Nat'l Veterans Legal Servs. Program v. United States

• Decision Date: 31 March 2018
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 16–745 (ESH)
• Citation: 291 F.Supp.3d 123
• Parties: NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

291 F.Supp.3d 123

NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 16–745 (ESH)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed March 31, 2018

Jonathan E. Taylor, Pro Hac Vice, Deepak Gupta, Gupta Wessler PLLC, Washington, DC, Meghan S.B. Oliver, Pro Hac Vice, Motley Rice, LLC, Mt. Pleasant, SC, William H. Narwold, Pro Hac Vice, Motley Rice, LLC, Hartford, CT, Elizabeth S. Smith, Motley Rice, LLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Brian J. Field, William Mark Nebeker, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE, United States District Judge

The federal judiciary's Public Access to Court Electronic Records ("PACER") system, which is managed by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts ("AO"), provides the public with online access to the electronic records of federal court cases. The fees for using PACER are established by the Judicial Conference of the United States Courts and set forth in the judiciary's Electronic Public Access ("EPA") Fee Schedule. In this class action, users of the PACER system contend that the fees charged from 2010 to 2016 violated federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1913 note (enacted as § 404 of the Judiciary Appropriations Act, 1991, Pub. L. 101–515, 104 Stat. 2101 (Nov. 5, 1990) and amended by § 205(e) of the E–Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107–347, 116 Stat. 2899 (Dec. 17, 2002) ). Before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment as to liability. (See Pls.' Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 52; Def.'s Cross–Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 73.) For the reasons stated herein, the Court will deny plaintiffs' motion and grant in part and deny in part defendant's motion.

BACKGROUND

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Although the present litigation is a dispute over whether, during the years 2010–2016, the PACER fees charged violated 28 U.S.C. § 1913 note, the relevant facts date back to PACER's creation.¹

A. Origins of PACER and the Judiciary's Electronic Public Access ("EPA") Fee Schedule

In September 1988, the Judicial Conference "authorized an experimental program of electronic access for the public to court information in one or more district, bankruptcy, or appellate courts in which the experiment can be conducted at nominal cost, and delegated to the Committee [on Judicial Improvements] the authority to establish access fees during the pendency of the program." (Rep. of Proceedings of the Jud. Conf. of the U.S. ("Jud. Conf. Rep.") at 83 (Sept. 18, 1988) (emphasis added) (Ex. A to the Decl. of Wendell Skidgel, Nov. 11, 2017, ECF No. 73–2 ("Skidgel Decl.") ); see also Def.'s Statement Facts ¶¶ 1–2, ECF No. 73–3 ("Def.'s Facts") ). The following year, the Federal Judicial Center initiated pilot PACER programs in several bankruptcy and district courts. (See Chronology of the Fed. Judiciary's Elec. Pub. Access (EPA) Program at 1 ("EPA Chronology") (Ex. C to the Decl. of Jonathan Taylor, Aug. 28, 2017, ECF No. 52–1 ("Taylor Decl.") ).)

In February 1990, during a hearing on judiciary appropriations for 1991, a subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations took up the judiciary's "request[ ] [for] authority to collect fees for access to information obtained through automation." Dep'ts of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations for 1991: Hearing Before a Subcomm. of the H. Comm. on Appropriations , 101st Cong. 323 (1990) ("1990 Hrg."). It asked a representative for the judiciary whether there were "any estimates on how much you will collect and will this fee help offset some of your automation costs." Id. at 324. The response from the judiciary was that "estimates of the revenue that will be generated from these fees are not possible due to the lack of information on the number of attorneys and individuals who have the capability of electronic access," but that there "ha[d] been a great deal of interest expressed" and it was "anticipated that the revenue generated will offset a portion of the Judiciary's cost of automation." Id. The Senate Report on 1991 appropriations bill noted that it "included language which authorizes the Judicial Conference to prescribe reasonable fees for public access to case information, to reimburse the courts for automating the collection of the information ." S. Rep. No. 101–515, at 86 (1990) ("1990 S. Rep.") (emphasis added).

In March 1990, "barring congressional objection," the Judicial Conference "approved an initial rate schedule for electronic public access to court data [in the district and bankruptcy courts] via the PACER system." (Jud. Conf. Rep. at 21 (Mar. 13, 1990) (Skidgel Decl. Ex. C); Def.'s Facts ¶ 5.)²

Then, in November 1990, Congress included the following language in the Judiciary Appropriations Act of 1991:

(a) The Judicial Conference shall prescribe reasonable fees, pursuant to sections 1913, 1914, 1926, and 1930 of title 28, United States Code, for collection by the courts under those sections for access to information available through automatic data processing equipment. These fees may distinguish between classes of persons, and shall provide for exempting persons or classes of persons from the fees, in order to avoid unreasonable burdens and to promote public access to such information. The Director, under the direction of the Judicial Conference of the United States, shall prescribe a schedule of reasonable fees for electronic access to information which the Director is required to maintain and make available to the public.

(b) The Judicial Conference and the Director shall transmit each schedule of fees prescribed under paragraph (a) to the Congress at least 30 days before the schedule becomes effective. All fees hereafter collected by the Judiciary under paragraph (a) as a charge for services rendered shall be deposited as offsetting collections to the Judiciary Automation Fund pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 612(c)(1)(A) to reimburse expenses incurred in providing these services.

Pub. L. 101–515, § 404, 104 Stat. 2101 (Nov. 5, 1990) (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1913 note).³ Three aspects of this law are relevant to this litigation: (1) the Judicial Conference was given the authority (indeed, it was required) to charge reasonable fees for "access to information available through automatic data processing equipment,"⁴ which covered its newly-developed PACER system; (2) the Director of the AO was required to publish a "schedule of reasonable fees for electronic access to information"; and (3) the fees collected by the judiciary pursuant to that fee schedule were to be deposited in the Judiciary Automation Fund⁵ "to reimburse expenses incurred in providing these services." Id.

In the summer of 1992, the House Committee on Appropriations issued a report that "note[d] that the Judiciary's investments in automation have resulted in enhanced service to the public and to other Government agencies in making court records relating to litigation available by electronic media" and "request[ed] that the Judiciary equip all courts, as rapidly as is feasible, with the capability for making such records available electronically and for collecting fees for doing so." H.R. Rep. No. 102–709, at 58 (July 23, 1992) ("1992 H.R. Rep.") (report accompanying appropriations bill for the judiciary for fiscal year ("FY") 1993).⁶

In 1993, the Judicial Conference amended the fee schedules for the Courts of Appeals to include a "fee for usage of electronic access to court data" for "users of PACER and other similar electronic access systems," while deciding not to impose fees for another "very different electronic access system" then in use by the appellate courts. (Jud. Conf. Rep. at 44–45 (Sept. 20, 1993) (Skidgel Decl. Ex. D).)⁷ In 1994, the Judicial Conference approved a "fee for usage of electronic access to court data" for the Court of Federal Claims. (Jud. Conf. Rep. at 16 (Mar. 15, 1994) (Skidgel Decl. Ex. E).) Finally, in March 1997, it did the same for the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (Jud. Conf. Rep. at 20 (Mar. 11, 1997);⁸ Def.'s Facts ¶ 13.)

B. EPA Fees Before the E–Government Act (1993–2002)

As the Judicial Conference was adding EPA fees to the fee schedules for additional courts, it became apparent that the "income accruing from the fee[s] w[ould] exceed the costs of providing the service." (Jud. Conf. Rep. at 13–14 (Mar. 14, 1995).) Accordingly, after noting that this revenue "is to be used to support and enhance the electronic public access systems," the Judicial Conference reduced the fee from $1.00 to 75 cents per minute in 1995. (Id. ) In 1996, after noting that the previous reduction had been "to avoid an ongoing surplus," it "reduce[d] the fee for electronic public access further," from 75 to 60 cents per minute. (Jud. Conf. Rep. at 16 (Mar. 13, 1996) (Skidgel Decl. Ex. F); see also EPA Chronology at 1; Def.'s Facts ¶ 14.)

Shortly after the 1996 fee reduction, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees issued reports that included commentary on the judiciary's EPA fees. The House Report stated:

The Committee supports the ongoing efforts of the Judiciary to improve and expand information made available in electronic form to the public. Accordingly, the Committee expects the Judiciary to utilize available balances derived from electronic public access fees in the Judiciary Automation Fund to make information and services more accessible to the public through improvements to enhance the availability of electronic information. The overall quality of service to the public will be improved with the availability of enhancements such as electronic case documents, electronic filings, enhanced use of the Internet, and electronic bankruptcy noticing .

H.R. Rep. No. 104–676, at 89 (July 16, 1996) (emphasis added) ("1996 H.R. Rep."). The Senate Report stated that:

The Committee supports efforts of the judiciary to make electronic information available to the public, and expects that available

...