{"id":13960,"date":"2022-02-16T18:01:07","date_gmt":"2022-02-16T18:01:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/02\/16\/nonprofit-forced-to-delete-thousands-of-court-documents-obtained-with-a-fee-waiver-because-pacer-is-greedy-and-stupid\/"},"modified":"2022-02-16T18:01:07","modified_gmt":"2022-02-16T18:01:07","slug":"nonprofit-forced-to-delete-thousands-of-court-documents-obtained-with-a-fee-waiver-because-pacer-is-greedy-and-stupid","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/02\/16\/nonprofit-forced-to-delete-thousands-of-court-documents-obtained-with-a-fee-waiver-because-pacer-is-greedy-and-stupid\/","title":{"rendered":"Nonprofit Forced To Delete Thousands Of Court Documents Obtained With A Fee Waiver Because PACER Is Greedy And Stupid"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

\n

from the gov’t-to-public:-if-you-can’t-pay-us-twice-for-documents-then-you-can<\/i> dept<\/h3>\n

\nIf you’re not familiar with the Free Law Project<\/a>, you should be. It’s a nonprofit that does everything it can to make access to court documents free. It all starts with the RECAP extension<\/a>, which automatically saves copies<\/a> of documents downloaded from PACER to CourtListener.com<\/a>, giving people without PACER accounts and\/or the funds (or patience!) to utilize the federal government’s broken-down, overpriced system<\/a>, access to federal court documents.\n<\/p>\n

\nUnfortunately, the Free Law Project still has to play by PACER’s exceedingly stupid rules, even when it’s doing nothing more than automatically archiving documents accessed by PACER users with the RECAP extension enabled. The US Courts system continues to believe it needs to generate a profit, even when it<\/em> does nothing more<\/a> with millions in PACER fees than purchase new perks for the people who work for the court system or have the ability to actually visit federal courthouses.\n<\/p>\n

\nThat’s not what PACER fees are supposed to be used for. They’re supposed to be used to modernize the PACER system and eliminate barriers to online access — the chief among those being fees. Instead, fees have increased while the front end of PACER — along with its completely broken search function — have mostly remained unchanged.\n<\/p>\n

\nThe US Courts PACER program has always been extremely mercenary, even when it’s engaging in acts of temporary benevolence. Users can sometimes obtain fee waivers to lower the cost of accessing multiple documents. In this case, a researcher obtained a waiver and accessed thousands of court records. Great news for the beneficiaries of the Free Law Project’s CourtListener site\u2026 or so you would think.\n<\/p>\n

\nBut that’s not how this works, as the Free Law Project recently tweeted<\/a>. [Threadreader version<\/a>.] It had to delete thousands of court records this researcher legally obtained with a fee waiver because the federal court system says users with waivers can’t do what they want with the data and documents they’ve obtained.\n<\/p>\n

\n

\nWe scraped these records for a researcher using a fee waiver they got. According to the fee schedule, any content that you get while using such a waiver cannot be shared. This is the extremely absurd official policy:<\/em>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

\n\"\"<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\nIf you can’t read\/see the embedded picture, it contains a portion of the restrictions on users who secure fee exemptions:\n<\/p>\n

\n

\n– the user receiving the exemption must agree to not sell the data obtained as a result and must not transfer any data obtained as the result of a fee exemption, unless expressly authorized by the court<\/strong>\u2026<\/em>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nThis means the Free Law Project downloads the content as instructed by the RECAP extension. Then it has to delete<\/em> the content to comply with the user’s fee exemption. Why does it have to do this? Because the federal court system says so. And why does the court system say users with fee exemptions can’t share the documents with others? Well, I’m sure court reps would say several<\/em> things in response to this question, but none would be as true as the answer once given to the Free Law Project<\/a>:\n<\/p>\n

\n

\nOnce, in a fit of honesty, a high-level member of the AO [Administrative Office] explained that the reason for this was because otherwise it would undermine the fee schedule.?<\/em>\n<\/p>\n

\nIn other words, if researchers could share their raw data, the AO wouldn’t make as much money off court data<\/em>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nPACER is here to provide access to court documents. But not without making some money first. Hence the numerous restrictions on seldom-granted fee waivers. As the Free Law Project points out<\/a>, this is not how PACER is supposed to work.\n<\/p>\n

\n

\nObviously, this contravenes the goal of PACER. It also makes reproducing research largely impossible.<\/em>\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nThe documents were obtained legally. But the court system says it’s against the rules for another party to continue to retain them. And now documents that could have increased the public’s understanding of the court system have been vaporized because the government doesn’t want the PACER money train even slightly derailed. And stupidity like this is only going to continue until PACER is deprived of its revenue stream with legislation making PACER access free<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n

\n
\"Hide<\/p>\n
\n

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone\u2019s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.<\/p>\n

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites \u2014 especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.<\/p>\n

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying\/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support<\/a>. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise \u2014 and every little bit helps. Thank you.<\/p>\n

\u2013The Techdirt Team<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Filed Under: court documents<\/a>, free law project<\/a>, pacer<\/a>, recap<\/a>, transparency<\/a>, us courts<\/a>
Companies: free law project<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n