Why is it that we can not rely upon the docketing system of Pacer and why
would you suggest that $1 per minute is an inappropriate rate for
accessing current court docket information? A docket sheet can be retrieved
within 3-4 minutes, thus a $3-$4 charge. This seems quite reasonable to
me and others with whom I have spoken.
Glenn Ross
Managing Librarian
Holland & Knight (813) 227-6629 -- Phone
400 N. Ashley, Suite 2300 (813) 223-9240 -- Fax
Tampa, FL 33602 rossg@class.org -- Internet
On Thu, 2 Feb 1995, Alan Sugarman wrote:
> The following administrative order was issued by the Second Circuit,
> which essentially refuses to charge $1.00 per minute for access to the
> Court's opinion bulletin board system as "mandated" by the Judicial
> Conference.
>
> The Seventh, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuit have apparently adopted a
> similar position.
>
> At present, the First Circuit is charging, and the Fourth, Eighth, and
> Tenth Circuits have announced that they intend to charge.
>
> In addition to the cost barrier, the other barrier raised by this system
> is the requirement to establish a PACER acoount, which will in practice
> mitigate against use by the general public.
>
> It should also be noted that the District Courts charge $60 an hour for
> access to the PACER docketing systems. It is interesting to note that
> despite this rate, a party may not rely upon the docketing information!!
>
> HyperLaw believes that courts should not charge more than the incremental
> costs of providing information, and that court charges
> should not exceed private sector charges for providing similar services.
> Thus, under this principle, not only are the $1.00 per minute charges
> excessive, but so are copying charges which are in some courts $.50 to
> $1.00 per page, as compared to the "Kinko" price of $.05 to $.10 per
> page. Because United States District Court opinions are in general
> available only through photocopying, this pricing policy has the effect
> of creating artificially high barriers to access to the market of
> republishing those opinions, and reducing the number of competitors that
> can enter this market on a nationwide scale, thereby increasing costs to
> all consumers.
>
> It would appear that many courts rely upon the pricing schedules
> established by the Judicial Conference. The Second Circuit action would
> suggest that those charges and the policies behind them need to be
> reexamined.
>
>
> Alan Sugarman
> HyperLaw, Inc. ®
> Federal Appeals on Disc tm CD-ROM
> sugarman@panix.com
> 212-787-2812
>
> ********************************************************
> *********************************************************
> THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
> FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
> -------------------------------------------x
> IN THE MATTER OF ELECTRONIC PUBLIC ACCESS ADMINISTRATIVE
> -------------------------------------------x ORDER
>
> JON O. NEWMAN, Chief Judge:
>
> Pursuant to Public Law 101-515, section 404, the Judicial
> Conference of the United States has established a fee for public
> access to Federal Court records available in electronic form.
>
> The miscellaneous fee schedule provides a fee:
>
> For usage of electronic access to court data,
> $1 per minute of usage [provided the court
> may, for good cause, exempt persons or classes
> of persons from the fees, in order to avoid
> unreasonable burdens and to promote public access
> to such information].
>
> In Janaury 1991, the Second Circuit made available to the
> public, without charge, access to its Public Access to Court
> Electronic Records (PACER) system and to its Electronic Dissemination
> of Opinions System (EDOS). Docket sheets were provided by the PACER
> system and the text of published judicial opinions were provided by
> EDOS. The PACER and EDOS systems were consolidated into the single
> Appellate Bulletin Board System (ABBS) in January, 1995.
>
> Observed usage on the predecessor systems averaged approximately
> 3 hours per day by 200 users on the single-user PACER system plus 5 hours
> per day by 61 users on the two-user EDOS system. This usage would have
> amounted to approximately $124,800 per annum if billed at a rate of
> $1 per minute.
>
> The variable costs of providing electronic public access are
> predominately the cost of 3 telephone lines which amount to approximately
> $30 per line per month, for a total of $1,080 per annum. It is believed
> that this cost is offset by savings to the Court which would otherwise
> bear the burden of providing the same information free of charge by means
> of public telephone inquiries to deputy clerks and personal visits to the
> office of the Clerk of the Court. In addition, costs to the bar and the
> public, who are geographically dispersed throughout the states of New York,
> Connecticut, and Vermont, are substantially reduced by the availability of
> electronic public access to court information.
>
> The Court concludes that imposition of a fee for electronic
> access to its public electronic records at a rate in excess of 100 times
> variable costs would create a serious impediment to the promotion of
> public access to such information, and would be an unreasonable burden
> on the Court, the bar, and the public.
>
> The Court therefore exempts all classes or persons from these
> fees to avoid unreasonable burdens and to promote public access to such
> information.
>
> Jon O. Newman
> Chief Judge
>
> Signed: New York, New York
> January 25, 1995
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST