Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bulk Data And E Service topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
JCIT committee to study bulk data access and e‑filing notifications after members flag mass service and automated access risks
Summary
Members asked the Standards Committee and staff to form subgroups to examine bulk data/API access, potential revenue models, and e‑service (opt‑out and spam service) after hearing reports that aggregators and some filers are requesting large automated feeds and that pro se filers are generating thousands of service contacts.
Officials at the Judicial Commission on Information Technology (JCIT) directed committee staff to open focused reviews of two technical policy areas: (1) bulk data/API access to Research Texas and (2) e‑filing notification behavior after a Standards Committee briefing on usage data and system integration.
The Standards Committee reported vendors and data aggregators are requesting direct feeds (APIs) to the statewide repository for automated ingestion, and several counties and committee members voiced concern about bandwidth, county server costs, and the potential for private firms to monetize bulk access to public records. The committee also reviewed usage data showing pro se filers and other accounts with very large numbers of service contacts, and discussed operational solutions including an opt‑out mechanism for receiving case notices.
Bob (Standards Committee chair) told the commission the committee has begun receiving requests from data aggregators and case‑management vendors asking to enable API pipelines to Research Texas. “We’re starting to get people thumping at the door at Tyler,” he said, describing demand from aggregators, matter‑management vendors and data consumers.
Committee members raised practical concerns. Several said bulk feeds should be optional and enabled node‑by‑node so counties may opt in; clerks emphasized local resource and bandwidth limits. One participant noted counties control local fees and that any revenue model for bulk access would interact with county budgeting. Tracy (county clerk) and others volunteered for a subgroup to work through local clerk needs and consequences for county operations.
The committee also examined patterns of e‑service that cause operational problems. Standards Committee data presented in the meeting showed roughly 2,000 pro se filers with more than 50 service contacts and 13 filers with more than 1,000; staff also reported that in a recent period there were approximately 3.9 million subsequent filings using efile‑and‑serve and about 2.6 million using efile‑only. Participants said that when filers use “efile only” instead of the e‑service option, opposing parties sometimes receive notice late and deadlines become contentious; other filers deliberately include large numbers of non‑parties (judges, agencies) as service contacts.
Staff described available mitigations. Casey (committee staff) said Research Texas can add FAQ guidance and that Tyler can label e‑notice messages with a distinct domain (no‑reply@researchtexas) so recipients can identify e‑service notices. The committee also discussed technical changes: limit the ability of a single filer to add mass service lists, provide an opt‑out mechanism for recipients on a case, and require stricter authentication for attorney accounts.
No formal policy change was approved at the meeting; instead the commission directed the Standards Committee to convene two focused working groups — one on bulk data/API access and one on e‑service/opt‑out and abuse mitigation — to gather stakeholder requirements, examine other states’ practices, and return recommendations. Members asked staff to include vendors, county clerks, trial judges and IT staff on the groups.
Ending
JCIT did not adopt rules on bulk data or e‑service at the meeting but requested organized study, vendor outreach and clerk input; the Standards Committee will report back with recommendations and proposed implementation paths.
