Senator Lieberman Wants to Pay My PACER Bill

You know all those court documents bmaz and I love to wallow in? They cost $.08 a page to print out which adds up to a couple of hundred dollars each quarter (not counting what bmaz beats me to).

But Senator Lieberman (yes, I am that floored) wants to change all that and make PACER documents (which would, ultimately, include Court transcripts) available for free. (h/t Ryan Singel)

I am writing to inquire if the Court is complying with two key provisions of the E-Government Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-347) which were designed to increase public access to court records and protect the privacy of individuals’ personal information contained in those records.

As you know, court documents are electronically released through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system, which currently charges $.08 a page for access. While charging for access was previously required, Section 205(e) of the E-Government Act changed a provision of the Judicial Appropriation Act of 2002 (28 U.S.C. 1913 note) so that courts “may, to the extent necessary” instead of “shall” charge fees “for access to information available through automatic data processing equipment.”

The goal of this provision, as was clearly stated in the Committee report that accompanied the Senate version of the E-Government Act, was to increase free public access to these records. As the report stated: “[t]he Committee intends to encourage the Judicial Conference to move from a fee structure in which electronic docketing systems are supported primarily by user fees to a fee structure in which this information is freely available to the greatest extent possible. … Pursuant to existing law, users of PACER are charged fees that are higher than the marginal cost of disseminating the information.”

Seven years after the passage of the E-Government Act, it appears that little has been done to make these records freely available – with PACER charging a higher rate than 2002. Furthermore, the funds generated by these fees are still well higher than the cost of dissemination, as the Judiciary Information Technology Fund had a surplus of approximately $150 million in FY2006. Please explain whether the Judicial Conference is complying with Section 205(e) of the E-Government Act, how PACER fees are determined, and whether the Judicial Conference is only charging “to the extent necessary” for records using the PACER system.

No snark here–thanks to Senator Lieberman for fighting for citizen access.  

image_print
32 replies
  1. freepatriot says:

    come on, American Motors Company went bankrupt decades back

    paying off your Pacer now isn’t really gonna help …

    (ducking and running)

    (let me guess, a green one, right ???)

  2. bmaz says:

    Glad to see Rape Gurney Joe has found something to do with himself now that he has gotten to the bottom of all the Katrina and DHS fraud. Very heartwarming.

      • scribe says:

        Girl’s got an issue or two, possibly, seeing as how she got lace garb for her three dogs to wear to the weddin’.

        I get married, the dog stays home.

        Y’ gotta wonder how Brady’s going to handle this sort of domesticity – whether it will go and make his head Romo-soft or not. I don’t expect Giselle to be wolfin’ Cheetos like Romo’s GF Simpson, but I’ll bet she messes with Tommy’s head just enough that he never wins the Supe again.

        • Petrocelli says:

          The way people treat their pets … often with more love than they show to humans … I’m not surprised by this.

          They live in an eccentric World where this sort of thing will prolly set off a fad.

          I thought the Pats kissed any future Super Bowl Championship goodbye when they let Branch slip away.

          … no, I’m not tryin’ to start a trash talk thread, why do you ask ?

          • scribe says:

            Trash-talk? Moi?

            I’m just sitting here, wearing a Stillers cap with my computer under the benison of a[n authentic] Terrible Towel draped across its top.

            Still savoring the glow and the sweet, soft buzz that comes with the earned appellation “World Champions”.

            BTW: why is it that Roger Goodell can fine Santonio Holmes $10k for “too much celebratin’” after waiting the better part of a month to get around to it, but when Jeff Reed beats the crap out of an empty towel dispenser in a Sheetz* gulp, gas-n-go place, pleads guilty and pays his $543.40 to The Man, not a word.


            * Where, when you order a sammich not only will they ask you if you want extra bacon on that, but also pepperoni is a condiment you can add to the sammich.
            Ketchup = vegetable, pepperoni=condiment?
            OK by me….

            • Petrocelli says:

              A glow no doubt made sweeter when it was disclosed that Big Ben played injured and made an incredible pass to Holmes in the end zone.

              I’m glad the Stillers won because A) we didn’t have to hear how much GOD loves Warner and B) hopefully, Madden will STFU about how Manning is a better QB than Ben.

            • Petrocelli says:

              True story, a male adult asked me once which pepper is used to make pepperoni and did not know
              it was made with meat.

              • scribe says:

                Are you sure he wasn’t referring to pepperoncini, those little green pickled peppers?

                B/c if he was a full-grown male human and didn’t know that pepperoni is made with meat, (a) he had/has a problem and (b) you need better conversational partners.

                • Petrocelli says:

                  LOL … no, he was talking about the famous pizza topping. Happy to say, he was not a friend, just someone I met at a party in Alberta and avoided for the rest of the evening.

                  Did I tell you about the lady who thought the Mona Lisa was famous because, “… no matter where you go in the room, her eyes follow you …”

                  She got rilly angry when I asked her to repeat that and when I laughed even harder the second time.

          • scribe says:

            Ahh. So now we see where Tommy-boy’s flaw will be.

            She earned and continues to earn more than he.

            She wanted the dogs in the weddin’, with lace on.
            A quick “show-me-yer-bankbook” moment between the loving couple.
            The dogs are in the weddin’, with lace on.

            She wear the pants – and what nice pants they are.

            • Petrocelli says:

              Somehow, I don’t think Tom married her for her $$$ or is inhibited by her … um … assets.

              Without making any politically incorrect comments about how incredibly hot Giselle is, I offer
              the following … “Happy Wife, Happy Life !”

      • freepatriot says:

        I got issues with the idea of marriage

        be it man, woman, or boxturtle (well, I’m kinda on PETA’s side on the third one)

        I got a problem with having to splain where I been, mostly cuz I can’t remember where all I been (when I go places, I go to A LOT of places)

        marriage is a fine institution, for those who need an institution

        man is not complete until he is married, then he’s finished …

        that’s how I see it, your mileage may vary

        • Petrocelli says:

          LOL !!!

          Statistics show that the number one cause of divorce is … marriage !

          I get asked all the time by well educated people, “How do I find my soulmate ?”

          My response is, “First find your soul, then you’ll find your soulmate.”

          All too often, people look at marriage the way they look at buying a Rolex or Porsche … that it will fill that inner sense of incompleteness, which it never can do.

  3. scribe says:

    Actually he’s following, not leading, on this one.

    One of the lawyers’ newspapers had an article about how PACER should be free, about two weeks ago. The article’s behind a subscription wall, so I won’t link to it. I read it in the hard copy.

    Part of the issue is that PACER was built for a dial-up world and, like so many other government computer systems, has not been upgraded in terms of overall capability since then.

    Another part which will need addressing is as it relates to transcripts. Y’all have to remember that the court reporters who do the transcribing are not judicial employees. They are independent contractors who are allowed by the Court to practice their trade in the courthouse. To an outside observer, they might appear as wholly part and parcel of the employees of the courthouse – they’ll have an office in the courthouse, they’ll work with one or two judges for extended periods of time, they’ll even have a courthouse phone. But they are independent.

    This is an interesting check and balance, as their status as independent contractors means they are not (or should not) be under the thumb of (and thereby prone to tilt transcribing*) frequent users of the court system or the government. Their commitment can remain to accuracy, and not continued government employment.

    Their deal is pretty simple: they have to report everything, but only have to transcribe what they report when someone requests the transcript and pays them for it. Their rates are set by the Court on a per-page basis, and vary according to how soon you want the transcript. If you don’t need it until two weeks from now, it might be a buck-fifty or so a page. If you’re in trial and cross-examining someone and need it in an hour (so you can spring the inconsistencies from one part of that liar’s testimony on him later in his testimony), get ready to get your wallet rocked. And it doesn’t take a lot of testimony to go through a page.

    While computer-aided systems have made quick turnaround on transcripts a lot simpler (you can even watch it come up on a laptop in real time, now) than in the days of a guy with a pen and steno pad*, there still is no substitute for a skilled reporter.

    So, I see paying for computer availability of transcripts as being an issue that is going to be not a little knotty. I can see a segregation of the issue into the two areas which are transcribed: trials, argument and testimony on the one hand and judges orally rendering decision on the other. It is a common practice in many courts on, say, a Friday afternoon, for the judge to come out on the bench into an empty or nearly-empty courtroom, and read into the record his/her decisions on any number of cases, usually motions of one sort or another. The reporter dutifully takes them down. This is an open judicial proceeding – few people ever attend – but the only thing the parties will get is a simple order saying the motion was granted or denied “for the reasons stated on the record in open court”. You want to find out why? Buy a transcript. I can see a need to have those transcripts freely available via computer, but not the trial transcripts.


    * If it was invented by people, it can be gamed.
    ** In past years, I did any number of depositions with a reporter who still used the pen and pad. He’d started reporting in the mid-30s and might have retired finally about five years ago. (Then again, he was getting smaller and slighter by the day and might have just blowing away in a strong wind. I dunno.) It was a trip to watch, and even moreso to see that, unaided, he got everything perfectly right.

  4. peachkfc says:

    What really irks me is that PACER charges the $.08 per page just to look at a docket report or read a filing online. For once, Lieberman is right, the court system should not be making a profit by ripping off the public in it’s exercise of the right to access court records.

  5. manys says:

    I’ll be shocked if Lieberman goes any further with this once he gets an initial rebuff. “Oh well, I tried,” while he gets his liberal bonafides for merely speaking on the issue. Cynical Joe.

  6. BayStateLibrul says:

    All eggs in one basket trade?
    I love Vrabel, good man, he

    The Boston Globe has confirmed that the Patriots have a trade in place with the Kansas City Chiefs for quarterback Matt Cassel.

    At this time, the compensation is not known.

    The official paperwork has been filed with the NFL.

    Cassel, who turns 27 in May, will be reunited with former Patriots Vice President of Player Personnel Scott Pioli, the Chiefs’ first-year general manager.

    Cassel was one of the NFL’s surprise stories in 2008. Despite having not started a regular-season game since high school, he stepped in for the injured Tom Brady in the Patriots’ season opener against the Chiefs, and ultimately led the team to an 11-5 season.

    Cassel completed 63.4 percent of his passes for 3,693 yards, with 21 touchdowns and 11 interceptions.

    Patriots linebacker Mike Vrabel is part of the trade agreement with Cassel.

Comments are closed.