
folder, as listed below:
AppInfo
xsd/common/ECF-4.0-AppInfo.xsd
CommonTypes
xsd/common/ECF-4.0-CommonTypes.xsd
DigitalSignature
xsd/common/xmldsig-core-schema.xsd
Genericode
xsd/common/genericode.xsd
The XSD schemas that define the subset of all NIEM elements
and types that are used in ECF 4.0 messages and/or case type extensions are
located in the xsd/Subset/niem/ folder. As a general
data model, NIEM does not define any constraints regarding the
minimum and maximum occurrence of elements contained within types. Therefore,
in conformance with NIEM, ECF-specific constraints are not included in the
schemas within the xsd/Subset/niem folder . The XSD schemas in
the xsd/constraint/niem/ folder represent the NIEM subset schemas
with the ECF-specific constraints applied and are the schemas by which the ECF
message and case type schemas incorporate NIEM elements and types.
The XSD schemas defining the messages that support the ECF 4.0
processes are located in the xsd/messages/ folder, as listed below:
CaseListQueryMessage
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-CaseListQueryMessage.xsd
CaseListResponseMessage
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-CaseListResponseMessage.xsd
CaseQueryMessage
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-CaseQueryMessage.xsd
CaseResponseMessage
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-CaseResponseMessage.xsd
CoreFilingMessage
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-CoreFilingMessage.xsd
CourtPolicyQueryMessage
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-CourtPolicyQueryMessage.xsd
CourtPolicyReponseMessage
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-CourtPolicyResponseMessage.xsd
DocumentQueryMessage
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-DocumentQueryMessage.xsd
DocumentResponseMessage
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-DocumentResponseMessage.xsd
FeesCalculationQueryMessage
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-FeesCalculationQueryMessage.xsd
FeesCalculationResponseMessage
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-FeesCalculationResponseMessage.xsd
FilingListQueryMessage
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-FilingListQueryMessage.xsd
FilingListResponseMessage
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-FilingListResponseMessage.xsd
FilingStatusQueryMessage
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-FilingStatusQueryMessage.xsd
FilingStatusResponseMessage
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-FilingStatusResponseMessage.xsd
MessageReceiptMessage
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-MessageReceiptMessage.xsd
PaymentMessage
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-PaymentMessage.xsd
PaymentReceiptMessage
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-PaymentReceiptMessage.xsd
RecordDocketingCallbackMessage
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-RecordDocketingCallbackMessage.xsd
RecordDocketingMessage
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-RecordDocketingMessage.xsd
ReviewFilingCallbackMessage
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-ReviewFilingCallbackMessage.xsd
ServiceInformationQueryMessage
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-ServiceInformationQueryMessage.xsd
ServiceInformationResponseMessage
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-ServiceInformationResponseMessage.xsd
ServiceReceiptMessage
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-ServiceReceiptMessage.xsd
An ECF 4.0 service interaction profile defines a
transmission system that supports the functional requirements of electronic
filing, along with the MDE operations and message structures, and implements
certain non-functional requirements. A service interaction profile does not
govern the content of messages – message content is described in Sections 2 and 3 of this specification. A service interaction profile will define how a
message gets from the sending MDE to the receiving MDE in a given messaging
framework.
Each service interaction profile will define standard
conventions and configuration details to support interoperability between and
among ECF 4.0 implementations that support the same service interaction profile.
However, compliance with these requirements will not necessarily guarantee
interoperability.
To be compliant with the ECF 4.0 specification, a service
interaction profile MUST satisfy the following non-functional requirements:
1. Transport
protocol – A service interaction profile MUST define how messages are
physically transported from a sending MDE to a receiving MDE. In so doing, a
profile may identify factors that restrict the range of environments in which
the profile is applicable.
2. MDE
addressing – A service interaction profile MUST include a convention for
uniquely addressing each MDE.
3. Operation
addressing – A service interaction profile MUST describe a convention for
uniquely addressing each MDE operation.
4. Request
and operation invocation – A service interaction profile MUST describe a
mechanism for a sending MDE to invoke an operation on the receiving MDE.
5. Synchronous
mode response – A service interaction profile MUST support
synchronous operations in which the response to an operation is always returned
immediately, typically within a matter of seconds, to the invoking MDE.
6. Asynchronous
mode response – A service interaction profile MUST support asynchronous
operations in which the response to an operation may not necessarily be
returned immediately to the invoking MDE. Instead, the response may be
returned at some later time through a callback from the MDE that received the
operations to the invoking MDE. The callback MUST include a reference to the
invoking message transmission.
7. Message/attachment
delimiters – A service interaction profile MUST define how the
receiving MDE distinguishes messages from attachments within a message
transmission.
8. Message
identifiers – A service interaction profile MUST provide a means for a
sending MDE to assign a unique identifier to each message (including any
attachments) within a message transmission.
In addition, there are some non-functional features that a service
interaction profile SHOULD provide, including:
1. Message
non-repudiation – A service interaction profile SHOULD provide a mechanism
so that the receiving MDE is provided with evidence that demonstrates:
a. the
identity of the sending MDE
b. the content of
the message(s) transmitted
c. the date
and time of the message transmission
2. Message
integrity – A service interaction profile SHOULD provide a mechanism so
that the receiving MDE is able to determine whether the message(s) transmitted
(including any attachments) was (were) modified during the message
transmission.
3. Message
confidentiality – A service interaction profile SHOULD provide a mechanism,
such as encryption, that can be used with a sending MDE to ensure that the
message(s) in a transmission (including any attachments) can be processed only
by the receiving MDE.
4. Message
authentication – A service interaction profile SHOULD provide a mechanism,
such that a sending MDE is required to include, to display credentials that
demonstrate its identity to the receiving MDE in each message transmission.
5. Message
transmission reliability – A service interaction profile SHOULD provide a
mechanism, such that a sending MDE is required to include, to guarantee that a
message transmission will be delivered to the receiving MDE within a specified
period of time, or else the sending MDE will receive notification at the end of
that period of time that the message transmission was not deliverable to the
receiving MDE.
6. Message
splitting and assembly – A service interaction profile SHOULD provide a
mechanism by which a large message and attachments MAY be split into multiple
pieces that are transmitted separately by the sending MDE and reassembled into
the complete message by the receiving MDE. In the HTTP 1.1 protocol, this is
called “chunking.”
7. Transmission
auditing – A service interaction profile SHOULD provide a mechanism for the
MDE to receive message transmissions in their entirety (both messaging and “payload”
content) for auditing purposes.
The ECF Technical Committee (TC) will recommend certain service
interaction profiles for use in implementations of the ECF 4.0 specification.
The TC will consider a service interaction profile for recommendation for use
in ECF 4.0 implementations provided the profile meets the following
requirements:
1. The service
interaction profile MUST be described in a document in the format of an OASIS
specification.
2. The service
interaction profile specification MUST identify a unique URI to identify the service
interaction profile and version.
3. The service
interaction profile specification MUST describe the binding of MDE operations
to the service interaction profile that satisfies the functional requirements
described in Section 3 (“ECF 4.0 Process Model”) and Section 4 (“ECF 4.0 Schema”) of this specification.
4. The service
interaction profile specification MUST demonstrate that the service interaction
profile satisfies the non-functional service interaction profile requirements
described in Section 5.1 (“Service Interaction Profile Requirements”) of this
specification.
5. The service
interaction profile specification MUST include samples that demonstrate how the
messaging information and “payload” content are combined into message
transmissions. These samples MUST include samples that demonstrate both
synchronous and asynchronous mode operations.
6. At least
one voting member of the ECF TC MUST agree to sponsor the service interaction
profile and submit the service interaction profile specification to the TC for
review as a candidate for approval as an ECF 4.0 compliant service interaction
profile.
Certifying that a candidate service interaction profile
meets certain service interaction profile requirements will necessarily involve
some subjectivity since service interaction profile requirements cannot be
expressed algebraically, in the manner of XML Schemas. Therefore, it will be
up to the TC to assess whether the proposed profile’s description is adequate in
meeting the requirements of ECF 4.0 before approving the service interaction profile
specification as a “Committee Draft” through the OASIS standards approval
process.
From time to time, it may be necessary to revise or update a
service interaction profile to bring it into compliance with changes in network
and messaging protocols, or to support additional non-functional requirements.
Any revision(s) to previously approved service interaction profiles will be
considered a new service interaction profile and MUST meet the requirements of
a new service interaction profile, including sponsorship by a voting member of
the ECF TC and review and approval by the ECF TC. There will be no guarantees
that future versions of a service interaction profile will be backwardly
compatible with the current version.
The following ECF 4.0 service interaction profile specifications
are for use in conjunction with implementations of the ECF 4.0 specification:
·
Web Services Service Interaction Profile 2.0 Specification
– This specification defines a transmission system using the specifications
described in the Web Services Interoperability (WS-I) Basic Profile 1.1, W3C
SOAP 1.1 Binding for MTOM 1.0, WS-I Basic Security Profile 1.0 and OASIS
WS-Reliable Messaging 1.1.
·
Web Services Service Interaction Profile 2.1 Specification
– This specification defines a transmission system using the specifications
described in the Web Services Interoperability (WS-I) Basic Profile 1.1, W3C
SOAP 1.1 Binding for MTOM 1.0 and WS-I Basic Security Profile 1.1 and OASIS
WS-Reliable Messaging 1.1.
·
Portable Media Service Interaction Profile 1.01 Specification
– This specification defines a transmission system in which the sending MDE
stores message transmissions on portable media (e.g., a compact disc), which is
then physically transported to the receiving MDE where it is connected for
retrieval of the message transmissions. This specification may be needed in
the absence of an active network between the sending and receiving MDEs.
Additional service interaction profiles, or revisions to
these service interaction profiles, may be approved by the ECF TC for use in
conjunction with implementations of the ECF 4.0 specification according to the
process described in Section 5.2 (“Service Interaction Profile Approval and Revision
Processes”) above.
6
Document Signature Profiles
An ECF 4.0 ECF
document signature profile defines a mechanism for asserting that a person
signed a single electronic or imaged document, which is an attachment to a
message transmission. The signing of an entire message transmission is
described in a service interaction profile and is not supported by a document signature
profile.
Each document signature profile will define standard conventions
and configuration details to support interoperability in the creation and
verification of document signatures between and among ECF 4.0 ECF implementations that support the same document
signature profile. However, compliance with these requirements will not
necessarily guarantee interoperability.
Except for the Null Document Signature Profile, to be
compliant with the ECF 4.0 specification, a document signature profile MUST
satisfy the following non-functional requirements:
1. Signer
name assertion – A document signature profile MUST make an assertion
regarding the name of the person who signed a document.
2. Signed
date assertion – A document signature profile MUST make an assertion
regarding the date the person signed a document.
3. Multiple
signatures – A document signature profile MUST allow multiple signatures to
be associated with the same document.
A signature profile SHOULD provide the following
non-functional features:
1. Signer
and date non-repudiation – A document signature profile SHOULD provide a
mechanism so that the receiving MDE is provided with verifiable evidence that
demonstrates:
a. the unique
identity of the person who signed the document
b. the date the
person signed a document
2. Document
integrity – A document signature profile SHOULD provide a mechanism so that
the receiving MDE is able to determine if the document was modified since the
person signed the document.
3. Document
signature auditing – A document signature profile SHOULD provide a
mechanism for the MDE to receive both the document and signatures for auditing
purposes.
The ECF Technical Committee will recommend certain document
signature profiles for use in implementations of the ECF 4.0 specification.
The TC will consider a document signature profile for recommendation for use in
ECF 4.0 implementations provided the profile meets the following requirements:
1. The
document signature profile MUST be described in a document in the format of an
OASIS specification.
2. The
document signature profile specification MUST identify a unique URI to identify
the document signature profile and version.
3. If the
document signature is not embedded in the document, the document signature
profile specification MUST include an XML structure for describing precisely
how the document signature is represented.
4. The
document signature profile specification MUST demonstrate that the document
signature profile satisfies the non-functional requirements described in Section
6.1 (“Document Signature Profile Requirements”) of this specification.
5. The
document signature profile specification MUST include samples that demonstrate
how the document signature information and “payload” content are combined into
message transmissions.
6. At least
one voting member of the ECF TC MUST agree to sponsor the document signature
profile and submit the document signature profile specification to the TC for
review as a candidate for approval as an ECF 4.0 ECF document signature profile.
Certifying that a candidate document signature profile meets
certain document signature profile requirements will necessarily involve some
subjectivity, since document signature profile requirements cannot be expressed
algebraically, in the manner of XML Schemas. Therefore, it will be up to the
TC to assess whether the proposed profile’s description is adequate to the
requirements before approving the profile specification as a Committee Draft
through the OASIS standards approval process.
From time to time, it may be necessary to revise or update a
document signature profile to bring it into compliance with changes in
authentication and encryption protocols, or to support additional
non-functional requirements. Any revision(s) to previously approved document
signature profiles will be considered a new document signature profile and MUST
meet the requirements of a new document signature profile, including
sponsorship by a voting member of the ECF TC and review and approval by the ECF
TC. There will be no guarantees that future versions of document signature
profiles will be backwardly compatible with the current version.
The following ECF 4.0 ECF
document signature profile specifications are candidate Committee Drafts for
use in conjunction with implementations of the ECF 4.0 specification:
·
Null Document Signature Profile 1.0 Specification – This
specification defines a default mechanism to describe documents that do not
have any associated signatures.
·
XML Document Signature Profile 1.0 Specification – This
specification defines a mechanism for associating a W3C XML Signature with a
document.
·
Application-Specific Document Signature Profile 1.0
Specification – This specification defines a mechanism for embedding an application-specific
binary signature with a document. This profile supports the native
capabilities in document formats such as Microsoft Word and the Adobe Portable
Document Format (PDF) for describing and embedding signatures.
·
Proxy Document Signature Profile 1.0 Specification – This
specification defines a mechanism for indicating documents that are digitally
signed by a court filing infrastructure component on behalf of an authenticated
signer.
·
Symmetric Key Document Signature Profile 1.0 Specification
– This specification defines a mechanism for indicating documents that are
digitally signed by a trusted entity on behalf of the signer using a symmetric
key known only to the trusted entity.
Additional document signature profiles, or revisions to
these document signatures profiles, may be approved by the ECF TC for use in
conjunction with implementation of the ECF 4.0 specification according to the
process described in Section 6.2 (“Document Signature Profile Approval and
Revision Processes”) above.
An implementation conforms with the Electronic Court
Filing Version 4.01 if the implementation meets the requirements in Sections
1-6 including conformance with the XSD schemas and [Genericode] code
lists referenced in Section 3 and 4.
A.1 Availability
Online and downloadable versions of this release are
available from the locations specified at the top of this document.
A.2 Package Structure
The ECF 4.0 specification is published as a ZIP archive
named ecf-v4.0.zip. Unzipping
this archive creates a directory named ecf-4.0/
containing this specification document and a number of subdirectories. The
files in these subdirectories, linked to the specification document, contain the
various normative and informational pieces of the 1.0 release. A description
of each subdirectory is given below.
gc/
[Genericode] 1.0 code lists
model/
ECF 4.0 UML exchange content model diagrams and spreadsheet
models; see Appendix B.3 and B4
xml/
Example instances; see Appendix D
xsd/
XSD schemas; see Section 4
A.3 Recursive Structures
Certain components in the [NIEM] version 2.0 schemas
allow recursive nesting. For example, a nc:Case may
be related to another nc:Case, etc. These are
legitimate business data structures. Most real-world applications will limit
the depth of recursion in such structures, but XSD schemas are incapable of
expressing this constraint. Implementers should be aware of this and may wish
to set limits on the depth of recursive structures in their applications.
A.4
Date and Time Formats
The date and time elements contained in the messages defined
by the ECF 4.0 XSD schemas should be formatted according to the documentation
in the [NIEM] version 2.0. The [NIEM] documentation indicates
the following:
·
Calendar date values should be expressed as “CCYY-MM-DD”, with an
optional time zone qualifier designated by appending -hh:00, where hh represent
the number of hours the local time zone is behind Coordinated Universal Time
(UTC).
·
Time values should be expressed as “hh:mm:ss.sss”, with an
optional time zone qualifier designated by appending -hh:00, where hh represent
the number of hours the local time zone is behind Coordinated Universal Time
(UTC).
·
Date and time values should be expressed as
“CCYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss.sss” with an optional time zone designated by appending
-hh:00, where hh represent the number of hours the local time zone is behind
Coordinated Universal Time (UTC).qualifier.
These formats are documented in, but not enforced by, the
XSD schema at xsd/constraint/niem/proxy/xsd/2.0/xsd.xsd.
A.5 Known Errata
Known errors in the ECF 4.0 specification will be identified
in an errata document available at: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/legalxml-courtfiling/.
This appendix describes the approach used to develop ECF 4.0
and the modeling artifacts.
B.1 Principles
The key principles that guided the design of the ECF 4.0
message structures were:
·
Interoperability – The ECF 4.0 message structures should
provide a means for exchanging court filings among all types of court information
systems.
·
Completeness – The ECF Filing 4.0 message structures
format should provide for all the elements of an electronic filing system.
·
Simple implementation – The design should foster rapid
implementation.
·
Simple XML and portable structure – The core messages in
an ECF 4.0 exchange will be formatted as XML documents.
·
Familiarity – The data elements and code values should be
meaningful to the legal community and non-expert recipients alike.
·
Interdisciplinary and international utility – The design
should be usable by a broad range of court-related applications and should be
applicable internationally.
B.2 Approach
The ECF 4.0 message schemas were
developed as a [NIEM] Information Exchange Package
Definition (IEPD). A [NIEM IEPD] is a collection of artifacts that
describe the structure and content of a set of data that is transmitted for a
specific business purpose. It does not specify other interface layers (such as
Web services).
The NIEM Naming and Design Rules (MNDR) [NIEM
NDR] describe best practices for the development of NIEM-conformant
Information Exchange Packages and documentation. The Design Rules set forth:
·
A methodology for the construction of [NIEM]-conformant
exchange documents
·
Naming and design rules for the artifacts called for by the
methodology
·
Guidelines for the customization of [NIEM]
schema structures
B.3 ECF 4.0 Exchange Content Models
The ECF 4.0 exchange content models describe the information
components used in all of the messages defined by ECF 4.0.
The exchange content models are the result of a detailed
analysis of the data requirements to support the ECF 4.0 Process Model (see
Section 3). During the modeling process, common items of data were identified
by a process of normalization to identify aggregates based on functional
dependency. Where appropriate, these were generalized so that they could be
re-used to support the various messages.
The exchange content models are used for the following
purposes:
·
They facilitate the identification of the reusable components,
i.e., the data structures that are common across the ECF 4.0 messages.
·
They aid in understanding the information requirements of the
total scenario.
·
They are the source from which the object classes are derived and
documented in the ECF 4.0 schemas (see Section 4).
To facilitate comprehension, the ECF 4.0 is composed of
several exchange content model diagrams. Each diagram represents a logical
grouping of components and displays both the attributes and object classes
belonging to the components in this grouping. The scope of each diagram is
arbitrary and does not hold any significance beyond these diagrams.
For example, the ECF 4.0 Review Filing Model diagram is
shown below:
The complete set of exchange content models for all the ECF 4.0
components is listed below:
Appellate Filing Model
model/uml/html/AppellateFiling.png
Bankruptcy Filing Model
model/uml/html/BankruptcyFiling.png
Base Message Model
model/uml/html/BaseMessage.png
Civil Filing Model
model/uml/html/CivilFiling.png
Citation Filing Model
model/uml/html/Violation
Filing.png
Criminal Filing Model
model/uml/html/CriminalFiling.png
Domestic Filing Model
model/uml/html/DomesticFiling.png
Extended Person Information Model
model/uml/html/ExtendedPersonInformation.png
Get Calculated Fees Query Model
model/uml/html/GetFeesCalculationQuery.png
Get Case List Query Model
model/uml/html/GetCaseListQuery.png
Get
Document Query Model
model/uml/html/GetDocumentQuery.png
Get Filing List Query Model
model/uml/html/GetFilingListQuery.png
Get Filing Status Query Model
model/uml/html/GetFilingStatusQuery.png
Get Service Information Query Model
model/uml/html/GetServiceInformationQuery.png
Major Design Elements Model
model/uml/html/MajorDesignElements.png
Juvenile Filing Model
model/uml/html/JuvenileFiling.png
Record Docketing Model
model/uml/html/RecordDocketing.png
Review Filing Model
model/uml/html/ReviewFiling.png
No specific directions are defined for the associations in
these models; they can be navigated in either direction. The specific
navigation path for each association is defined when documents are assembled.
B.4 Spreadsheet Models
ECF 4.0 uses spreadsheet models to describe the mapping of
objects and attributes to [NIEM] and ECF 4.0
elements. The spreadsheet models use rows to define components. Components are
either simple data types or associations. Columns define the metadata
associated with each component type.
The ECF 4.0 spreadsheet model is located at model/ECF-4.0-NIEM2-mapping.xls.
This appendix details the operations that are provided by
each Major Design Element (MDE) and the operations, provided by other MDEs that
each MDE “consumes.” Implementation of an MDE requires both that the MDE
provide certain functionality and that the MDE use particular operations
provided by other MDEs.
C.1 Filing Assembly MDE
The Filing Assembly MDE supports the preparation and
submission of filed documents to a court for review, and can receive the
results of that process. The Filing Assembly MDE also conveys filings to the
Legal Service MDE for service on other case participants. The Filing Assembly
MDE calls operations in other MDEs and provides a single operation for
notifying the submitter that the filing has been reviewed by a court. A Filing
Assembly MDE may be provided by a court or by a third party.
C.1.1 Provided Operations
The Filing Assembly MDE provides the following operations to
other MDEs:
|
Operation
|
Called By
|
Output
|
Parameters
|
|
NotifyFilingReviewComplete
|
Filing Review MDE
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-MessageReceiptMessage.xsd : MessageReceiptMessage
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-ReviewFilingCallbackMessage.xsd :
ReviewFilingCallbackMessage
|
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-PaymentMessage.xsd : PaymentMessage
|
C.1.2 Consumed Operations
The Filing Assembly MDE calls the following operations in
other MDEs:
|
Operation
|
Provided By
|
Return Type
|
|
GetPolicy
|
Filing Review MDE
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-CourtPolicyQueryMessage.xsd :
CourtPolicyReponseMessage
|
|
ReviewFiling
|
Filing Review MDE
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-MessageReceiptMessage.xsd : MessageReceiptMessage
|
|
GetFeesCalculation
|
Filing Review MDE
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-FeesCalculationResponseMessage.xsd : FeesCalculationResponseMessage
|
|
GetFilingStatus
|
Filing Review MDE
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-FilingStatusResponseMessage.xsd : FilingStatusResponseMessage
|
|
GetFilingList
|
Filing Review MDE
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-FilingListResponseMessage.xsd :
FilingListResponseMessage
|
|
GetCase
|
Court Record MDE
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-CaseResponseMessage.xsd : CaseResponseMessage
|
|
GetCaseList
|
Court Record MDE
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-CaseListResponseMessage.xsd :
CaseListResponseMessage
|
|
GetServiceInformation
|
Court Record MDE
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-ServiceInformationResponseMessage.xsd
: ServiceInformationResponseMessage
|
|
GetDocument
|
Court Record MDE
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-DocumentResponseMessage.xsd
: DocumentResponseMessage
|
|
ServeFiling
|
Legal Service MDE
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-ServiceReceiptMessage.xsd : ServiceReceiptMessage
|
C.2 Filing Review MDE
The Filing Review MDE receives, presents and manages the
filings. The Filing Review MDE receives filings in a standard format and
presents those filings to a Clerk for review, where they may be accepted or
rejected. The Filing Review MDE transmits data and documents to the Filing
Assembly MDE to inform the filer that the filing has been accepted or
rejected. The Filing Review MDE transmits data and documents for accepted
filings to the Court Record MDE for docketing and recording. While there will
generally be one Filing Review MDE per court, there is no physical barrier to
having more than one, particularly if a court wants to support different Filing
Review MDEs for particular case types.
C.2.1 Provided Operations
The Filing Review MDE provides the following operations to
other MDEs:
|
Operation
|
Called By
|
Output
|
Parameters
|
|
ReviewFiling
|
Filing Assembly MDE
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-MessageReceiptMessage.xsd : MessageReceiptMessage
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-CoreFilingMessage.xsd : CoreFilingMessage
|
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-PaymentMessage.xsd : PaymentMessage
|
|
NotifyDocketingComplete
|
Court Docketing MDE
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-MessageReceiptMessage.xsd : MessageReceiptMessage
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-RecordDocketingCallbackMessage.xsd :
RecordDocketingCallbackMessage
|
|
GetFeesCalculation
|
Filing Assembly MDE
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-FeesCalculationResponseMessage.xsd : FeesCalculationResponseMessage
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-FeesCalculationQueryMessage.xsd : FeesCalculationQueryMessage
|
|
GetFilingList
|
Filing Assembly MDE
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-FilingListResponseMessage.xsd :
FilingListResponseMessage
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-FilingListQueryMessage.xsd :
FilingListQueryMessage
|
|
GetFilingStatus
|
Filing Assembly MDE
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-FilingStatusResponseMessage.xsd
: FilingStatusResponseMessage
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-FilingStatusQueryMessage.xsd
: FilingStatusQueryMessage
|
|
GetPolicy
|
Filing Assembly MDE
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-CourtPolicyQueryMessage.xsd :
CourtPolicyReponseMessage
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-CourtPolicyQueryMessage.xsd :
CourtPolicyQueryMessage
|
C.2.2 Consumed Operations
The Filing Review MDE calls the following operations in
other MDEs:
|
Operation
|
Provided By
|
Output
|
|
RecordFiling
|
Court Record MDE
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-MessageReceiptMessage.xsd :
MessageReceiptMessage
|
|
NotifyFilingReviewComplete
|
Filing Assembly MDE
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-MessageReceiptMessage.xsd :
MessageReceiptMessage
|
C.3 Court Record MDE
The Court Record MDE receives the filed documents from the
Filing Review MDE and enters them into the official case record of the court.
The Court Record MDE notifies the Filing Review MDE that the filing has been
filed.
C.3.1 Provided Operations
The Court Record MDE provides the following operations to
other MDEs:
|
Operation
|
Called By
|
Output
|
Parameters
|
|
RecordFiling
|
Filing Review MDE
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-MessageReceiptMessage.xsd : MessageReceiptMessage
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-RecordDocketingMessage.xsd :
RecordDocketingMessage
|
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.04.0-CoreFilingMessage.xsd : CoreFilingMessage
|
|
GetCase
|
Filing Assembly MDE
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-CaseResponseMessage.xsd : CaseResponseMessage
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-CaseQueryMessage.xsd : CaseQueryMessage
|
|
GetCaseList
|
Filing Assembly MDE
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-CaseListResponseMessage.xsd :
CaseListResponseMessage
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-CaseListQueryMessage.xsd :
CaseListQueryMessage
|
|
GetServiceInformation
|
Filing Assembly MDE
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-ServiceInformationResponseMessage.xsd
: ServiceInformationResponseMessage
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-ServiceInformationQueryMessage.xsd
: ServiceInformationQueryMessage
|
|
GetDocument
|
Filing Assembly MDE
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-DocumentResponseMessage.xsd
: DocumentResponseMessage
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-DocumentQueryMessage.xsd :
DocumentQueryMessage
|
C.3.2 Consumed Operations
The Court Record MDE calls the following operations in other
MDEs:
|
Operation
|
Provided By
|
Output
|
|
NotifyDocketingComplete
|
Filing Review MDE
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-MessageReceiptMessage.xsd :
MessageReceiptMessage
|
C.4 Legal Service MDE
The Legal Service MDE enables a filer or a court to
electronically transmit copies of, or links to, electronically filed documents
to other parties who are participating in the case and who are entitled to be
promptly served with the electronically filed documents. The Filing Assembly
MDE transmits data and documents to the Legal Service MDE to inform the case
participant that an electronic filing has been submitted to the court clerk.
The Legal Service MDE transmits a callback message to the Filing Assembly MDE requesting
a notification to confirm receipt of the served document.
C.4.1 Provided Operations
The Legal Service MDE provides the following operations to
other MDEs:
|
Operation
|
Called By
|
Output
|
Parameters
|
|
ServeFiling
|
Filing Assembly MDE
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-ServiceReceiptMessage.xsd :
ServiceReceiptMessage
|
xsd/message/ECF-4.0-CoreFilingMessage.xsd : CoreFilingMessage
|
C.4.2 Consumed Operations
The Legal Service MDE does not call operations in other MDEs
Example instances of each ECF 4.0 message are provided in
the xml/ subdirectory, as listed below:
FeesCalculationQueryMessage
xml/ECF-4.0-FeesCalculationQueryMessage.xml
FeesCalculationResponseMessage
xml/ECF-4.0-FeesCalculationResponseMessage.xml
CaseListQueryMessage
xml/ECF-4.0-CaseListQueryMessage.xml
CaseListResponseMessage
xml/ECF-4.0-CaseListResponseMessage.xml
CaseQueryMessage
xml/ECF-4.0-CaseQueryMessage.xml
CaseResponseMessage
xml/ECF-4.0-CaseResponseMessage.xml
CoreFilingMessage (Appellate case type)
xml/ECF-4.0-CoreFilingMessage-Appellate.xml
CoreFilingMessage (Criminal case type)
xml/ECF-4.0-CoreFilingMessage-Criminal.xml
CourtPolicyQueryMessage
xml/ECF-4.0-CourtPolicyQueryMessage.xml
CourtPolicyReponseMessage
xml/ECF-4.0-CourtPolicyResponseMessage.xml
DocumentQueryMessage
xml/ECF-4.0-DocumentQueryMessage.xml
DocumentResponseMessage
xml/ECF-4.0-DocumentResponseMessage.xml
FilingListQueryMessage
xml/ECF-4.0-FilingListQueryMessage.xml
FilingListResponseMessage
xml/ECF-4.0-FilingListResponseMessage.xml
FilingPaymentMessage
xml/ECF-4.0-PaymentMessage.xml
FilingStatusQueryMessage
xml/ECF-4.0-FilingStatusQueryMessage.xml
FilingStatusResponseMessage
xml/ECF-4.0-FilingStatusResponseMessage.xml
MessageReceiptMessage
xml/ECF-4.0-MessageReceiptMessage.xml
PaymentReceiptMessage
xml/ECF-4.0-PaymentReceiptMessage.xml
RecordDocketingCallbackMessage
xml/ECF-4.0-RecordDocketingCallbackMessage.xml
RecordDocketingMessage
xml/ECF-4.0-RecordDocketingMessage.xml
ReviewFilingCallbackMessage
xml/ECF-4.0-ReviewFilingCallbackMessage.xml
ServiceInformationQueryMessage
xml/ECF-4.0-ServiceInformationQueryMessage.xml
ServiceInformationResponseMessage
xml/ECF-4.0-ServiceInformationResponseMessage.xml
ServiceReceiptMessage
xml/ECF-4.0-ServiceReceiptMessage.xml
The Electronic Court Filing TC plans to continue to revise
and expand this specification through future versions. Future versions of ECF
will:
·
Address filings in administrative tribunals
·
Address primary service (the delivery of documents such as
summonses, subpoenas and warrants that establish a court’s jurisdiction over a
party)
·
Consider how the specifications for filing of documents intended
for filing with a court relate to specifications for filing other documents,
e.g., property records, in the offices of elected clerks of courts
·
Incorporate feedback from ECF implementations
·
Support future releases of the [NIEM]
·
Support future [Court Document] specifications and
integration optimizations
·
Support non-case related filings into a court clerk’s office
The following court organizations provided lists of data
elements required for initiating cases in their case management information
systems:
·
Administrative Office of United States Courts
o
Bankruptcy, Civil, Criminal
·
Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts
o
Appellate
·
Fourth Judicial District Court, Hennepin County, Minneapolis
o
Criminal
·
King County Superior Court, Washington
o
Civil, Criminal
·
Missouri Office of State Courts Administrator
o
Citation
·
Thirteenth Judicial District, Orange County, Florida (through
vendor)
o
Civil, Criminal, Domestic relations, Mental health, Juvenile
delinquency/dependency, Probate, Citation
·
Utah State Courts
o
Civil, Criminal
The following individuals were members or voting members of
the committee during the development of this specification:
·
Rolly Chambers, American Bar Association
·
John Messing, American Bar Association
·
Adam Angione, Courthouse News Service
·
Eric Eastman Doxpop, LLC
·
Robert DeFilippis, Associate
·
Chester Ensign, Associate
·
Gary Poindexter, Associate
·
Michael Alexandrou, Judicial Council of Georgia
·
Shawn Artrip, Judicial Council of Georgia,
·
Robbie Diaz, Judicial Council of Georgiar
·
Hui Ji, Judicial Council of Georgia
·
Morgan Medders, Judicial Council of Georgia
·
Scott Edson, LA County Information Systems Advisory Body
·
Ali Farahani, LA County Information Systems Advisory Body
·
John Ruegg, LA County Information Systems Advisory Body
·
CJ Allen, Maricopa County
·
Robin Gibson, Missouri Office of State Courts Admin
·
James Cabral, MTG Management Consultants, LLC
·
Thomas Clarke, National Center for State Courts
·
Diana Graski, National Center for State Courts
·
Jim Harris, National Center for State Courts
·
Jason Hill, New York State Office of Court Administration, DoT
·
Robert O'Brien, Ottawa Courts Administration Service
·
George Knecht, PC Intellect, LLC
·
Mark Ladd, Property Records Industry Assn.
·
Ron Bowmaster. Utah Administrative Office of the Courts
|
Rev
|
Date
|
By Whom
|
What
|
|
Wd01
|
2008-03-17
|
James Cabral
|
Initial version
|
|
Wd02
|
2008-08-15
|
James Cabral
|
Revision including complete IEPD.
|
|
Wd03
|
2008-08-25
|
James Cabral
|
Revisions based on August face to face meeting and initial
testing.
|
|
Wd04
|
2008-09-03
|
James Cabral
|
Revised guidance on filing record on appeal (Section 3.4)
|
|
Wd01
|
2008-09-20
|
James Cabral
|
Committee draft
|
|
4.01
|
2010-03-15
|
James Cabral
|
Minor schema and definition changes based on feedback from
implementers of the ECF 4.0 specification.
|
|
Csd-01
|
2011-08-08
|
James Cabral
|
Revised reference format. Minor schema changes including
correction of several constraints. Addition of Section 1.3.5 and revision of
Section 2.4.3 based on feedback from implementers.
|
|
Csd-02
|
2011-10-18
|
James Cabral
|
Updated UBL reference version 2.1.
|
|
Csd-03
|
2012-02-07
|
James Cabral
|
Minor changes to Appendx C (non-normative). Minor
additions to the schema. Revision of sections 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1 and 3.3.3.2,
based on feedback from implementers.
|
