This is an idea whose time came a long time ago. When I was a community newspaper editor, these fees were really a roadblock to getting information. Underpaid small-town reporters don't exactly have expense accounts.
8
Charging for PACER should have never occurred to begin with and efforts to challenge -- and change -- this system should have been fast-tracked through the courts on day one.
7
10 cents per printed page is too much. 10 cents per electronic page is outrageous. This needs to be free.
11
I appreciate the analyses of those who have parsed the needs of various document-seekers and have devised cost-saving measures and work-arounds. However, those who simply invoke citizens' entitlement to access the court system have it right.
A U.S. marshal explained it to me in 1954, after initially denying me entry to the Alexandria district courtroom in which NAACP v. Commonwealth of Virginia was to be heard. "In the United States of America," he said, "Every citizen should have access to our courts." At age 11 I had come without a sport coat, required of all male attendees . The marshal gave me a loaner (a huge, garish, Sears yellow/maroon hounds-tooth) from among others donated for citizens in my situation. The U.S. marshal's civics lesson, and the opportunity hear Thurgood Marshall argue against the Virginia AG, were priceless.
Of course the needs of students, journalists, litigants, et al. for access to all aspects of the judicial process are much more consequential, but the principle is the same. And the logistics for document access are simpler.
19
"Judge Scheindlin said Pacer fees were particularly harmful to litigants who represent themselves ...."
Not entirely correct. All litigants, including pro se litigants, are entitle to one free download of all papers filed with the court in their own cases.
1
These charges are nothing short of outrageous! Whatever happened to the Freedom of information act (FOIA), or, at minimum, the spirit of that act? I don't even understand why the 2002 law in question even contained that apparent loophole; apparently, it wasn't written very well. I can see why the courts would charge a dime a page if someone requests mailed hardcopies, but charging for electronic access is outrageous. Whether the courts like it or not, they are, after all, one of the three branches of our government, and we taxpayers are paying them for their work; hence, the results of their work should be available for free (FOIA!?) unless the court records are sealed, and those are not supposed to be available to anybody unless very few exceptions apply.
If we keep going down the "pay to play" road in our justice system, what's next? Rent-A-Judge?
6
I worked for a public radio station on a very limited budget. We couldn’t afford these fees. So every time I needed to review a document I had to walk to the federal courthouse. I applaud those who brought this suit and pray for their success.
8
We should be entirely digitized by now. We’ve had the hardware and software for several years to bulk upload and auto-tag documents.
Government offices should all be off paper by now.
Generally, the cost savings from digitizing more than pay for the digitization and electronic storage/access. Digitizing frees up office space occupied by filing cabinets, frees up staff time consumed by manual document retrieval from physical filing cabinets (including traveling to/from), eliminates problems like missing or lost records, ensures against risk of loss by fire, flood, etc. Not to mention it eliminates delays and makes government more transparent and fair.
8
Performing a case search, retrieving dockets in text form, and viewing dates of hearings all cost a fee in Pacer, not just retrieving case documents. Before a searcher can even determine if he or she needs a document there is a charge just to get that far.
9
What person or group has decided to litigate rather than simply providing access? Is DANIEL F. VAN HORN, Chief, Civil Division the decision maker or just the poor guy whose name is attached to the brief?
2
When the vast majority of people arrested in this country receive little or no legal representation, are held in jail for months when unable to make bail, never receive a trial (speedy or otherwise), and are coerced into plea 'agreements', bemoaning these fees for on-line access to court decisions is hardly pushing the envelope. Maybe the fees should be 1000 times higher for law-firms and their white-collar clients in order to raise government funds to hire a legion of legal aides for the indigent.
3
This article is incomplete:
1. Exactly who did the challengers sue?
2. Why is the case on appeal? Sounds like the challengers won their initial case, so who appealed it and why? Interview them?
3. Who were the people that set the PACER rates? Why? What was their thinking? Interview them. Read their court filings.
6
PACER dates from the earliest days of online document access, and as such charged for the service so as to defray costs - which were considerable. This is no longer so. Just as government IT costs are no longer dealt with solely thru a GSA list, as tho routers and CPUs and bandwidth were the same purchase object as a pickup truck, PACER needs to shift to being as freely accessible as the Library of Congress, House of Representatives bills or NARA digitized documents.
3
A dime a page seems like a smoking deal if you have to deal with Sacramento County Superior Court’s paywall. $1.00 a page!!! Grrr.
6
Yes. This is a big big problem. I first ran into this when a friend was being unjustly prosecuted by the feds. I wanted to dig into his case and see what was in the court records but I found the enormous cost of acquiring the records was prohibitive.
Without transparency in our courts only the wealthy will have access. This is one reason why America has more people (mostly poor, mostly minority) in prisons than any other country.
Without transparency we only have justice for the affluent.
7
@Richard: Every litigant is entitled to a free download of all papers filed in that case. If your friend signs up for the federal efiling system, he could download all the filed documents in his case for you at no charge.
1
@David Yes, but e-filing requires, at a minimum, a computer, scanner and internet connection, some or all of which may be beyond the finances or capacity of some pro se litigants. And, not all courts afford pro se litigants permission to file electronically. Also, the one free look is only available at the time of filing by clicking on the link in the notice of electronic filing. If not done then and the PDF saved, you have to log on to Pacer and pay.
2
I've been a professional journalist for nearly four decades in the Austin, Texas area. I use PACER from time to time. I've never enjoyed the $3 cap mentioned in this article but PACER is among the least expensive court records here. The Texas Supreme Court and Third Court of Appeals provide free records. It's the county and district court clerks, enabled by fees authorized by county commissioners courts, that are robbing the public of access. The Travis County District Clerk's office charges $1 per page, for example. I am often able to get around the fee by using a smart-phone app that creates a PDF of each page (one at a time), from either what I see on the public access computer screen or from a printed-out page. But a buck a page is simply outrageous.
11
Local courts are even less transparent. This whole barrier to public records needs fixing. Soon.
1
It's great to see public discussion of the Pacer documents!
There are people who have been fighting for public access to public documents, notably Carl Malamud and the late Aaron Schwartz. Since it is illegal for the Federal Government to own copyrights, there is no legal way to prevent the public from sharing public federal documents once they get them - from a library or from the Pacer system or otherwise. There is a movement to "recycle" Pacer documents!
Those interested can search for "Aaron's PACER Project" or for "Carl Malamud."
3
In Pennsylvania, state court dockets are open-access, and many (if not all) counties allow searchers to find and print property records (including mortgage documents) from their own computers. Either the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has figured out a way for taxpayer dollars to pay for free taxpayer access to these documents, or some magic is happening. I opt for the "figured out" method and wonder if the federal government can be learn from state government's example.
5
The cost of obtaining records is prohibitive, especially when third parties obtain them for you as part of a service and they tack processing and handling fees. The cost should be zero, always, for everything, including birth certificates and ID.
www.rimaregas.com
6
As a lawyer practicing almost entirely in federal courts I have several thoughts. First, for anyone who remembers having to go personally or send a messenger service to the federal court house file room or federal archives to order up copies of files, undertake eyes on review, identify specific documents to be copied and then wait the week or two for the job to be completed, PACER is like magic. Second, the $3.00 cap on copies of any particular filing (other than opinions which are free) means that the actual charges are pretty low. Third, should PACER be free for unrepresented litigants and researchers? Absolutely. To use PACER one must set up an acct. There should be an ability to set up types of accts where there is no charge, not only in situations where a person can show they financially qualify for a fee waiver.
7
@P-Town Forever
As a US citizen, I disagree with you suggestion to setup no charge types of accounts. Making the process more complex may not be the best approach.
Why are accounts needed to access public records? Why is a login ID required? Are login and retrieval records retained, and if so why? Get rid of the user registration, login, billing and most of the web-access customer support costs. Why not truly open-up access to Federal court case history?
I realize this would be uncomfortable for some attorneys, much like open access to medical information has been uncomfortable for many physicians. But, it's inevitable and for the greater good of our wonderful Nation.
It's the right thing to do.
8
It should be made clear that it is not cost-free to upload court documents to Pacer. It is a time-consuming process that is accomplished by employees uploading these documents. Before Pacer, members of the public wishing to view court filings had to come to the clerk's office and view them, which is still available and free to this day. People assume because it's online it should be free, but as anyone who is reading this article online knows, there is a cost associated with viewing data online.
4
@Rls
The whole government is for the public benefit though
(in theory) and the cost of a 1-time upload by a low paid staffer is trivial considering the hundreds or even thousands of times that document may be accessed over the years. Maybe 10 cents a document would be appropriate, but at that point why charge at all when it is a valuable public service so many of which are provided for free (paid for with taxes).
3
@Keith I don't know if you access Pacer documents, but most of them are not accessed hundreds or thousands of times. Maybe the rare high profile case, but regular run of the mill isn't accessed at all.
I'm agnostic as to whether they should be free to the public. My point is that they aren't cost free to upload.
2
@Rls We are already paying the cost of uploading these documents through our taxes.
2
I agree that public records should be free (or as close to free as possible), but wouldn't granting damages for these plaintiffs allow any law firm, litigant, independent journalist, news agency, etc. that has ever paid PACER charges to file suit? Where would the presumably millions of dollars in damages money come from?
1
You're right about this, Mr. Liptak. For most access by the public, Pacer should be free.
I visited the Pacer web site about a week ago, to try to access documents related to an article I read in this newspaper. I saw description of the fee you mention in this article, $0.10 a page. I didn't see mention of the $3.00 cap you describe, and since legal documents are often lengthy, I moved on.
I hope your piece motivates the courts to eliminate the fees, and least for use by private citizens, and surely for reporters and the media.
Thanks for this timely article.
21
I certainly agree that public records should be free. As a lawyer who practiced in federal courts, it is important to note that the federal judiciary is badly underfunded, and any loss of revenue should be replaced by other funds. The idea that the judiciary spends lavishly on frivolities is simply incorrect.
10
@David Thanks for making this important point. "Flat screen TVs for jurors" sounds as if the jurors are watching sit-coms. No, the TVs are in the jury box and are necessary when trials involve documents or video evidence, as they so often do. As for "notices in bankruptcy cases," the Bankruptcy Noticing Center is vital to the functioning of a system that handles tens of millions of cases every year. These kinds of expenses can either be paid through income from fees, such as PACER fees, or through taxes levied on the public at large. But they have to be paid. I wonder which option most citizens would prefer . . .
1
@David
You are clearly unacquainted with the opulent federal courthouse in Boston, the hot and cold running perquisites afforded its habitues, and the stratagems by which they insulate themselves from the very public they are paid to serve.
@Frank McNamara. That opulent courthouse was probably built decades ago.
I agree, 10 cents may not sound like much, but it adds up pretty quick if you are trying to research an issue and not just get one specific document.
11
This is just another example of Justice being used to generate revenue.
Justice should not be paid for by those violating laws, or by those seeking public information, unless there is an actual cost involved.
Justice that is not free and open to the public is not justice, but simply a form or "Secret Policing"; a fascist construct to seize and retain power.
The ONLY revenue that should be directly tied to Justice, the Courts, and Law Enforcement is the court ordered fines as a deterrent, and there should NEVER be a reinforcing reward based on that "revenue". That is the type of reinforcement that discourages good police patrol and community relations by rewarding crime over crime prevention.
14
This is ridiculous. In Australia, every public court finding is free for all and at the same time.
5
@Sun story says that judges' findings are free. It is the supporting documents that attract the 10 cent per page charge.
PACER’s fees are far from “preposterous.” I use PACER and have never been billed, because they don’t charge you unless you use a certain amount. The structure is set up so that those who make a living from accessing the service shoulder the burden of the cost. Perhaps the fees should be reassessed, but it is far from “an intimidating pay wall.” I am disappointed that the editors on The Times let such a blatant advocacy piece off the op-Ed pages.
4
@Jason. Public records should be free, especially where there is virtually no cost to make them available. Part of the problem is that publishing companies make money by providing these same records and I suspect they are behind the effort to keep fees high.
18
@Jason
What exactly do you think is "blatant advocacy" about a news article that notes the importance of a transparent judicial system? Also, the law clearly states that charging fees beyond the cost of providing the documents is not permitted. This is a no-brainer.
2
@Jason
The vast majority of PACER fees are paid by the credit industry - lenders, reporting services, etc.
And it's the litigants themselves that upload the documents to PACER, so court personnel are not heavily involved managing the input of the documents into the system. Thus, the costs to the court system of digital document management are negligible.
6
@jtf123 You're understating the involvement of court personnel who must upload orders, opinions, minute entries, transcripts of proceedings, etc. They also review court filings to ensure that the litigants have followed the proper procedures. Even so, the filings should be made available to the public without charge.
Anything that improves oversight of systemic biases in our judicial system or helps poorer plaintiffs and defendants have equal access to records is a good thing.
And given the dubious quality of some of the GOP’s recent judicial nominees more public oversight may well be needed.
5