Tag Archives: PACER

Judiciary Approves PACER Innovations To Enhance Public Access

Posted on by
1

http://www.uscourts.gov/Press_Releases/2010/JudicialConferenceMar2010.cfm

NEWS RELEASE

Judiciary Approves PACER Innovations To Enhance Public Access

 
Contact:
 David Sellers, 202-502-2600

 
March 16, 2010 –  The Judicial Conference of the United States today approved key steps to improve public access to federal courts by increasing the availability of court opinions and expanding the services and reducing the costs for many users of the Public Access to Electronic Court Records (PACER) system. At its biannual meeting in Washington, D.C., the Conference voted to:

 
 
� Allow courts, at the discretion of the presiding judge, to make digital audio recordings of court hearings available online to the public through PACER, for $2.40 per audio file.

� Adjust the Electronic Public Access fee schedule so that users are not billed unless they accrue charges of more than $10 of PACER usage in a quarterly billing cycle, in effect quadrupling the amount of data available without charge. Currently, users are not billed until their accounts total at least $10 in a one-year period.

� Approve a pilot in up to 12 courts to publish federal district and bankruptcy court opinions via the Government Printing Office’s Federal Digital System (FDsys) so members of the public can more easily search across opinions and across courts.

The Conference approved the plan to make digital audio recordings available on PACER after a two-year pilot project showed significant public interest in accessing these files. Prior to the pilot, such access was possible only by obtaining a CD recording from a court clerk�s office for $26. During the pilot, Internet access to the same content cost eight cents, but the $2.40 fee approved today was deemed by the Conference to be reasonable and come closest to recouping, but not exceeding, costs. Digital audio recording is used in most bankruptcy and district courts (where magistrate judges account for most of the usage).

For printed court documents, the $10 fee waiver affects tens of thousands of PACER users. In fiscal year 2009, about 153,000 PACER account holders�nearly half of all active accounts� did not receive a bill. For that 12-month period, a quarterly waiver would have affected an additional 85,000 accounts� resulting in 75 percent of all active accounts not receiving bills. Analysis of fiscal year 2008 billing data showed a similar impact.

As mandated by Congress, electronic access to court information is funded through reasonable user fees, and not through taxes paid by the general public. Last year, PACER received more than 360 million requests for electronic access to information from the over 33 million federal cases that have documents online. The Electronic Public Access fee revenue is used exclusively to fund program expenses and enhancements that increase public access to the courts. As a result, PACER is a very economical service: the charge for accessing filings, other than opinions, is just eight cents per page, with a maximum charge of $2.40 regardless of the length of a document. At federal courthouses, public access terminals provide free PACER access to view filings in that court, as well as economical printouts (priced at ten cents per page). The charge for copies from the paper case file in the clerk’s office was–and remains–50 cents a page.

All court opinions are available through PACER free of charge, and that will not change. The pilot project to make bankruptcy and district court opinions also available through the Government Printing Office’s system will enhance public access to those opinions.

The Judiciary is conducting a comprehensive assessment of its Electronic Public Access Program services to identify potential enhancements to existing services and new public access services that can be provided to litigants, the bar, and the public. All active PACER users were welcomed to participate in at least one of the assessment surveys, focus groups, or interviews. The results of that assessment will be available by July 2010.

The US Party/Case Index is a tool that enables users to locate a case across the federal courts. The application has been running in its current format since September 1999, and currently receives over 200,000 searches daily. A new version of the search tool, which includes additional search capabilities and result formats, has been developed and will be deployed under the new name PACER Case Locator this month.

Increasing Public Access to Government Data and Laws

Posted on by
Reply

Our friend and hero Carl Malamud is quoted in a “special report on managing information” from the February 25, 2010 issue of The Economist.

We’ll be making the article, “The open society: Governments are letting in the light,” required reading for our advanced legal research class.

The article discusses efforts and impediments, at both the local and national level, to making government information freely available.

Locally the article quotes San Francisco CIO Chris Vein on how “providing more information can make government more efficient.”  An example is a site called San Francisco Crimespotting ”that layers historical crime figures on top of map information.”  The article notes that “[o]ther cities, including New York, Chicago and Washington, DC, are racing ahead as well.”

The article goes on to say that “[o]ther parts of the world are also beginning to move to greater openness.  A European Commission directive in 2005 called for making public-sector information more accessible.”

The article also discusses some of the impediments, such as Crown copyright where “in Britain and the Commonwealth countries most government data is state property” and there are use constraints, and PACER’s paywall.

The direction is for more openness and for “new forms of collaboration between the public and private sectors.”  And as the article concludes:

John Stuart Mill in 1861 called for “the widest participation in the details of judicial and administrative business . . . above all by the utmost possible publicity.” These days, that includes the greatest possible disclosure of data by electronic means.

PACER Survey for Everyone

Posted on by
Reply

Recently, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts  launched a PACER Online Satisfaction Survey. [PACER=Public Access to Court Electronic Records]

As the A.O. is trying to get feedback from PACER users, only individuals with a PACER account may take this survey.  (Question #2 on the survey asks for your PACER account information.  You are not able to skip past Question #2)

This made me wonder: 

  • Are there folks that might want to take this survey that aren’t holders of a PACER account?
    For example, our students in Advanced Legal Research get to see what PACER looks like, but don’t have an account.  Many folks who used PACER during the pilot program might also have comments but may not have an account.  Etc. 
  • Are there individuals with PACER accounts that would prefer not to provide their account information in the survey? 
    [You are unable to skip past Question 2 which asks for the account information.]  Although the survey claims to be completely confidential, there might be folks who would prefer to answer the survey anonymously.
  • What about organizations that share a single PACER account? 
    The survey is geared to a single response from each account holder.  There might be others, such as librarians in a firm or at a school, that want to each provide unique feedback.
  • There is another category of people who might want to take the survey — students who we log on.  Sometimes they are very heavy users (e.g., $ 500) and might have some very valuable feedback.

So, after thinking about those questions, we decided to copy the core questions from the PACER survey on the A.O. site and create a second, more-open survey.

This “PACER Survey for Everyone” does not ask you to provide a PACER account number (and it doesn’t ask you for your name, as is the case in optional Question #3 on the A.O. survey).    However, all of the other questions remain the same.

This survey allows anyone, users and non-users alike, to provide the simple feedback on PACER that the A.O. wants right now.

We plan to share the results of this survey with the A.O. so they can compare and analyze this other layer of feedback.  We hope that it is useful for all.  We also plan to post the results online here, too.

RECAP: cracking open US courtrooms

Posted on by
Reply

Any mention of PACER or RECAP will get our attention.   Just this week, RECAP made the news across the pond.  “RECAP: cracking open US courtrooms:  Access to US legal files is being transformed by a Napster-like sharing system called RECAP” by Bobbie Johnson appeared in the Guardian (11/11/2009).
The article starts off: “The legal system is often accused of lagging behind the technological curve – indeed, it is only a couple of years since a high court judge made headlines by saying: “I don’t really understand what a website is.” He later said that the remarks were taken out of context.”  [For more on *that* judge, see here and here.]

Quickly, Johnson moves on to discuss the development of PACER, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Court’s site for Public Access to Court Electronic Records.  (And, blogged about a lot on this site, here, here and here….)

The article continues:

“Their RECAP tool, as the name suggests, aims to turn PACER on its head: by making legal documents more easily available, and dramatically reducing the cost.

“All of the stuff in Pacer is, essentially, part of the law of the land,” says Harlan Yu, a Princeton PhD student and one of the trio behind Recap. “Our nation is governed by laws, and we feel like the law should be accessible to all. And being accessible, in this day and age, means that the law should be online where it’s most accessible to citizens in a way that is free.”"

As the article closes, it brings up some of the privacy concerns confronting RECAP and PACER right now.

 

“For advocates, the bigger question is whether PACER objects: opening access to legal documents is an important part of expanding free data and free information. After all, it was Thomas Jefferson – who made his living practicing the law, among other things – who said that “information is the currency of democracy”.”

For now, the A.O. is in the midst of a survey and evaluation of PACER and the pilot program might re-launch sometime soon. . .In the meantime, go ahead and install RECAP on your library machines.



PACER User Survey from the A.O.

Posted on by
1

Want to give the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts feedback on PACER?  Now is your chance.

See this new announcement on the PACER Service Center website:

The Federal Judiciary has undertaken a year-long, comprehensive program assessment. The goal of the assessment is to identify potential enhancements to existing services and new public access services that could be provided. We are gathering information through focus groups, interviews, and surveys. Please be aware you may be solicited about your views about PACER and our services with an eye towards what you, the customer, would like to see in the future.

To assist with this effort, users of PACER may participate in a short survey regarding their satisfaction with current services and any suggestions for potential enhancements. This survey will remain available to users for approximately 30 days. Please click on the following link to take this survey, and we thank you in advance for helping to improve public access to federal court documents and information:


If you have any questions about this assessment, please contact the PACER Service Center at pacer@psc.uscourts.gov.

Electronic Public Access Program/PACER Assessment Begun

Posted on by
Reply

From the September issue of the Third Branch:

“The Judiciary’s Electronic Public Access Program is looking for user input. The program, which recently celebrated its one-millionth Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) subscriber, has launched a year-long, comprehensive assessment to identify potential enhancements to existing and new public access services.

Focus groups, interviews, and surveys are being used to gather information on what PACER users would like to see in the program. The assessment initiative was endorsed by the Judiciary’s Electronic Public Access working group in 2008, begun in early 2009, and is slated to conclude in 2010.

“This is a comprehensive effort to listen to our users and hear what they have to say,” said Michel Ishakian, chief of the Administrative Office’s Public Access and Records Management Division. “Their input will help define the next generation of PACER and how we expand public access services.”

PACER enables users to obtain federal court case and docket information for all 94 district courts, 90 bankruptcy courts, and 13 courts of appeals on the Internet. PACER currently provides access to 500 million case documents, which are available immediately after they have been electronically filed.

The diverse user population includes lawyers, litigants who represent themselves, government agencies, trustees, researchers, educational institutions, commercial enterprises, financial institutions, the media, and the general public. The Congressionally authorized Electronic Public Access fee revenue is used exclusively to fund program expenses and enhancements that increase public access to the courts, including court websites, electronic bankruptcy noticing, on-line juror services, Violent Crime Control Act victim notification, the Case Management/Electronic Case Files system, and a digital audio project offering recordings of court proceedings. The fee is set by the Judicial Conference at $0.08 per page; there is a $2.40 maximum charge for any single document, no matter its length; the fee does not apply to opinions– which are available through PACER free of charge; and the fee is waived for usage amounting to less than $10.00 per year. In fiscal year 2008,

50 percent of PACER users did not pay fees as a result of fee waivers and exemptions.

Additional information on the assessment, including how to participate, can be found at www.pacer.gov or www.uscourts.gov.”

As the Court’s assessment will be ongoing until 2010, I should remind you that we are also close to our original goal of 1000 signatures on the Improve PACER petition.  Please sign and comment.  We will send an updated list of signatures to the A.O. in the coming weeks.

PACER – “Lessons Learned” October 2009

Posted on by
Reply
This just in…”In October 2009, the GPO and the Administrative Office will be holding a “Lessons Learned” focus group session with the librarians who participated in the pilot to pin point what worked and what could be improved.”

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.]

Electronic Public Access Fees and the US Court’s Budget: New Working Paper

Posted on by
Reply
New working paper from Stephen Schultze:
Electronic Public Access Fees and the United States Federal Courts’ Budget: An Overview
by Stephen Schultze, Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard

Abstract: This draft working paper examines the role of user fees for public access to records in the budgeting process of the federal courts. It sketches the policy principles that have traditionally motivated open access, describes the administrative process of court budgeting, and traces the path of user fees to their present-day instantiation. There has been considerable confusion about motivation and justification for the courts charge for access to PACER, the web-based system for “Public Access to Court Electronic Records.” Representatives from the Administrative Office of the Courts describe the policy as mandated by Congress and limited to reimbursing the expenses of operating the system. This paper identifies the sources of these claims and places them in the context of the increasing push to make government data freely accessible.

Download here.

PACER Spending Survey

Posted on by
1

As many of you know, earlier this summer, we launched a petition to  improve PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records).  As a follow-up to a number of the comments we received on the petition, we created a web survey on Zoomerang to learn more about actual library expenses for PACER.

Fifty-eight law firm libraries responded.  And for 2008, these firm libraries spent on average $13,068.48 on PACER.  The total expenses for these firms was $692,629.30 in 2008.  Notable, too, one firm spent almost $110,000 on PACER last year.

Sixty-six law school libraries, including thirty-two public and thirty-four private, responded.  In 2008, the law school libraries spent on average $656.74 on PACER; the total expenses in 2008 for law school libraries was $38,090.92.

And, between the public and private schools, there was a difference, too.  The public law school libraries spent almost half as much as the private law school libraries (public law school libraries in 2008: $457.08 average vs. private law school libraries: $856.40 average).

[Note: we had fewer than 10 responses in the other categories of Federal Ct/Gov't, State Ct/Gov't, Non-law Academic, Corporate, and Other.]

While the vast majority of law firm library respondents shared that they do not place “any restrictions or limitations on PACER usage or access in their library” (language from the survey question),  only three out of the sixty-six (4.5%) academic law library respondents stated that they did not limit or ration access to PACER (however, one of these schools reported spending less than  $ 20.00 in 2008).

Many of the firm librarians commented that the cost of PACER was far less than the commercial options (CourtLink, CourtExpress) or sending a runner to the court to copy documents.  The firm librarians also noted that they could often pass the costs of PACER on to their clients; however, some librarians noted difficulties with the PACER billing reports and client matter numbers.

On the flip side, academic law librarians were very concerned about the costs.  A few of the comments included: “that there is no way to limit costs’, “it gets expensive rather quickly”, “if PACER were cheaper, … we would use PACER more frequently”, and one stated that they have a “PACER account that few know about (so as to minimize costs).”

The unknown/potential costs of using PACER hold back most law school libraries from letting their patrons fully utilize PACER.  However, if we limit access to PACER, can we provide adequate training that prepares our students?  In the survey that we conducted just last year regarding Westlaw and Lexis preferences among law librarians, when respondents were asked which other online databases that they would like to have taught in law school, eighty percent of the law firm librarians wanted training provided on PACER.    We need to train our students and equip our patrons with access to this important resource, but we can’t afford to do so.  In our library alone, we had one student patron run up a $500 dollar bill on PACER.  If we allowed all of our students full access, our spending could easily surpass our Westlaw and Lexis costs.

In just a few weeks, we plan to share the petition results with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.  It is not too late to sign and most importantly, add comments and your thoughts to this dialogue.