This past summer, I advised readers that the CT Judicial Branch had upgraded its internal data system for civil and domestic records.  Fortunately, many changes were rather seamlessly incorporated into Court PC's database to keep them as invisible to you as possible.   

However, I recently became aware of another change which affects search results if you conduct party name searches using the "Defendant Only" feature on the search page. 

For now, please avoid using the "Defendant only" filter from the Plaintiff/Defendant drop-down box on Court PC's Party Name Search page.  We're updating the search logic behind this feature, and modifying our search results display to reflect the new Judicial Branch data models. 

What's changed?

Judicial Branch records now identify defendants in new cases as "D-01," "D-02," etc.  They used to be identified as "D-50" or "D-51." 

In Court PC reports, the first-named defendant in a case may now appear as "DEFENDANT #01," "DEFENDANT #50" or simply "50."

How does this affect me?

Our "Defendant only" search filter uses a simple party number to identify defendants.  Since defendants are identified differently in new cases, you will probably not see any defendant records for cases filed after June 2012 if you use the "Defendant only" filter on our search page. 

This affects you if you're searching CV or FA records and if your subject is a party in any cases filed after June 2012.  Records for cases prior to June 2012 are not affected.  Searches for CR and MV records are not affected.

If you do not filter for "Defendant only" records, you will see all parties to a case.  However, those parties will not be correctly identified as plaintiffs and defendants until our programming changes are completed.  To determine which parties are actually defendants and which are plaintiffs, check the case caption, and check your results against the Judicial Branch docket for the case using http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/GetDocket.aspx.

Can this issue be corrected?

Court PC's offline databases have already been reconfigured to reflect this change.  If you place orders by e-mail or fax and do not use the online database, this will not be an issue for you. 

Since the workings of our online database are significantly more complicated, the changes will be made by Court PC's SQL programmers, and may take a little time to complete and test properly.  I will follow up with another e-mail to let you know when the "Defendant only" filter is identifying all defendant records properly. 

How did this happen?

Prior to June 2012, party numbers were assigned according to a custom in place since the 1980s.  Using only one two-digit data field, the prior system gave plaintiffs numbers from 01 to 49 and designated defendants with numbers from 50 to 99.  Court PC's database was defined using this party numbering convention, and relied upon the rule that plaintiffs were numbered 01-49 and defendants 50-99. 

Party identification is now determined by taking the number from the old Party Number field plus one digit from a new field called Party Category, repeating the party numbers 01 to 99 for each party category.  Where the first-named defendant previously was identified as "50," the same party would now be identified as "D-01."  For Court PC's data, this means that in these new cases, there are two parties with the party number 01, something that never would have happened using the prior party number conventions.  

Party categories are defined as "Plaintiff" and "Defendant," as well as the categories "Garnishee," "Other" and "Limited."  Since there are now five party categories in a civil case and four in a family case, the system is now capable of tracking up to 500 parties in a civil case, as opposed to only 99 using the previous system.