Utah District Court
CMECF Updates
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
  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.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
  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.
Unofficial information regarding Utah District Court CM/ECF Electronic Filing.

Official Information 
Log in to CM/ECF

Send any corrections to mj.nuffer@utd.uscourts.gov
Get a feed at http://utd-cmecf.blogspot.com/atom.xml

Location: Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
December 2004 / January 2005 / February 2005 / March 2005 / April 2005 / May 2005 / June 2005 / July 2005 / September 2005 / October 2005 / November 2005 / December 2005 / January 2006 / February 2006 / March 2006 / April 2006 / May 2006 / June 2006 / July 2006 / August 2006 / September 2006 / October 2006 / November 2006 / December 2006 / February 2007 / March 2007 / June 2007 / July 2007 / August 2007 / October 2007 / November 2007 / January 2008 / February 2008 / March 2008 / April 2008 / May 2008 / July 2008 / September 2008 / October 2008 / November 2008 / December 2008 / January 2009 / March 2009 / April 2009 / July 2009 / September 2009 / October 2009 / January 2010 /

Powered by Blogger