Information Technology Advisory Committee

The 21 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.
 

• Hon. Sheila F. Hanson, Chair, Judge of the 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 
• Mr. Michael Baliel, Chief Information Officer, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
• Hon. Benjamin J. Cassady, Commissioner of the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento
• Hon. Kathy Ciuffini, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Kings
• 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, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First 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
• Ms. Carrie Holmes, California Bar Representative
• Mr. Brett Howard, Court Information Officer, Superior Court of California County of Orange
• 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
• Mr. Neal Taniguchi, Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo

ITAC’s Rules & Policy Subcommittee

• Hon. Julie R. Culver, Chair, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Monterey
• Mr. Brian Cotta, Clerk/Court Executive Officer, Fifth Appellate District
• Hon. Tara M. Desautels, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District
• 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

Joint Information Security Governance Subcommittee

• Hon. Tara M. Desautels, Chair, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District
• 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. Bob Fleshman, Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of California, County of Napa
• Mr. Jason B. Galkin, Court Executive Officer, Superior Court of California, County of Riverside
• Ms. Ruth Green, Judicial Council Information Technology, Chief Information Security Officer (Advisory Staff)
• Hon. Michael S. Groch, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego
• 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

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

Tactical Plan for Technology (2019-2020)

At its May 17, 2019 meeting, the Judicial Council approved an update to the judicial branch’s tactical plan, which focuses on enhancing electronic access to courts and court services, and promoting more efficient business practices. The plan identifies specific initiatives the judicial branch is pursuing, in areas such as case management systems, electronic records, remote video appearances, language access services, online dispute resolution, security, and data analytics. Full report, presentation, and agenda item from the May 17, 2019 Judicial Council meeting. View Video

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. 

Next-Generation Hosting Framework Guide and Toolkit

At its March 2, 2018 meeting, the Judicial Council approved—effective immediately—a Judicial Branch Next-Generation Hosting Framework Guide and associated tools, to provide guidance to court leadership in planning their transitions to next-generation hosting solutions. Additionally, the following tools accompany the guide to assist courts in their transitions:

• A list of service level hosting recommendations
• A court data center inventory and service levels template
• A budget roadmap planning template

Full report, presentation, and agenda item from the March 2, 2018 Judicial Council meeting.

Disaster Recovery (DR) Framework Guide and Toolkit

At its March 2, 2018 meeting, the Judicial Council approved—effective immediately—a Judicial Branch Disaster Recovery Framework Guide to help any judicial branch entity with the various processes necessary to plan and implement a disaster recovery strategy. Additionally, the council supported the initiation of a pilot program to test the framework and adopted the following tools for use by the courts:

• A “How to Use” guide
• A build-your-own DR Plan tool

Full report, presentation, and agenda item from the March 2, 2018 Judicial Council meeting.

Electronic Filing Standards and Policies on Electronic Filing Managers

The Judicial Council approved, effective July 1, 2016, technical information exchange standards for e-filing and directed ITAC to develop a plan for implementation of these standards. Full report, presentation, and agenda item from June 24, 2016 Judicial Council meeting.

Information Systems Controls Framework: "How to Use" Guide and Checklist 

Approved by the Judicial Council Technology Committee and the Information Technology Advisory Committee (ITAC). Prepared by the ITAC Information Security Framework Workstream October 2015. Full report to the Judicial Council, October 8, 2015.

Survey & Findings: Video Remote Technology in California Courts (December 2014)

This survey on courtroom use of Video Remote Technology (VRT) was conducted by the CTAC Projects Subcommittee to ascertain the extent to which VRT has actually been used, or is currently being used, by California judicial officers.

Advancing Access to Justice Through Technology: Guiding Principles for California Judicial Branch Initiatives

Approved by the Judicial Council August 2012. Prepared by the CTAC Outreach Subcommittee.

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.