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