Federal Judiciary Misused PACER Fees, Judge Says in Class Action Ruling
"The court rejects the parties' polar opposite views of the statute, and finds the defendant liable for certain costs that post-date the passage of the E-Government Act, even though these expenses involve dissemination of information via the Internet," Huvelle wrote.
March 31, 2018 at 08:30 PM
4 minute read
Screen grab from PACER.
The federal judiciary misused millions of dollars in fees derived from an electronic public web portal for court documents to fund certain programs that federal law did not allow, a Washington judge ruled on Saturday.
U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle said the United States is liable for certain improper expenses that violated the E-Government Act of 2002. The ruling came in a class action that alleged the judiciary's administrative office set fees too high for the online portal Public Access to Court Electronic Records, commonly known as PACER.
The suit, filed by the National Veterans Legal Services Program, the National Consumer Law Center and Alliance for Justice, seeks monetary relief for allegedly excessive fees charged between 2010 and 2016. The courts collected more than $920 million in PACER fees in that time span, according to court filings in the case.
The judiciary was not permitted to use PACER fees to pay for, among other things, courtroom technology expenses, web-based juror services and victim notification, Huvelle concluded. The federal courts in 2008 spent $24.7 million on courtroom technology, court records show.
Huvelle turned down the challengers' argument that PACER fees must be restricted solely to the marginal cost of running PACER itself, and she dismissed the government's position that the judiciary has latitude to spend PACER fees on broad programs that might benefit some members of the public but not all.
“The court rejects the parties' polar opposite views of the statute, and finds the defendant liable for certain costs that post-date the passage of the E-Government Act, even though these expenses involve dissemination of information via the Internet,” Huvelle wrote.
Jon Taylor, a partner at Washington's Gupta Wessler who argued on March 23 for the challengers, said in a tweet Saturday:
In our lawsuit challenging PACER fees, a federal court just issued an opinion holding that the fees are too high, but taking a middle-ground approach: https://t.co/KCnxrQbJmk. I had the privilege of arguing this case on behalf of @Lawyer4Warriors, @NCLC4consumers, & @AFJustice.
— Jon Taylor (@jontaylor1) March 31, 2018
Huvelle certified a class of “individuals and entities who have paid fees for the use of PACER between April 21, 2010, and April 21, 2016.” News reporters routinely use PACER to access new court filings. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and a group of media organizations filed an amicus brief supporting the challengers.
Taylor called Huvelle's decision “a major moment in the fight for enhancing public access to court records, and will help redeem the promise of the E-Government Government Act of 2002, which Congress passed to reduce PACER fees and make electronic court records freely available to the greatest extent possible.” He added: “The decision should provide enormous benefits to litigants, nonprofit advocacy groups, journalists, scholars, and everyone else who has been forced to pay unlawfully high fees for accessing public records.”
The judiciary's courtroom technology expenses include information-technology equipment; digital audio recording equipment; and video equipment.
Huvelle questioned the nexus between PACER fees and courtroom technology. At most, she said, fees for public access to court records might be used to help pay for audio equipment “that allows digital audio recordings to be made during court proceedings and then made part of the electronic docket accessible through PACER.”
Huvelle continued: “The court does not see how flat-screen TVs for jurors or those seated in the courtroom, which are used to display exhibits or other evidence during a court proceeding, fall within the statute as they do not provide the public with access to electronic information.”
The judge set a hearing for April 18 to discuss the next steps in the case.
“The court urges the parties to confer prior to the next status conference to determine for the years 2010 to 2016 the amount of courtroom technology expenditures that cannot be paid with PACER fees,” Huvelle wrote in her ruling.
Huvelle's ruling is posted below:
Read more:
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 AllFTC Reaches Settlements With Two Companies on Claims of Selling Sensitive Location Data
Wilkinson Stekloff Tops Big Law, Doles Out 150% Above-Market Bonuses
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'No Finer Work': New York City Council Confirms Next Corporation Counsel
- 2Here’s What Litigators Want For Christmas
- 3Reported Refusal to Officiate Gay Wedding Prompts Review by NY Judicial Misconduct Watchdog
- 4Frozen-Potato Producers Face Profiteering Allegations in Surge of Antitrust Class Actions
- 5CooperSurgical Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss
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