March 17, 2010
Once I have a bit of time, I’m going to dive a little bit deeper into the Open Access movement stuff that is going on in the legal research world.
Sarah Glassmeyer, has a helpful new post titled Open Law? that gives a great run down of some sources. I’ve mentioned how I feel about the PACER Petition in previous posts. In , I hold true to my belief that PACER is a cost-effective tool.
The stuff that I stumbled through on the PublicResource.org site tonight made my eyes light up. Unfortunately I was not able to ignore the fact that this was definitely a resource that would have to be carefully reviewed to find just the right thing. This site has great depth in resources but it will not be a time efficient research tool.
I think the Open Law movement will continue to grow and develop, but the access will definitely require even more meaningful access as noted by Richard Leiter.
Leave a Comment » | 
legal research | Tagged: Open Access, PACER | 
Permalink
Posted by answermaven
February 17, 2010
I read a nice explanation of PACER costs from a different view-point, one could even say an insider’s view last night while watching the UK v. Mississippi game; and what a game.
One point that I really like from this article is:
“Only those who use PACER pay for it.”
Now that’s an idea…paying for service that is used. Of course the alternate argument is that libraries who provide access to PACER for their customers are paying for what the customers use. True, but then libraries used to/perhaps still do a charge a going rate for copies.
To this point Mr. Tunheim, provides a high level break down of the percentage of paying customer who access PACER. BTW, anyone can sign up for a PACER account.
“Nearly 40 percent of PACER’s revenues are generated by less than 1 percent of its active accounts, and the vast majority of the remaining PACER accounts incur less than $500 in fees per year.”
And the funds collected for PACER documents, feed right back into the system to help enhance it – something long overdue for certain.
So I’m still not on board with the PACER should be completely free bandwagon that I discussed last year in my Poking the PACER Petition Part I and Part II posts.
Constance Ard Feb. 17, 2010 Read the rest of this entry »
1 Comment | legal research | Tagged: PACER | Permalink
Posted by answermaven
June 25, 2009
Perhaps I’m a bit naive but aren’t courts one of the slowest institutions to invest in technology? That whole identity of being a government institution that provides justice to indigent criminals and employing lots of people to man that whole justice process seems to preclude such an investment. Not to mention the fact that the court exists in an industry that is slow to adopt new technology in the first place.
Thus when I read about the petition to enhance PACER here, I was a bit surprised by the third request (and part of the second)
2. Make it more accessible by lowering its cost and improving its Web interface
3. Provide free PACER access to depository libraries
In 2003 a cap of $2.40 was placed on “appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts, the United States Court of Federal Claims, and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation” documents including dockets and case-specific reports (that includes those complaints and Summary Judgment motions). How much more affordable does it get?
I understand that free is better. (I’d love to have free parking and free postage at all times.) However, I doubt that depository libraries will kill their budget for the number of users that come to them to access PACER records.
Seriously, if we don’t even pay the base $2.40 to have access to this information what’s the point? I know that technically these are government documents and thus should ultimately be free to one and all but the reality is that the users of these documents have a personal or business interest when accessing the information. Thus users should make an investment into accessing the data that serves their purpose.
I support the principles that Carl Malamud is so passionate about but at some point my practical nature takes over and asks: What is the reality of web enhancements (#2 in the petition wish list) if the there is no money invested? Does anyone really think that USGPO or the Federal Judiciary is going to invest in technology enhancements (no matter how affordable) for an archaic system that still functions when there is no profit motive? And don’t forget that each court’s PACER records are maintained separately, there is no unionization of this information. If you want that go talk to the big guns: Lexis & Westlaw and see how affordable that is for your budget.
So I won’t be signing the PACER petition my fellow law librarians. Despite my desire for an improved web interface because even in the hard times some data is affordable enough and useful enough to warrant a small investment by me. If the petition had focused on improved search functions, specific case alert features or other items to overhaul the overall usefulness of the system, you would have sold me. Price is not the issue with PACER, usability is.
Constance Ard June 24, 2009
2 Comments | Search | Tagged: legal research, Malamud, PACER | Permalink
Posted by answermaven
April 5, 2009
This post at beSpacific discusses the recent vote that will tighten the amount of information diligent researchers can locate on sealed cases.
PACER has over the past several years been working to ensure that private data in court filings is properly redacted and now. Sealed vs. Sealed will be the party information revealed in cases that are sealed by the courts. It used to be that through PACER you could get a good idea of how important cases progressed through the use of the docket sheet the sealed status will make it harder to match those very interesting newsworthy cases to the actual happenings. Your information professionals are going to need to be more diligent to retrieve the available information that used to be provided through careful use of PACER.
Leave a Comment » | Legal Issues | Tagged: legal research, PACER | Permalink
Posted by answermaven
