Court OKs access to Odyssey data

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

In an order released Sept. 14, the Indiana Supreme Court detailed the process for obtaining bulk distribution of and remote access to the records of Indiana courts using the Odyssey case management system, which is gradually connecting all of Indiana’s trial courts.

Launched in December 2007, the system created by Texas-based Tyler Technologies and overseen by the Judicial Technology and Automation Committee has been implemented in 104 courts in 35 counties throughout Indiana, with about 7 million case records available online. Latest figures show 34 percent of the state’s caseload is plugged in with more courts being added each month.

But until now, commercial users and third parties wanting to access that same information and share it haven’t had any guidance on how to do that. Prior to the state’s launch of Odyssey, more than two dozen different case management systems were used throughout Indiana. Those counties weren’t connected – meaning judges and attorneys in one county didn’t have access to what might be happening with parties in another county, unless they took other steps to gather information.

In this new order, the Supreme Court outlines two methods for parties to receive bulk information from the Odyssey system via the Indiana Division of State Court Administration.

On or before Oct. 1, the division will use what’s called a “file drop” method – placing Odyssey case records on a server for vendors and others with appropriate security permission to copy once a month. Fees for that method are: 1 cent for each closed case, 10 cents for an open or new case since the last file drop, and no charge for any updates to a case already provided.

On or before Jan. 1, 2012, the division can use a “messaging method” that creates and sends a message file each time an Odyssey case is added or edited. Fees for that method are: 1 cent for each closed case, 15 cents for an open or new case added since the last message, and no charge for updates to already-provided cases.

The division can exempt government and education entities from a portion or all of the fees, as long as those entities don’t sell the data or make commercial use of it. The division is also able to change the fees without further court approval as long as the fees don’t exceed fair market value for the information provided and notice has been posted online for 30 days.

Compiled information isn’t being provided at this time because it would divert the state court staff from its principal responsibilities, but the order states that recipients of the bulk information can compile that information themselves.

A separate order amends Administrative Rule 9(E)(5) to allow local counties and courts to charge fees for electronic access to court records, subject to Division of State Court Administration approval. It also gives the Supreme Court the authority to adopt such a fee in instances where the public wants records from multiple courts. That rule amendment takes effect Oct. 1.

Rehearing "A third of the way plugged in" IL Jan. 19-Feb. 1, 2011


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What Mr. Bir is paying is actually Undifferentiated Family Support, which is a mixture of child support and spousal maintenance. If the courts had labeled accurately labeled the transfer payment, I think that Mr. Bir would have fewer objections to paying it because both Spousal Maintenance and Undifferentiated Family Support are tax deductions for the paying party and taxable to the receiving party. I brought this issue up with my family court judge when my voluntarily unemployed ex-wife was using the 'child support' transfer payment to support both herself and out children. Said family court judge stated that I did not know what I was talking about because I did not have a Juris Doctorate, despite my having a printout with dictionary definitions of the legal terms that I was using for documentation.

  2. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  3. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  4. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  5. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?