Information Technology Advisory Committee

September 28, 2022 Meeting

10:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.
Webcast

• Notice and agenda
• Materials
• Supplemental Materials

Previous 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

The 25 member advisory committee is comprised of appellate and superior court judicial officers and court administrators, a member of both the Senate and Assembly, a member of the State Bar, and a public member, along with advisory staff from the Judicial Council and reports directly to the Judicial Council Technology Committee. Members are appointed by the Chief Justice for a three-year term.

Download the committee roster

• Hon. Sheila F. Hanson, Chair, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Orange 
• Hon. Louis R. Mauro, Vice-Chair, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District
• Mr. Michael Baliel, Chief Information Officer, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
• Hon. Marc Berman, California State Assembly Member, 24th District
• Mr. Jake Chatters, Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of California, County of Placer
• 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, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Monterey
• Hon. Tara M. Desautels, Presiding 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. Alexandra Grimwade, Senior Vice-President, Chief Information Officer, Twentieth Century Fox Television
• Hon. Michael S. Groch, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego
• Hon. Robert M. Hertzberg, California State Senate Member, District 18
• Hon. Samantha P. Jessner, 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. James M. Mize, Judge of the Superior Court of CA, County of Sacramento
• Mr. Snorri Ogata, Chief Information Officer, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
• Mr. Darrel E. Parker, Court Executive Officer of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara
• Hon. Donald I. Segerstrom, Jr., Assistant Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne
• Hon. M. Bruce Smith, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District
• Mr. Anh Tran, Chief Information Officer, Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin
• Mr. Don Willenburg, Partner, Gordon & Rees LLP
• Ms. Jeannette Vannoy, Chief Information Officer, Superior Court of California, County of Napa
• Mr. David H. Yamasaki, Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of California, County of Orange
• Hon. Theodore C. Zayner, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara

ITAC's Rules & Policy Subcommittee

• Hon. Julie R. Culver, Assistant Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Monterey, Chair
• Hon. Samantha P. Jessner, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
• Hon. Louis R. Mauro, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District
• Hon. Kimberly Menninger, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Orange
• Mr. Darrel Parker, Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara
• Mr. Don Willenburg, Partner, Gordon & Rees LLP

Joint Appellate Technology Subcommittee

• Hon. Louis R. Mauro, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, Chair
• Mr. Kevin Green, Senior Counsel, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
• Mr. Jorge Navarette, Clerk of the California Supreme Court
• Ms. Beth Robbins, Assistant Clerk/Administrator, Court of Appeal, First Appellate District
• Mr. Tim M. Schooley, Supervising Attorney, Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District
• Hon. Alan G. Perkins, Judge of the Superior Court of CA, County of Sacramento
• Mr. Don Willenburg, Partner, Gordon & Rees LLP

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.