Skip to main content

Class Action Suit Challenges Legality of PACER Fees

Back in January, we wrote about a class action suit involving PACER, the government-operated, online database of federal court documents. The complaint in that case (Fisher v. Duff) claimed that the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts was overcharging users for access to docket reports on PACER, due to an erroneous formula used to count the number of documents accessed.

Last week another class action was filed against the government, this one challenging the legality of the PACER fees themselves. The plaintiffs, three nonprofit legal service organizations, claim that the fees “far exceed the cost of providing the records,” and thus violate the E-Government Act of 2002. The Act provides for the imposition of court fees for electronic access to information “to reimburse expenses in providing these services.” The complaint alleges that the Administrative Office has used excessive fees “to cover the costs of unrelated projects—ranging from audio systems to flat screens for jurors—at the expense of public access.” You can read the full complaint here.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Spying and International Law

With increasing numbers of foreign governments officially objecting to now-widely publicized U.S. espionage activities, the topic of the legality of these activities has been raised both by the target governments and by the many news organizations reporting on the issue.For those interested in better understanding this controversy by learning more about international laws concerning espionage, here are some legal resources that may be useful.

The following is a list of multinational treaties relevant to spies and espionage:
Brussels Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War (1874).Although never ratified by the nations that drafted it, this declaration is one of the earliest modern examples of an international attempt to codify the laws of war.Articles 19-22 address the identification and treatment of spies during wartime.These articles served mainly to distinguish active spies from soldiers and former spies, and provided no protections for spies captured in the act.The Hagu…

Citing to Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated: Finding Accurate Publication Dates (without touching a book)

When citing to a current statute, both the Bluebook (rule 12.3.2) and Greenbook (rule 10.1.1) require a  practitioner to provide the publication date of the bound volume in which the cited code section appears. For example, let's cite to the codified statute section that prohibits Texans from hunting or selling bats, living or dead. Note, however, you may remove or hunt a bat that is inside or on a building occupied by people. The statute is silent as to Batman, who for his own safety, best stay in Gotham City.
This section of the Texas Parks and Wildlife code is 63.101. "Protection of Bats." After checking the pocket part and finding no updates in the supplement, my citation will be:
Tex. Parks & Wild. Code Ann. § 63.101 (West ___ ). When I look at the statute in my bound volume of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, I can clearly see that the volume's publication date is 2002. But, when I find the same citation on Westlaw or LexisNexis, all I can see is that the …