Bailiff Amy Anter begins the electronic discovery process in Garfield Heights Municipal Court.

Bailiff Amy Anter begins the electronic discovery process in Garfield Heights Municipal Court.

When electronic discovery was implemented in Garfield Heights Municipal Court, it substantially shortened the time needed to resolve criminal and traffic cases.

Before the court began using electronic discovery, it took 60 to 90 days and multiple hearings for reports, photographs, and footage from body and dashboard cameras to be delivered to defense attorneys, said Judge Deborah Nicastro.

“The discovery phase of criminal and traffic cases is the most complicated and burdensome for all parties,” Judge Nicastro explained. “The advent of body and dash cameras exacerbated the problem.”

The municipal court hears cases from eight communities – Brecksville, Cuyahoga Heights, Garfield Heights, Independence, Maple Heights, Metro Parks, Newburgh Heights, Valley View, and Walton Hills. A long discovery process left little time to resolve the court’s misdemeanor criminal and traffic cases before the six-month deadline. With electronic discovery, 95% of cases are now completed in the 60-to-90-day timeframe that it used to take for the discovery phase alone, Judge Nicastro said.

The court’s switch to electronic discovery was highlighted at the recent Court Technology Conference, which is organized annually by the Ohio Judicial Conference.

To make the change to electronic discovery, the municipal court turned to a software tool in 2021. Today, a defense attorney files a written discovery request with the prosecutor and the clerk of court. The judge’s bailiff immediately opens the case portal in the electronic discovery software, and an email is automatically generated to notify all interested parties to move forward with discovery. Within 24 to 48 hours, the police or the prosecutor will upload all video footage and other discovery materials. The upload produces another email alerting the parties that the discovery materials can be accessed.

Before electronic discovery, the steps were done manually and took much longer. Defense counsel would send a written discovery request to the prosecutor, who forwarded it to the police department. Video footage would be burned onto a disk, and defense counsel had to pick up the disk at the police station. The police department would provide paper documents for discovery to the prosecutor, and the court would hold pretrial hearings for delivery of the materials, Judge Nicastro said.

The judge noted that attorneys value the switch to electronic discovery because they have instant access to evidence, don’t need to travel to obtain or view the evidence, can be more quickly responsive to clients, and can share a link to the materials with clients. Individuals representing themselves have the same access. If they need assistance with the technology, they can contact the court bailiff, the judge said.