Utah District Court
Utah District Court CMECF Updates Blog - Closing Down
After a slow year of CM/ECF news for the District of Utah, it appears to be time to formally close this blog. Now that CM/ECF is routine, the blog has had less to record and share.
The blog won't be deleted, for the possibility that it may return to life if there is a large change, but the court website
will be the best resource for CM/ECF information until further notice.
Utah District Court Web Site Down
Due to a power outage at the circuit court level, the District of Utah internet site
was down from Saturday October 10, 2009 at 6 am through Sunday October 11 at noon. During this time, the Court's CM/ECF portal
was open, but this may have been unknown for those who customarily access CM/ECF via the link on the court's web site.
Bookmarking the court's CM/ECF login page
is probably a smart move. This blog has been modified at the right side to include a link to the CM/ECF login page.
New Redaction Reminders
The court has loaded a new version 3.2.3 of CM/ECF. There is a new box that e-filers must check every time they log in. If the box is not checked this error message is displayed:You must check the redaction rules checkbox to login to CM/ECF.
Also, the message on the last screen before submission has been changed to add: "Have you redacted?"
CM/ECF 4.0 May Renumber Old Docket Entries
Districts using CM/ECF version 4.0 (being tested in Utah now) report that this new version may create problems for existing documents which reference previously filed papers. While current CM/ECF versions number the main document filed as 5-1, and attachments as 5-2, 5-3, etc., the new version of CM/ECF will number a main document as 5 and the attachments as 5-1, 5-2, etc. Compare the two screen shots, with the pink screen showing version 4.0 treatment of attachments.
In some documents now on file, an author may have referenced a document by its "hyphenated" docket number to be precise. However, the installation of CM/ECF version 4.0 apparently converts legacy numbers from the old system (in which the main document had a hyphenated nubmers to the new system where the main document has no hyphenated number. As one court states, "Our concern is that we now have orders filed containing citations that are no longer accurate. For example, if an order cited to a specific exhibit at document 45-6, that exhibit's documents number is now 45-5. We anticipate this could become an issue for orders ultimately appealed to our circuit court." The topic is under discussion by courts who are considering a possible request that prior established numbering be preserved.
PACER in the Spotlight
Two posts on yesterday's beSpacific blog
highlight PACER and the attention recently focused on the for-fee service. The first post directs readers to the PACER spending survey
directed to law libraries related to the law librarians' petition to improve PACER
. The survey respondents included fifty-eight law firm libraries and sixty-six law school libraries. In 2008, the firm libraries spent on average $13,068.48 on PACER while the law school libraries spent on average $656.74 on PACER. The law firms don't usually impose restrictions on PACER use, while the law libraries generally do.
The other beSpacific post reports a draft working paper from Stephen Schultze
at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society
at Harvard. The Electronic Public Access Fees and the United States Federal Courts' Budget
study is also related to the fee-generating function of PACER. While the paper is in draft, its purpose is stated as urging "reconsideration of how the Judiciary might more closely align its information management practices with modern technology, practices of the other branches, and public expectations." The draft report summarizes the sometimes varying statements about the uses of PACER revenues, and argues that the policy of government transparency should eliminate PACER fees.
NARA says "Improve Your Image"
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
has published higher standards for scanning resolution, which better support archival preservation. Threfore, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts is asking courts and attorneys to use scanner settings of 300 pixels per inch (ppi) or higher. Courts are asked to increase the maximum CM/ECF file size setting by 25% to allow for higher scanning settings without requiring additional splitting of filed documents.
Tenth Circuit Moves To Electronic Filing
A General Order
from the Tenth Circuit (March 18, 2009) marks the Circuit's move to electronic filing. " On March 31, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit will transition to voluntary ECF. On June 1, 2009, ECF will become mandatory for counsel of record." CBTs (Computer Based Training modules) for Tenth Circuit e-filing can be found at: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/clerk/ecf_training.php
. A User's Manual, training registration and other materials are available on the court's website. http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/
Progress has been remarkable. The bar has already docketed and uploaded 313 documents.
District Courts have already begun transmitting an electronic record on appeal (ROA). In 2007 the court received approximately 900 hardcopy ROAs. In 2008, 585 electronic ROAs and 413 hardcopy were filed. As of April 2009, 303 electronic and only 59 hardcopy ROAs were filed. The majority of the 59 hardcopy ROAs are habeas pro se matters.