Judge Considers Legality of PACER Fees
U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle will decide whether PACER is charging inordinately high fees and putting the revenue toward unauthorized uses.
March 23, 2018 at 06:20 PM
4 minute read
A federal district court heard arguments Friday on whether the federal courts are inappropriately overcharging for public access to court documents to fund certain projects.
U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle is considering a class-action lawsuit, filed by the National Veterans Legal Services Program, the National Consumer Law Center and Alliance for Justice, that alleges the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts overcharges for online access to dockets and documents via the Public Access to Court Electronic Records system. The judge appeared skeptical of both parties in Friday's hearing, which centered on whether the courts can fund only PACER, or broader public access programs, with the fees.
Huvelle certified the class, which includes anyone who paid PACER fees between 2010 and 2016. PACER currently charges 10 cents per page, with a maximum of $3 for “any case document, docket sheet, or case-specific report.”
The plaintiffs argue those prices far exceed the marginal cost for the PACER program, and are illegally used to pay for the Case Management/Electronic Case Files system (CM/ECF), which litigants use to file documents. The fees are also used for other programs, such as victim notifications under the Violent Crime Control Act and e-juror services.
The 2002 E-Government Act authorizes courts to only charge PACER fees that reimburse the cost of providing the service, the plaintiffs allege. The government says the courts can spend PACER fee revenue on public access services as it deems necessary.
In the roughly three-hour long hearing Friday, Huvelle questioned whether costs associated with the CM/ECF system are, in reality, costs associated with PACER. Gupta Wessler's Jonathan Taylor, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said that the CM/ECF system is used for filing documents, whereas PACER is separate, and makes the documents available for the public.
However, the judge said it appeared PACER was simply a portal, and that those who pay only for PACER are actually paying for access to the documents filed and maintained via CM/ECF.
“The PACER people, if there was no ECF, they wouldn't get much,” the judge said.
Huvelle also questioned the government's assertion that certain programs count as public access programs, such as jury notifications or the victim notifications.
Brian Field, a lawyer for the government, said those programs are often operated through mechanisms in the CM/ECF system, and are also sent to members of the public. He said the law does not require that the programs benefit the entire public, but rather members of the public.
“I don't understand how far you allow the definition of public program to be stretched,” Huvelle said.
Field also said the judiciary submitted its 2007 financial plan to both the House and Senate Appropriations committees, which said there would be an “expanded use” of the PACER fees. Some members of the committees then sent letters to the AO saying they had no objection to the plans as a whole, but did not specifically mention the expanded use of the fees.
While Field said that was evidence of Congress' approval of how the fees were being used, Huvelle was skeptical. She asked if there was any case that showed she could use the lawmakers' letters that way in making a decision. Field said he did not have an example, and she said that if he found one, he could let her know within 24 hours.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readFederal Judge Grants FTC Motion Blocking Proposed Kroger-Albertsons Merger
3 minute readFrozen-Potato Producers Face Profiteering Allegations in Surge of Antitrust Class Actions
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Recent Decisions Regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- 2The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 3Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 4For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 5As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250