Superior Court of California, County of Amador — Exchange Online / Microsoft 365 Migration (2026): Evidence Record
Claim level: Contracted — payment-corroborated
Verified against the 2 primary source documents and 2 redacted page images published on this page. Every published file carries a SHA-256.
On February 13, 2026 the Superior Court of California, County of Amador issued Purchase Order 4500158879 to O'Connor Enterprise Group Inc., doing business as EPC Group, for the migration from Exchange 2019 on-premises to Microsoft Exchange Online, and the Judicial Council of California settled EPC Group invoices against that order on February 20, April 9 and June 5, 2026 — the court's second engagement with EPC Group.
Engagement fact, as the document states it
Purchase Order 4500158879 (February 13, 2026): "Initiative for Migration from Microsoft Exchange 2019 On-Prem to Microsoft Exchange Online Microsoft 365"; three Judicial Council of California payment advices dated February 20, April 9 and June 5, 2026 each cite "AMADOR PO 4500158879 EXCHANGE MIGRATION".
- Exchange 2019 on-premises to Microsoft Exchange Online / Microsoft 365 migration (client document)
Period on the paper: 2026-02 (no end date is stated on the published documents).
O'Connor Enterprise Group, Inc., doing business as EPC Group, is the legal contracting entity for the engagements documented here.
Verification summary
| Verification vector | Validated value |
|---|---|
| Client entity | Superior Court of California, County of Amador |
| EPC contracting entity | O'Connor Enterprise Group Inc, Houston — as printed |
| Document types | Purchase order; three State payment advices (one published) |
| Dates | PO February 13, 2026; payments February 20, April 9, June 5, 2026 |
| Technology | Microsoft Exchange 2019 on-premises → Exchange Online / Microsoft 365 |
| Repeat relationship | Second purchase order from the same court (first: May 30, 2024) |
Source documents
Purchase Order 4500158879 — Superior Court of California, County of Amador
- Document type:
- Purchase order
- Date:
- February 13, 2026
- Issuer:
- Superior Court of California, County of Amador
- Published:
- Page 1 of 2, redacted
What this document establishes
- The same court issued a second purchase order to O'Connor Enterprise Group Inc. on February 13, 2026 for the migration from Exchange 2019 on-premises to Exchange Online / Microsoft 365.
What it does not establish
- Completion or acceptance of the migration; the order describes what was ordered.
Redactions applied
- Requester and recipient names
- Vendor number and court telephone number
- Every amount
No client name, EPC Group identity, project description or date has been altered.
Payment advice — Judicial Council of California for the Superior Court, County of Amador
- Document type:
- Payment advice (three on file; one published)
- Date:
- February 20, 2026 (further advices April 9 and June 5, 2026 on file)
- Issuer:
- Judicial Council of California, Trial Courts Accounting & Financial Services
- Published:
- The February 20, 2026 advice, redacted; the April 9 and June 5, 2026 advices are cited by count only
What this document establishes
- The State's judicial-branch accounting office settled an EPC Group invoice against PO 4500158879 described as "EXCHANGE MIGRATION" on February 20, 2026, with two further settlements on April 9 and June 5, 2026.
- Payment against the order corroborates performance, which a purchase order alone does not.
What it does not establish
- Formal acceptance of deliverables or any business outcome.
Redactions applied
- ACH reference, payment document numbers, invoice numbers and vendor account number
- E-mail addresses and phone numbers
- Every amount
No client name, EPC Group identity, project description or date has been altered.
What this page does not claim
- Delivered: no delivery record or work product is published on this page, so it does not claim the ordered work was performed.
- Accepted: no signed acceptance form or closeout letter is published, so it does not claim the client accepted deliverables.
- Outcome-verified: no client-issued measurement is published, so it does not claim any business result.
- Client-endorsed: no permissioned client statement is published, so nothing here is an endorsement.
Document provenance
Source: EPC Group historical corporate records.
Public version: privacy-redacted reproduction of the pages listed above.
Material alterations: none, other than the redactions disclosed against each document.
Original retained: yes, by EPC Group.
Redaction method: Each published excerpt is rebuilt from a rasterised image of the page, with redaction boxes burned into the pixels before the file is reassembled. The derivative carries no text layer, no annotations, no form fields and no metadata, so nothing beneath a redaction box can be recovered by text extraction. Every derivative was additionally reviewed by eye at high magnification.
What a hash proves: The SHA-256 confirms the downloaded file matches the published file; it does not independently authenticate the underlying agreement.
Basis for publication: public record of a public body. California judicial branch purchase order and State payment advices (public body).
Text transcripts: 01 · 02 — generated by optical character recognition from the published, redacted images, never from the originals; where an image is boxed the transcript reads [REDACTED].
Review cycle: this record is reviewed every 90 days.
Questions about this record
Why is this record payment-corroborated?
Because the State's Trial Courts Accounting office issued payment advices settling EPC Group invoices against this purchase order. Payment shows the court accepted invoices for the work; it is stronger than an order alone.
Why is only one of the three advices published?
One advice is enough to establish the payment chain; the other two are held by EPC Group and cited by date and count to keep the published surface small.
Related evidence records
- Amador County Superior Court — Contracted
Service pages this record supports
Client names, trademarks and documents are displayed for factual verification of historical business relationships only. Their inclusion does not imply a current commercial relationship, sponsorship or endorsement.
Last updated by Errin O'Connor, Founder & Chief AI Architect, EPC Group