Preservation of the case record entails the full range of responsible records management practices. Because records may affect the rights and duties of individuals for generations, their protection and preservation over time are vital. Record systems must ensure that the location of case records is always known, whether the case is active and in frequent circulation, inactive, or in archive status. Inaccuracy, obscurity, loss, or untimely availability of court records seriously compromises court integrity and subverts the judicial process.

Measurement Overview. All of the measures for this standard recommend the use of descriptive statistics, such as averages and percentages, as the basis for evaluation. Particular scores have been identified as acceptable and unacceptable levels of performance for some of the measures. For other measures, criteria of acceptable performance can be formulated from the informed judgments of trial court personnel. Moreover, the criteria can be refined by comparing the results from different courts. The comparative data will help establish norms and standards of very high or very low performance.

Information in court case files affects the interests and constitutional rights of litigants, which the court is expected to protect. As a result, one indicator of integrity is the extent to which the files can be retrieved on request. More specifically, the timeliness of retrieval is an indicator of the court’s degree of integrity. This measure tests whether the file control system is adequate to permit timely retrieval of individual case files, which contain legal papers but not necessarily exhibits, tapes of proceedings, or a court reporter’s notes. The adequacy of the system is tested for each type of case file management and storage system, such as the systems for managing cases that are pending, cases that are closed but not removed to offsite storage, and cases that are closed and in offsite storage areas, including those in alternative storage media.³⁹

Implementing this measure requires an understanding of the file control systems used by the court. This information can be obtained through discussions with the person or persons responsible for court records. Visual inspection of the record storage areas and verification of the file control system should then be carried out to confirm the information gained from the discussion.

Planning/Preparation. A random sample of pending cases, closed and onsite cases, and closed and offsite cases should be selected from each category of cases: criminal, civil, domestic relations, and juvenile. To minimize the effects of highly unusual recordkeeping for a few, peculiar cases, the size of the samples should be no less than 50 cases.

Data Collection. A form should be designed to record basic information on each case. The information should include the location of the file and the time it takes to find the file, including files that are in circulation. For this measure, locating the file means that the data collector must see the file. For example, it is not sufficient for a file to be listed as "in circulation." For an example questionnaire, please refer to Form 3.6.1, Illustrative Data Collection Form: The Reliability of the File System.

Information gathered from the search for files can be used to address two basic questions. First, what percentage of the files can be located? Second, how long on average does it take to locate the files? These questions should be addressed for each of the four categories of cases. In addition, it is useful to determine if the age of the cases is associated with particular problems.

Data Analysis and Report Preparation. Standards for the number of pending cases, closed and onsite cases, and closed and offsite cases that can be located should be uniform, although the time required to locate them may vary. For all types of cases, an acceptable level of performance is the ability to locate 99 percent or more of the files. A superior level of performance is 99.5 percent or higher. Concerning pending and onsite files, an acceptable level of performance is the ability to locate 90 percent or more of the files within 10 minutes. For offsite files, acceptable performance is the ability to locate 90 percent or more of the files within one working day.

This measure assesses whether the court’s records management system preserves information about closed cases consistent with State law and sound records management principles. Information concerning relevant laws and principles can be obtained through discussions with the person or persons responsible for court records. The purpose of the discussion is to determine what files must be preserved, for how long, and what, if any, regulations must be observed regarding the media used for storage. The discussion should determine if the requirements for storage are based on a records retention schedule, informal practices, or a combination of both.

Planning/Preparation. To prepare for this measure, courts can use the two sets of closed cases proposed for Measure 3.6.1, Reliability of the File Control System. These sets include cases both on site and in storage.

Data Collection. Please refer to Form 3.6.2, Illustrative Data Collection Form: Adequate Storage and Preservation of Physical Records, for an example to be reviewed and modified as necessary. Note that items 1, 2, 3, and 4 on Form 3.6.2 also appear on Form 3.6.1. As a result, a court can combine the two forms if it chooses to apply both measures.

This measure tests whether the case docket system conforms to State law and serves the purposes for which it is intended. The basic objective of a docket system is to provide a summary of each case history, the names of the parties involved, and the documents filed in that case.

Planning/Preparation. This measures involves the inspection of individual entries in the case docket system. The cases to be examined can be the same samples of criminal, civil, domestic relations, and juvenile cases used in Measure 3.6.1, Reliability of the File Control System. Additionally, the file for each case should be obtained to verify the completeness of the docket system.

Data Collection. Review of the individual cases is intended to answer basic questions concerning the adequacy of the docket system. This review can be carried out by comparing the entries in the docket system with the information contained in the case files. Are all the cases in the system? Are all the entries per case clear and understandable or are some unreadable or unintelligible? Please refer to Form 3.6.3, Illustrative Data Collection Form: Accuracy, Consistency, and Utility of the Case Docket System, for an example. Note that items 1, 2, and 4 on Form 3.6.3 are found on Forms 3.6.1 and 3.6.2. Hence, a court can combine the three forms if it chooses to apply all three measures.

The purpose of this measure is to determine the integrity of case files. Are there clear procedures for selecting which documents to place in a file? How closely do files adhere to those procedures? The measure relies on case file data.

Planning/Preparation. This measure involves a close inspection of individual case files. It can use the same set of cases proposed in Measure 3.6.1, Reliability of the File Control System. A discussion with the judges and the person or persons responsible for case records management should indicate what documents should be in the files (e.g., the pleadings, answer, motions and judgment) and how they should be organized.

Data Collection. To develop a data collection form, information should be gathered on the condition and contents of selected case files. One way of verifying the integrity of the case files is to compare them with the entries in the case docket system. Refer to Form 3.6.4, Illustrative Data Collection Form for Case File Integrity, for an example. Note that items 1 and 2 on Form 3.6.4 are also found on Forms 3.6.1, 3.6.2, and 3.6.3. Hence, a court can combine the four forms if it chooses to apply all four measures.

The purpose of this measure is to determine how well the court handles the flow of legal documents from the time that they are executed or filed until they are placed in the individual case file. Are the documents processed within expected timeframes or do bottlenecks impede document flow? The measure involves recording data from case file documents.

Planning/Preparation. Discussions with court officials will indicate the nature of the system for handling documents from the point when a paper is filed at the clerk of court’s office counter or when a judge executes an order in court or chambers.

The design of the data collection form will reflect the level of measurement detail the court chooses to pursue. Refer to Form 3.6.5, Illustrative Data Collection Form For Reliability of Document Processing. It represents an approach that would apply to most courts.

Data Collection. Data should be collected for documents related to the following categories of cases: criminal, civil, domestic relations, and juvenile. Depending on the volume of paperwork processed by the clerk of court’s office in a day, one or more days should be chosen for data collection. The days should be selected to avoid abnormal conditions (unusually high or low volume or special projects in the court). On one of these days, samples should be taken from the place where papers await distribution to case file jackets.

This measure gauges attorneys’ views on the integrity of records of court proceedings. Attorneys who have brought cases on appeal are in a position to know whether records of the trial court proceedings are incomplete or difficult to understand. Because attorneys need records of proceedings to prepare briefs, they are concerned about the quality of electronic audio or video recording as well as the traditional written transcript. For this reason, positive opinions by attorneys indicate positive court performance. This measure relies on questionnaire data.

Planning/Preparation. A random sample of notices of appeal filed with the trial court should be selected. The appropriate appellate court should be contacted to determine the names and addresses of the appellant’s and appellee’s attorneys.

Data Collection. A questionnaire should be designed to solicit the views of attorneys concerning the quality of the record. An example is Form 3.6.6, Illustrative Questionnaire: Verbatim Records of Proceedings.

Data Analysis and Report Preparation. The information from the responses can be summarized in terms of the kinds of problems that arise, the seriousness of the problems, and the degree of effort required to resolve them. Do the problems concern missing information? Is the recorded information unintelligible? Do the problems suggest a momentary lapse in the performance of recording equipment or a court reporter, or do the problems suggest a persistent problem? Additionally, the location of problems can be identified. For example, do problems arise more in civil than in criminal appeals, or are jury trials in both types of cases the predominant source of problems?