Information Technology Advisory Committee

January 21, 2021 Rules and Policy Subcommittee Meeting

12:00 p.m.- 1:30 p.m.
Webcast

• Notice and Agenda
• Materials

Previous 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

Upcoming Meetings

• April 20 (in person)
• June 5 (teleconference)
• August 3 (in person)
• October 2 (teleconference)
• December 7 (in person)

The 24 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 (currently, law school faculty), 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
• 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, Assistant Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Monterey
• Hon. Tara M. Desautels, Assistant Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
• 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
• Mr. Paras Gupta, Chief Information Officer, Superior Court of California, Country of Monterey
• 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., Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne
• Hon. Peter J. Siggins, Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal First Appellate District, Division Three
• Hon. M. Bruce Smith, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District
• 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, Assistant Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara

ITAC's Rules & Policy Subcommittee

• Hon. Peter J. Siggins, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal First Appellate District, Division Three, Chair
• Hon. Julie R. Culver, 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. 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
• Hon. Peter J. Siggins, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three
• 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.

Intelligent Chat for Self-Help Services

In 2017, Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye directed ITAC to to explore and make recommendations related to the use of intelligent chat technology to facilitate informational and self-help services for the public. The report presents a comprehensive business case for the use of chatbots – where a person would interact with an automated system on a website to ask questions and receive information, for informational and self-help services. The report provides background research on the current state of chat technology, outlines key findings and deliverables, and sets forth recommendations for the use of intelligent chat to benefit court customers.
Report; Presentation slides; Video

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.