Information Technology Advisory Committee

December 5, 2023 Information Technology Advisory Committee Open Meeting

12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Webcast (Listen Only)

• Notice and Agenda
• Materials

November 13, 2023, Action by Email

Proposed action by email between meetings under rule 10.75(o) to consider approving an update to the 2023 Information Technology Advisory Committee Annual Agenda to include an item for the Advancing the Hybrid Courtroom Workstream to address the Minimum Standards for Courtroom Technology to Permit Remote Participation in Court Proceedings  as set forth in Senate Bill 133. 

• Notice
• Materials

Previous Meetings

• 2023 Information Technology Advisory Committee Meetings
• 2022 Information Technology Advisory Committee Meetings
• 2021 Information Technology Advisory Committee Meetings
• 2020 Information Technology Advisory Committee Meetings
• 2019 Information Technology Advisory Committee Meetings
• 2018 Information Technology Advisory Committee Meetings
• 2017 Information Technology Advisory Committee Meetings
• 2016 Information Technology Advisory Committee Meetings
• 2015 Information Technology Advisory Committee Meetings

Previous Court Technology Advisory Committee Meetings

• 2015 Court Technology Advisory Committee Meetings
• 2014 Court Technology Advisory Committee Meetings

• Hon. Sheila F. Hanson, Chair, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Orange 
• Mr. Michael Baliel, Chief Information Officer, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
• Hon. Damon Connolly, California State Assembly Member, 12th District
• Mr. Brian Cotta, Clerk/Executive Officer Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District
• Mr. Adam Creiglow, Chief Information Officer, Superior Court of California, County of Marin
• Hon. Julie R. Culver, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Monterey
• Hon. Tara M. Desautels, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
• Hon. Truc T. Do Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District
• Ms. Rebecca Fleming,  Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
• Mr. Jason Galkin, Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of California, County of Riverside
• Hon. Michael S. Groch, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego
• Hon. Amy Guerra, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno
• Mr. AJ Guzman, Information Technology Program Manager, Superior Court of California County of Sutter
• Mr. Brett Howard, Court Information Officer, Superior Court of California County of Orange
• Hon. Samantha P. Jessner, Vice-Chair, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
• Hon. Kimberly Menninger, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Orange
• Hon. Ioana Petrou, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District
• Mr. Jake Pison, Chief Information Officer, Superior Court of California, County of San Diego
• Hon. M. Bruce Smith, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District
• Mr. Neal Taniguchi, Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo

ITAC’s Rules & Policy Subcommittee

• Hon. Julie R. Culver, Subcommittee Chair and Assistant Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Monterey
• Hon. Samantha P. Jessner, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
• Hon. M. Bruce Smith, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District
• Hon. Kimberly Menninger, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Orange

Joint Information Security Governance Subcommittee

• Hon. Tara M. Desautels, Subcommittee Chair and Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
• Ms. Diana Baca, Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of California, County of Glenn
• Mr. Mike Baliel, Chief Information Officer, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
• Mr. Jake Chatters, Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of California, County of Placer
• Mr. Brian Cotta, Clerk/Court Executive Officer, Fifth Appellate District
• Mr. Jason B. Galkin, Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of California, County of Nevada
• Hon. Kimberly Menninger, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Orange
• Mr. Lester Perpall, Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of California, County of Mono
• Mr. Jake Pison, Chief Information Officer, Superior Court of California, County of San Diego
• Hon. M. Bruce Smith, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District
• Ms. Ruth Green, Judicial Council Information Technology, Chief Information Security Officer (Advisory Staff)

For information or questions for either body, please contact ITAC@jud.ca.gov.

ITAC Publication Library

Please visit the Information Technology Advisory Committee’s report library, where you will find the Strategic and Tactical Plans for Technology, reports submitted to ITAC from its workstreams and subcommittees; reports and resources on technology-related initiatives; and other resources that fall under ITAC’s subject matter area.

Latest news:

ITAC Project Status Report

ITAC prepares status reports summarizing efforts currently underway, per its annual agenda. These are published in alignment with ITAC regular business meetings.
Latest Status Report.

Identity & Access Management

The judicial branch has been rapidly implementing digitally driven processes and enabling information sharing to meet increasing expectations and a growing reliance on digital access to court information. Acknowledging these important changes, ITAC initiated the Identity and Access Management Workstream to explore and make recommendations related to providing and safeguarding access to court information. At its January 20, 2022, meeting, the Judicial Council approved the workstream’s three recommendations, all of which support the overarching goal to increase access to justice. The recommendations outline a common framework for courts that participate to provide a uniform way for the public, attorneys, court partners, and others to access online court information and services across California.

Workstream Report; Report to the Judicial Council

Background
Initially the Court Technology Task Force was created in 1994 as a transitional body, designed to bridge the analyses of the 2020 Commission regarding court technology and the formation of the Court Technology Standing Advisory Committee. In 1995, the Judicial Council adopted the task force’s recommendations and formed the Court Technology Advisory Committee (CTAC) as a standing committee. CTAC’s Rule of Court was established in 1999. In 2015, a rule of court amendment renamed the committee the Information Technology Advisory Committee (ITAC) and revised its roles and responsibilities to reflect the committee’s sponsorship of statewide technology initiatives.

Charge
Per Rule of Court 10.53, ITAC makes recommendations to the council for improving the administration of justice through the use of technology and for fostering cooperative endeavors to resolve common technological issues with other stakeholders in the justice system. The committee promotes, coordinates, and acts as executive sponsor for projects and initiatives that apply technology to the work of the courts.

In addition to the duties outlined for all advisory committees, ITAC must also:

1. Oversee branchwide technology initiatives funded in whole or in part by the state;
2. Recommend rules, standards, and legislation to ensure compatibility in information and communication technologies in the judicial branch;
3. Provide input to the Judicial Council Technology Committee on the technology and business requirements of court technology projects and initiatives in funding requests;
4. Review and recommend legislation, rules, or policies to balance the interests of privacy, access, and security in relation to court technology;
5. Make proposals for technology education and training in the judicial branch;
6. Assist courts in acquiring and developing useful technologies;
7. Establish mechanisms to collect, preserve, and share best practices across the state;
8. Develop and recommend a tactical technology plan, described in rule 10.16, with input from the individual appellate and trial courts; and
9. Develop and recommend the committee’s annual agenda, identifying individual technology initiatives scheduled for the next year.