REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THE OPERATION OF SUSTAIN IN WEST DISTRICT- SANTA MONICA.

May 2, 2008

D. Brett Bianco, Court CounselSuperior Court of California, County of Los Angeles111 North Hill Street, Suite 546Los Angeles, California 90012213.217.4960 facsimilebbianco@lasuperiorcourt.orgBy Email and by fax

URGENT- TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE
RE: Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) – LITIGATION RECORDS
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THE OPERATION OF SUSTAIN IN WEST DISTRICT- SANTA MONICA.
REQUEST FOR A COPY OF USER’S MANUAL FOR SUSTAIN.
TIMED RESPONSE REQUESTED BY MONDAY, 5:00PM

Mr Bianco:

I am writing to you again to request clarifications regarding the operation of Sustain in West District, Santa Monica, which appears substantially different from the operation of the system in other locations. The questions arising from analysis of the reports are critical to understanding of the records of litigation in “Samaan v Zernik”. Therefore, I request that you provide the required responses by the time indicated.

I would also be grateful if the court could provide a user’s manual, FOR PAY, so that I could continue my study of such records independently.
Here are preliminary questions that require urgent response:

a. Does the LA Superior Court hold that Sustain, as operated in West District, Santa Monica, complies with California Rules of Court, Chapter 2: Public Access to Electronic File Records?

b. Does the LA Superior Court hold that rules of court implemented in Sustain, as operated in West District, Santa Monica, are all part of the written and published California Rules of Court and Los Angeles County Local Rules of Court?

c. Regarding “Oral Rules of Court” that do not appear in either California Rules of Court or Los Angeles Country Local Rules of Court, such as “Sustain data are privileged – for the Court Only”:

• 1. Does the LA Superior Court hold that such rules comply with the US Rule Enabling Act 28 USC §2071 ?
• US Rule Enabling Act 28 USC §2071(b) says:
• (b) Any rule prescribed by a court, other than the Supreme Court, under subsection (a) shall be prescribed only after giving appropriate public notice and an opportunity for comment. Such rule shall take effect upon the date specified by the prescribing court and shall have such effect on pending proceedings as the prescribing court may order.
  …
  (d) Copies of rules prescribed under subsection (a) by a district court shall be furnished to the judicial council, and copies of all rules prescribed by a court other than the Supreme Court under subsection (a) shall be furnished to the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and made available to the public.
  (e) If the prescribing court determines that there is an immediate need for a rule, such court may proceed under this section without public notice and opportunity for comment, but such court shall promptly thereafter afford such notice and opportunity for comment.
• 2. Were Rules of Court involved in the operation of Sustain in Santa Monica ever published?
• 3. Were such rules prescribed only after giving appropriate public notice and an opportunity for comment?

d. Regarding Rules of Court implemented in the operation of Sustain in Santa Monica, such as:

• The assignment of date of “00/00/00” to a document , an order, or a ruling; and
• The assignment of date of “33/33/33” to a document , an order, or a ruling
  
  1. Who holds the authority to rule that a paper filed with the court would be at a later time designated as dated “00/00/00” or “33/33/33”?
• 2. Pursuant to what California Code and what Section, alternatively pursuant to what Rule of Court are such determinations made?
• 
  3. How is the Due Process requirement for “Notice” implemented relative to such determinations or rulings?
  

e. Regarding the input of “Events” that require adjudication in Sustain:

• 
  1. Pursuant to what California Code and what Section, alternatively pursuant to what Rule of Court is it determined how many independent events requiring adjudication may be scheduled simultaneously under one calendar event?
• 
  2. Pursuant to what California Code and what Section, alternatively pursuant to what Rule of Court is the “Completion” of such Events, and the recordation of the outcome of adjudication implemented for such independent events requiring adjudication that were scheduled simultaneously under one calendar event
• 
  3. Who holds the authority to rule that a paper filed with the court would be designated as generating an “Event” versus generating just a “Document Filed”?
• 
  4. Pursuant to what code section or Rule of Court are such determinations made?
• 
  5. How is the Due Process requirement for “Notice” implemented relative to such determinations or rulings?

f. Relative to financial transactions implemented in Sustain:

• 
  1. Pursuant to what California Code and what Section, alternatively pursuant to what Rule of Court is it determined which papers require a fee of $40.00, and how is the fee itself determined?
• 
  2. Is there a periodic audit of financial transactions I Sustain? By whom?

Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated!

Joseph Zernik

CC:
Ms Avelina Richardson, Clerk’s Office Supervisor
Mr Frank Klunder, IT Department Director