Letter to Kat Cammack PACER Fees Class Action
U.S. Congresswoman Kat Cammack
5550 Northwest 111th Boulevard
Gainesville, FL 32653
RE: PACER Fees Class Action
https://www.pacerfeesclassaction.com/
Dear Congresswoman Cammack,
As one of your constituents, this is my comment on a federal class action lawsuit against the federal judiciary over PACER fees, a matter not getting sufficient current coverage in the press.
PACER is an acronym for Public Access to Court Electronic Records, and is the electronic public access service for United States federal court (Wikipedia) documents. It allows authorized users to obtain case and docket information from the United States district courts, United States courts of appeals, and United States bankruptcy courts, but not the U.S. Supreme Court. The system is managed by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (Wikipedia) in accordance with the policies of the Judicial Conference (Wikipedia)(FJC)(28 USC 331) headed by U.S. Chief Justice John G. Roberts.
The case alleges the federal judiciary overcharged users of PACER by millions dollars, see:
National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al. v. United States
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, Case No. 1:16-CV-00745-PLF
U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Docket No. 2024-1757
https://www.pacerfeesclassaction.com/court-documents.aspx
I am a member of the class. I paid $976.56 to the federal judiciary for PACER fees during the time covered by the case, April 21, 2010 to May 31, 2018. The law firm MOTLEY RICE LLC represents the class, and represents me as a member of the class.
The Complaint alleges the federal judiciary violated the E-Government Act of 2002 (DOJ)(Congress) that authorizes PACER fees "as a charge for services rendered," but "only to the extent necessary" and "to reimburse expenses in providing these services." The Complaint alleges at Paragraph 28 "…the plaintiffs believe that the number of class members is approximately 2,000,000."
Two million victims in a case against the federal judiciary headed by Chief Justice John Roberts? I believe this shows the federal judiciary needs more oversight by Congress. (House Judiciary Committee) (Congressional oversight, Wikipedia)
The Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] alleges the federal judiciary limits PACER fee waivers, and targets those who cannot pay. One example appears at paragraph 25, page 12, and alleges:
25. The other example is from five years earlier, when private collection lawyers representing the PACER Service Center brought suit in the name of the United States against "a single mother of two minor children" who had "no assets whatsoever," claiming that she owed $30,330.80 in PACER fees. See Compl. in United States v. Deanna Manning, No. 07-cv-04595, filed July 3, 2007 (C.D. Cal.); Answer, Dkt. 12, filed Oct. 16, 2007. Representing herself, the woman "admit[ted] to downloading and printing a small amount [of] material from PACER, no more than $80 worth," which "would be 1,000 pages, actually much more than she remembers printing." Answer, Dkt. 12, at 1. But she explained that "[t]here is no way she would have had enough paper and ink to print 380,000 pages as the Complaint alleges," so "[t]his must be a huge mistake." Id. She concluded: "Our great and just government would have better luck squeezing blood from a lemon than trying to get even a single dollar from this defendant who can barely scrape up enough money to feed and clothe her children." Id. at 2. Only then did the government dismiss the complaint.
The Introduction section from Dkt. No. 148, Plaintiff's Revised Motion For Preliminary Approval Of Class Settlement, paragraphs 1 and 2, state:
In the history of American litigation, this case is unique: a certified class action against the federal judiciary. The plaintiffs challenged the fees that the judiciary charges for access to records through its Public Access to Court Electronic Records system, or PACER. They sought to vindicate a single claim: that the judiciary violated the law by charging fees that exceeded the cost of providing the records. And they sought one form of relief: refunds.
After more than six years of hard-fought litigation, the plaintiffs have now secured a historic settlement under which the government must reimburse the vast majority of PACER users in full—100 cents on the dollar—for past PACER charges. The settlement creates a common fund of $125 million from which each class member will automatically be reimbursed up to $350 for any PACER fees paid between April 21, 2010, and May 31, 2018. Those who paid over $350 in fees during that period will receive their pro rata share of the remaining settlement funds. Any unclaimed funds after this initial distribution will be allocated evenly to all class members who collected their initial payment (subject to the caveat that no class member may receive more than the total fees that she paid). In addition to this remarkable monetary relief, the case has spurred the judiciary to eliminate fees for 75% of users going forward and prompted action in Congress to abolish the fees altogether.
The case settled on March 20, 2024 for $125 million; $100 million reimburses PACER users for fees they paid over eight years, and $25 million for Attorney's Fees, Costs, and Service Awards.
On March 20, 2024, U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman entered an Opinion [Dkt. No. 169] that Granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement and for Attorney's Fees, Costs, and Service Awards [Dkt. No. 158], and entered the Final Judgment and Order on Final Approval of Class Settlement, Attorney's Fees, Costs, and Service Awards. [Dkt. No. 170].
On April 30, 2024 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed appeal number 2024-1757 filed by Appellant Eric Alan Isaacson, a member of the California bar since 1985, according to his website, Law Office of Eric Alan Isaacson, https://www.ericalanisaacson.com/
The PACER Fees Class Action website, Court Documents page, shows the final appeal briefs were filed in December 2024.
So now we await for the Federal Circuit's ruling on the appeal. Given Mr. Isaacson's position, I would expect him to appeal any adverse ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This case was initially commenced April 21, 2016, and is still in litigation almost 10 years later.
The federal judiciary violated the E-Government Act of 2002. The federal judiciary ignored the will of The People, through their Representatives in Congress who enacted the E-Government Act of 2002. If this case ultimately goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, how can the Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, rule on this matter given the federal judiciary's conflict of interest? And what about Chief Justice Roberts' conflict of interest as head of the Judicial Conference? Judges are not supposed to rule on their own cases. The Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Canon 3(C) Disqualification, would ordinarily apply, but not to justices of the Supreme Court. Since November 13, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court has its own Code of Conduct.
The Senate Judiciary Committee released the findings of its 20-month investigation into the ethical crisis at the Supreme Court, including the results of committee subpoenas. A Press Release December 21, 2024 is attached. Links to the full report and appendices appear below.
The federal judiciary has been criticized, and the PACER Fees Class Action is further evidence that the criticism is justified. I believe its time for Congress to abolish the fees altogether.
Sincerely,
/s/
Neil J. Gillespie
2801 SW College Rd, STE 3
Ocala, FL 34474-4430
Cc: Nicole Chaney, Attorney at Law, nchaney@motleyrice.com
Motley Rice LLC, pacerlitigation@motleyrice.com
An Investigation of the Ethics Challenge at the Supreme Court - Report Only
An Investigation of the Ethics Challenge at the Supreme Court - Appendices Only
Enclosures; signed privacy act form for Neil J. Gillespie
Appendix of PACER News Stories, 2012-2016
