Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Consumer Law Blogs -> CL&P Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Consumer Law
: CL&P BlogFederal court using scare tactics to block sharing of public records
By Paul Levy
It appears that the US Courts, concerned about competition from software that offers the possibility of widespread free access to documents filed on federal judicial dockets, for which the public would otherwise have to pay the courts at the rate of 8 cents a page, are ready to resort to scare tactics to discourage lawyers from using that software.
As recently announced, RECAP is a Firefox plug-in that automatically downloads to a free, public archive all documents that a lawyer or other consumer uses when obtaining paid access to court documents on the PACER web sites maintained by federal trial and appellate courts. At the same time, users of RECAP can tell whether the documents that they are trying to access have already been downloaded to the public archive by another RECAP user; if so, the user can avoid the $.08 per page charge that the user would otherwise pay to view the document on the judicial electronic docket. These are public documents ? if RECAP is willing to maintain them and make them available for free, the courts have no business stopping them.
In this regard, we are advised that the court system is charging far more than the cost of maintaining is electronic dockets as the fee for viewing and downloading documents. Because PACER has become a profit center for the courts, when Public Citizen lawyers decided to adopt RECAP for our own downloads, we recognized the possibility that the courts might take some action to protect their revenue source.
We did not have long to wait. I received the following shot across RECAP?s bow in the form of a notice to all ECF filers sent today by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan:
Once a user loads RECAP, documents that he or she subsequently accesses via PACER are automatically sent to a public Internet repository. Other RECAP/PACER users are then able to see whether documents are available from the Internet repository. At this time, RECAP does not appear to provide users with access to restricted or sealed documents.
Please be aware that RECAP is ?open-source? software, which means it can be freely obtained by anyone with Internet access and could possibly be modified for benign or malicious purposes. This raises the possibility that the software could be used for facilitating unauthorized access to restricted or sealed documents. Accordingly, CM/ECF filers are reminded to be diligent about their computer security and document redaction practices to ensure that documents and sensitive information are not inadvertently shared or compromised.
The court and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts will continue to analyze the implications of RECAP or related-software and advise you of any ongoing or further concerns.
In other words, the courts? experts have not been able to find any present security concerns, but they want users to worry that ?open source? software is more vulnerable to malign modifications. Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.
There is one aspect of this warning from the Eastern District of Michigan that does bear consideration, in light of the point made about RECAP by Eric Turkewitz that the free availability of PACER documents makes it easier to obtain private information that is often included in court filings. It is certainly true that public availability of these documents -- especially if the RECAP archive will be searchable -- will significantly increase the consequences of filings that inadvertently disclose private information such as social security numbers and exact birth dates that Federal Rule 5.2 requires to be redacted from electronic filings and only submitted in paper form if it is essential that the information be provided to the court. The rise of RECAP should give lawyers an added incentive to be careful about their redactions to comply with Rule 5.2.
Full post as published by CL&P Blog on August 21, 2009 (boomark / email).
H&R Block Retirement Plan Fraud
How to Join Class Action Suit
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
Privacy Protection Act 42 USC 21A
Federal Newsroom Law
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Federal Adoption Tax Credit
Financial Incentive for Adoptive Parents
Reddy Ice Holdings Inc., Arctic Glacier International Inc., and Home City Ice Co.
allegedly violated federal antitrust laws by fixing prices for packaged cubed, crushed, block, and dry ice in the US and Canada.
Medical Records
To Stay out of Pharma's Hands
Hep B, HIV Scare
2,800 New Jersey Residents Urged to Get Tested
Countrywide
Faces Class Action over Strong-Arm Tactics used to Intimidate Appraisers
Comcast Agrees Tentative $16 Million Settlement in Consumer File Sharing Class Action
Comcast Agrees Tentative $16 Million Settlement in Consumer File Sharing Class Action

Scare Tactics and Our Surveillance Bill
"Scare Tactics and Our Surveillance Bill"
Harvard Prof & Students Fight the RIAA Today
Attorney-Client privilege in Ohio public records law
COURTS: Briefcase causes scare at federal courthouse
This week in public records: Secret Juries








