Search 

Azcourts.gov

Arizona Judicial Branch



FAQ

Register       Login

ATTENTION: This site has been recently moved. If you had an account on our old forum site, you will have to register a new account here in order to be able to post replies.

 

NEW! The Court acted on many pending rule petitions at its August 29, 2017 Rules Agenda.  

Click on the Amendments from Recent Rules Agendas link below to go directly to the amendments and orders for each one.

Message from the Chief Justice

Current Arizona Rules 

Amendments from Recent Rule Agendas

Rule Amendments (2006 to present) 

Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence


Pending Rules List

         Proposed Local Rules
                 Welcome!
This website allows you to electronically file and monitor court rule petitions and comments and to view existing rules of court, recent amendments of those rules, and pending rule petitions and comments. Any visitor to this site may view posts on this website, but to post a petition or comment you must register and log in. To view instructions on how to register and how to file a petition or comment, please visit our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page. 
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 26 Jun 2008 12:02 PM by  mmeltzer
R-07-0015 Rules 1, 4 and 6, Rules of Procedure in Traffic and Boating Cases, and Rule 29, Rules of the Supreme Court
 3 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Author Messages
spickard
Posts:

--
31 Oct 2007 02:13 PM
    R-07-0015

    PETITION TO AMEND RULES 1, 4, AND 6 ARIZONA RULES OF PROCEDURE IN TRAFFIC CASES AND BOATING CASES, AND RULE 29, RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA

    TO RECOGNIZE ELECTRONICALLY-FILED DOCUMENTS AND SCANNED IMAGES OF DOCUMENTS FILED IN PAPER FORM AS THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT OF RECORD AND ALLOW THE DESTRUCTION OF ANY CORRESPONDING PAPER DOCUMENT

    Petitioner:
    Judge R. Michael Traynor, Chair
    Committee on Limited Jurisdiction Courts
    Chandler Municipal Court
    200 E. Chicago St.
    Chandler, Arizona 85225-2176

    Filed October 31, 2007

    Comments due May 20, 2008.

    ADOPTED as modified, effective January 1, 2009.
    Attachments
    sbruner
    Posts:

    --
    30 Apr 2008 01:20 PM
    Stewart Bruner
    ITD, Supreme Court of Arizona
    1501 W. Washington
    602-452-3351
    sbruner@courts.az.gov

    Affected portion of petition: added sentence to Supreme Court Rule 29(D), Justice of the Peace and Municipal Court Records, enabling records to be stored in various forms including electronic reproductions or images of originals.

    While authorizing retention of electronic records is an appropriate change, it must be treated as a separate issue from enabling the destruction of corresponding paper records. In light of the stated intent of the petitioner in the introduction to "allow the destruction of any corresponding paper document," AOC Information Technology Division has concerns about the lack of safeguards specified within the proposed revision to Rule 29(D). A technical environment and controls must be in place to ensure the preservation and integrity of electronic records throughout their entire lifecycle, prior to destruction of the paper “safety net” that would be used to recreate electronic records in the event of their loss. Enabling destruction of paper court records is premature since the required environment and controls have not yet been formally defined.

    LJC's separate attempt to redefine existing technical requirements related to electronic records as codified in ACJA §§ 1-504 through 1-506 met with resistance from Technical Advisory Council (TAC), the technical subcommittee of the Commission on Technology (COT). Members assigned a workgroup to determine and report the specific technical items courts must employ prior to destroying any paper.

    ITD acknowledges that a previous rule petition, R-06-0028, amended Rule 94 to enable clerks of the superior court to destroy paper records, but only after assurance of the permanent preservation of the electronic record (which only a single clerk has provided). Though the language from Rule 94(g) is referred to within the issue description ("...providing adequate safeguards are employed for the preservation and integrity of [electronic] documents...) the equivalent requirements from Rule 94 are never specified in the proposed language for Rule 29(D).

    ITD recommends that either the provisions for Rule 29(D) be considered separately or that the entire petition be set aside until such time as definitive requirements exist for courts wishing to destroy paper prior to the end of the retention period. Development and communication of these requirements are fundamental to the Court's stated direction of e-filing and have been given high priority. TAC's goal is to deliver them to COT by November 2008.
    domanico
    Posts:

    --
    20 May 2008 05:42 PM
    ANDREW P. THOMAS
    MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY
    (FIRM STATE BAR NO. 0003200)

    PHILIP J. MACDONNELL
    CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY
    SALLY WOLFGANG WELLS
    CHIEF ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
    301 WEST JEFFERSON STREET, SUITE 800
    PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
    TELEPHONE: (602) 506-3800
    (STATE BAR NUMBERS 003813 AND 009894)
    Attachments
    mmeltzer
    Posts:

    --
    26 Jun 2008 12:02 PM
    Judge R. Michael Traynor, Chair
    Committee on Limited Jurisdiction Courts
    Chandler Municipal Court
    200 E. Chicago St.
    Chandler, Arizona 85225-2176
    Attachments
    Topic is locked