Tag Archives: Administrative office of the U.S. Courts

New Pilot Project Will Enhance Public Access to Federal Court Opinions

Posted on by
Reply

The U.S. Courts website has just announced a new project to enhance public access to U.S. federal court opinions:

New Pilot Project Will Enhance Public Access to Federal Court Opinions

The full announcement reads:

New Pilot Project Will Enhance Public Access to Federal Court Opinions

May 04, 2011

A dozen federal courts have been selected to participate in a pilot program in which the federal judiciary and the Government Printing Office are partnering to provide free public access to court opinions through the GPO’s FDSys system.

The one-year pilot project was approved by the Judicial Conference in March 2010, and the GPO received approval from the Joint Committee on Printing – often referred to as the oldest joint committee of the Congress – in February 2011.

When fully implemented later this year, the pilot will include two courts of appeals, seven district courts, and three bankruptcy courts. In March, the Judicial Conference approved expansion of the pilot to include up to 30 additional courts.

The judiciary continually has sought ways to enhance public access to court opinions. Free access to opinions in all federal courts is currently available via the judiciary’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records service (PACER).

Building on that success, staff from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts met with GPO management to explore making opinions even more accessible. Fdsys can provide the public with a robust search engine that can search common threads across opinions and courts.

The initial 12 participating courts are the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and Eighth Circuits; the U.S. district courts for the Districts of Minnesota, Rhode Island, Maryland, Idaho, and Kansas, the Northern District of New York, and the Northern District of Alabama; and the U.S. bankruptcy courts for the District of Maine, the Southern District of Florida, and the Southern District of New York.

Cross-posted on Law Library Blog.

Improve PACER Petition Delivered

Posted on by
2
On Friday, September 11, Terry Martin (Texas/Harvard), Kumar Jayasuriya (Georgetown) and Erika Wayne (Stanford) delivered the Improve PACER petition  to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and presented the petition to others in government.

 

The petition, signed at that point by 939  law librarians, legal scholars, government depository librarians and others, asks for improved accessibility, usability and authentication for PACER.  In particular, the petition asks for free access to PACER in Federal Depository libraries, enhanced search capabilities, and authentication of filings with digital signatures.

 

Law school library directors from over one third of American law schools signed the petition. Almost every academic law library in the nation was represented in the petition, and academic law librarians represented the largest percentage of signatories.  Some of the top names in the legal academy and leaders in technology are among the signers of the petition.

 

Many of the signers provided specific suggestions for improving PACER.

 

During the day, we briefed representatives from the GPO, LLOC and congressional staffers on the petition.  We received lots of useful feedback.

 

In the early afternoon, we formally delivered the petition to senior officials at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.  The folks at the A.O. were very gracious; we spent an hour there, talking about the petition and about PACER in general.  Officials from the A.O. explained that they are in the process of evaluating PACER, so the timing of the petition could not have been better.

 

On Friday, we advocated in D.C. for all law librarians and legal researchers, and it was fun change of pace.  But, to have the most impact, the campaign for improving PACER has to start with each and every one of us.  If you feel strongly about this, send an e-mail to your representatives in Congress or write a letter to the A.O.  Blog and tweet about it.

 

The petition is still open.  Please sign it if you haven’t already.  We are close to our original goal of 1000 signatures, and more signatures show strong interest.  When you do sign please provide specific recommendations.

 

We librarians are terrific at training and educating.  Take a few minutes to talk to friends, fellow librarians (especially outside of law libraries), lawyers and professors, students and patrons and tell them all about PACER (and CM/ECF).  Most importantly, tell them *why* PACER is important and vital and useful.   Let them know why you signed the petition (or why you didn’t — it all matters).

 

Education, outreach and feedback from the law library community can and will make a difference in this arena.  It just might not happen overnight.  And, it won’t happen without sustained interest in improving PACER.

 

[Special posting, jointly authored by Terry Martin, Kumar Jayasuriya and Erika Wayne.]

Internet Materials in Opinions: Citations and Hyperlinking

Posted on by
Reply

From The Third Branch

July 2009, Vol. 41, Number 7, p. 9

 

Internet Materials in Opinions: Citations and Hyperlinking

The Judicial Conference has issued a series of “suggested practices” to assist courts in the use of Internet materials in opinions. The recommendations follow a pilot project conducted by circuit librarians who captured and preserved webpages cited in opinions over a six-month period.

The Internet often seems to pervade everyday life, giving us answers, matches, recommendations, definitions, and citations. But the information on the Internet can be as ephemeral as yesterday’s blog entry. Websites can change or disappear altogether.

“Judges are citing to and using Internet-based information in their opinions with increasing frequency,” Judicial Conference Secretary Jim Duff wrote recently to chief judges. “Unlike printed authority, Internet information is often not maintained at a permanent location, and a cited webpage can be changed or deleted at any time. Obviously, this has significant implications for the reliability of citations in court opinions.”

The Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management (CACM) began the pilot project, conducted by circuit libraries, and received and endorsed the recommendations of an ad hoc working group of circuit librarians. In approving those recommendations in March 2009, the Judicial Conference agreed that all Internet materials cited in final opinions be considered for preservation, while each judge should retain the discretion to decide whether the specific cited resource should be captured and preserved. The Conference directed the Administrative Office to work with the CACM Committee to develop guidelines “to assist judges in making the determination of which citations to preserve.”

The guidelines suggest that, if a webpage is cited, chambers staff preserve the citation by downloading a copy of the site’s page and filing it as an attachment to the judicial opinion in the Judiciary’s Case Management/Electronic Case Files System. The attachment, like the opinion, would be retrievable on a non-fee basis through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records system. When considering whether to cite Internet sources, judges are reminded that some litigants, particularly pro se litigants, may not have access to a computer.

The Judicial Conference also recommended that the Judiciary avoid including in final opinions working hyperlinks that lead directly to materials contained within commercial vendor databases to prevent a stated or implied endorsement or preferential treatment. To the extent that a court determines that such hyperlinks are to be used in opinions, it is recommended that an appropriate disclaimer be provided.