On Thu, 2 Feb 1995, Holland and Knight wrote:
> Why is it that we can not rely upon the docketing system of Pacer[?]
We have no idea . . . To the extent that docket information is
available via PACER, we, in fact, do rely on the information obtained
from the PACER systems. Every now and then, an entry will exceed the
length permitted by PACER and we'll have to get the official version from
the Clerk. And every now and again, the PACER system docket will be
incomplete.
> [A]nd why
> would you suggest that $1 per minute is an inappropriate rate for
> accessing current court docket information?
Cattle just line up to be knocked over the head and slaughtered too.
> 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.
The seemingly small charge is certainly reasonable when you can pass the
charge through to a client. As an end user of PACER dockets, however, we
grumble every quarter when the PACER bill arrives. Them little $3 - $4
charges are now a significant expense item for us.
In the R.H. Macy chapter 11 cases, PACER was overwhelmed by the docketing
in those cases. Accordingly, the Court entered an order directing all
parties-in-interest to electronically file and retrieve pleadings in
those cases via the CLADTRAN system set-up by Lexis. We now pay $1 per
minute and $20 cents per page for retrieving documents in the macy cases.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST