FOIA Request #26-44: ProsecutorbyKarpel Migration Status — Documents Obtained
Filed: February 18, 2026
Response: February 19, 2026
Status: Granted — 156 Pages Provided
What Was Requested
I requested any records reflecting the current status of the data migration from the prior case management system (Adult/Juvenile Case Tracking, or ACT/JCT) to ProsecutorbyKarpel, including whether the migration is complete or ongoing.
This request was designed to answer a straightforward question: Did the Prosecutor’s Office successfully transfer all data from the old system to the new one?
What Was Provided
The Prosecutor’s Office provided 156 pages of email exchanges between Delta County IT Director Brandon Couvillion and Karpel Solutions representatives, spanning from October 2023 through May 2024.
The key emails included:
- October 17, 2023 — Initial implementation correspondence
- December 15, 2023 — Microsoft Azure BLOB Storage coordination
- January 11, 2024 — Kick Off Meeting scheduling
- January 23, 2024 — Technical implementation details
- February 6, 2024 — File transfer and storage discussions
- February 19, 2024 — Data upload and conversion timeline
- May 14, 2024 — Pre-Go Live preparations
Key Information Found
Go Live Date Confirmed
Multiple emails in the provided documents confirm that the ProsecutorbyKarpel system was scheduled to “Go Live” on June 10, 2024.
From the January 11, 2024 email:
“assigned to your conversion to PbK set to Go Live on June 10th, 2024. I am contacting you so we can begin the implementation process.”
This established the official transition date from the legacy ACT/JCT system to the new ProsecutorbyKarpel system.
Deliberate Data Exclusion Decisions
A critical revelation came from the February 6, 2024 email:
“They don’t want everything in Karpel as we don’t want to pay for additional storage at this time.”
This email confirms that:
- The Prosecutor’s Office made deliberate decisions about what data would NOT be transferred to the new system
- The exclusion was driven by cost considerations — specifically, avoiding storage fees
- Someone in the office (“they”) made an affirmative choice to leave data behind rather than migrate everything
This single sentence has profound implications for data completeness and raises serious questions about what historical records were lost or made inaccessible.
Implementation Timeline Established
The emails show a structured implementation process:
- October 2023 — Initial correspondence and setup
- December 2023 — Azure storage configuration
- January 2024 — Kick-off meeting and technical planning
- February 2024 — Data transfer and conversion
- May 2024 — Final preparations before Go Live
- June 10, 2024 — Go Live date
What Was NOT Provided
Despite providing 156 pages of emails, the response did not include several critical documents:
- No Formal Status Update: No document explicitly stating whether the migration is complete or ongoing
- No Final Completion Report: No post-Go Live status report or migration completion certificate
- No Current Status Letter: The most recent emails are from May 2024 — no documentation after the June 10, 2024 Go Live date
- No Data Exclusion Documentation: While the February 6, 2024 email mentions that “they don’t want everything in Karpel,” no document specifies exactly which data categories were excluded
- No Quality Assurance Reports: No documentation showing whether migrated data was verified for accuracy or completeness
Analysis: What This Tells Us
The System Likely Went Live as Planned
The email documentation strongly suggests that the system transitioned on the scheduled June 10, 2024 date. The emails show systematic planning and preparation leading up to that date, with no indication of delays or postponements.
However, without a formal post-Go Live status report, this is an inference — not a confirmed fact.
Data Was Deliberately Left Behind
The February 6, 2024 email is the most concerning revelation. It confirms that cost considerations — not completeness — drove decisions about what data to migrate. This raises critical questions:
- Which categories of data were excluded?
- Were historical case records preserved?
- Were plea agreements, dispositions, and notes migrated?
- How much historical information is now inaccessible?
- Who made these decisions and when?
The 156 Pages Are Not Complete
While substantial, the provided emails represent only a portion of the communication between the Prosecutor’s Office and Karpel Solutions. The response acknowledges that additional emails exist on the timeline topics (dated 10/17/2023, 12/18/2023, 01/23/2024, 01/29/2024, 05/13/2024), but refused to provide them in subsequent requests under the “duplicative request” exception.
What Should Be Included
A complete response to this request should have provided:
- Formal Status Document: A letter or memo explicitly stating whether the migration is complete or ongoing, signed by a responsible official.
- Completion Certificate: A document from Karpel Solutions confirming successful migration completion.
- Data Exclusion Report: A detailed list of which data categories were not migrated and why.
- Quality Assurance Documentation: Records showing verification that migrated data was accurate and complete.
- Post-Go Live Status Updates: Any correspondence or reports after June 10, 2024 addressing issues or confirming smooth operation.
- All Timeline Documents: Complete email threads on planning, scheduling, and timeline revisions — not just selected excerpts.
Why This Matters
The migration from ACT/JCT to ProsecutorbyKarpel represents one of the most significant technological changes in the Delta County Prosecutor’s Office in years. The public deserves to know:
- Did the migration succeed?
- Is all historical data accessible in the new system?
- Were important records left behind to save on storage costs?
- How can the public access historical case information from before June 2024?
If data was excluded from migration, that has real-world consequences:
- Defendants may not have access to complete records
- Victims may be unable to track case histories
- Attorneys may face difficulties building comprehensive defense strategies
- The public may lose transparency into prosecutorial decisions and outcomes
The February 6, 2024 email suggests these questions are legitimate and urgent — yet the Prosecutor’s Office has refused to provide the answers.
What’s Next
This request provided substantial information but also raised new questions. Follow-up requests have been filed to obtain:
- Detailed timeline documents (Request #26-45 — denied)
- Data exclusion documentation (Request #26-56 — denied)
The denials of those follow-up requests are being appealed to the Delta County Board of Commissioners.
The public deserves a complete picture of what data was preserved and what was sacrificed when the Prosecutor’s Office invested over $100,000 in a new case management system.
Leave a comment