Direct Impact On The Public - Annual Report 2009
Each day, the federal Judiciary works to deliver justice in our federal courts. Much of the work is behind the scenes. Some of it has a vast impact on lives of Americans beyond what is obvious when they visit the courthouse. Although generally low-profile, the Judiciary’s work can be high-impact and often results in a significant number of services that directly affect the public. Several examples follow.
The Judiciary’s work is generally low-profile, but can be high-impact and often results in a significant number of services that directly affect the public.
Automaker Bankruptcy Filings
The Administrative Office partnered with the courts in many ways during the year to address unique situations and maintain service to the public. When rumors swirled that one or more American car makers could file for bankruptcy, the AO worked with the Southern District of New York, Eastern District of Michigan, and Delaware bankruptcy courts to prepare for the potential filings that could affect one of them.
An ad hoc team of AO staff specializing in court administration, support to judges, and information technology strategized ways to ease the burden a huge filing might have on the Case Management/Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) and the public access (PACER) systems, and to prepare for other workload impacts.
Over the course of several months, the ad hoc team held conference calls with the three courts to help plan for additional personnel needs, physical space demands, public and media inquiries, and additional security. The ad hoc team, a legal team, and the courts worked before any filings took place to address all issues surrounding these potential mega cases. In addition, public affairs staff helped the three courts deal with media and general public inquiries about how citizens would be affected.
Technology was critical to preparing the courts for the filings without disruptions resulting from heavy filing traffic. Dedicated servers were set up and tested at an outside data center, to avoid interference with more regular daily court business. This planning was designed to reduce data communications network and public access traffic at the courts.
When Chrysler, and later General Motors, filed in the Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court, the clerk of court contacted AO court administration staff, and systems were monitored to make sure the servers handled the traffic. Although traffic was high, there was no degradation of service, thanks to the advance planning by the courts and the AO.
Simplifying Jury Service
Creating a positive experience for jurors leads to greater public enthusiasm for the responsibility of jury service. Prospective jurors now have the option of providing and obtaining jury service information online via a district court’s web page.
With the eJuror enhancement to the Jury Management System (JMS), jurors have 24-hour online access to complete qualification questionnaires and other forms; query status and reporting information; request excuses and deferments; and stay informed about other jury-related functions. In addition to providing better and more timely service for jurors, the eJuror application reduces work requirements for court staff and decreases postage costs.
Clerk’s office staff from 10 district courts worked with the Administrative Office over two years to develop and test the application. National deployment of eJuror began in June 2009 and will continue through April 2010 in waves. As of October 2009, more than 35 courts had installed eJuror, and 12 of those courts were “live.”
Electronic Public Access Program
The Electronic Public Access program provides electronic public access to court information in accordance with legislation and with Judiciary policies, security requirements and user needs. PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) was established in 1988 as a dialup service. Through implementation of the CM/ECF system, PACER has evolved into an Internet-based service providing the courts, litigants, and public with access to court dockets, case reports, and over 500 million documents filed with the courts through CM/ECF. PACER is a portal to CM/ECF, which is in turn integral to public access.
PACER registrations last year surpassed one million user accounts—a program milestone. Customers include members of the bar; city, state and federal employees; and the general public. During fiscal year 2009, PACER Service Center support staff responded to nearly 150,000 calls and more than 35,000 emails from users.
The Judiciary began a year-long assessment of the program’s services in 2009 to identify future enhancements that the public wants and needs. Interviews and focus groups were held with representative users from the courts, the media, litigants, attorneys, researchers, and bulk-data collectors. As part of the information gathering effort, several user surveys are being conducted in fiscal year 2010.
Currently, seven courts are participating in a pilot program to make digital audio files of court hearings available to the public through PACER. The presiding judge determines which audio files are made available. Through the pilot, audio files of the major automaker bankruptcy hearings were made available. This proved to be particularly popular with the litigants, interested parties, the media, and the public.
As mandated by Congress, the PACER program is funded entirely through user fees set by the Judicial Conference at $0.08 per page, with a $2.40 maximum charge for any single document, no matter its length. The fee does not apply to opinions—which are available through PACER free of charge. Certain categories of users may be exempted by the court from paying the fee, and the fee is waived for usage amounting to less than $10.00 per year. The fees are published in the Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule, available on uscourts.gov. In fiscal year 2009, nearly 50 percent of PACER users did not pay fees as a result of fee waivers and exemptions. The Electronic Public Access fee revenue is used exclusively to fund program expenses and enhancements that increase public access to the courts, including court websites and courtroom technology.
Attorney and litigant adherence to Judicial Conference privacy policies concerning personal data identifiers has been integral to the success of the Judiciary’s Electronic Public Access program. Because it has been nearly two years since federal rules of practice and procedure based on the policies were enacted, the Rules Committee has established a subcommittee to revisit the privacy rules, and examine how they have worked in practice.
The AO is also taking steps to ensure that the privacy protections established in the federal rules can be more easily followed. For example, the CM/ECF system has been modified to include a reminder notice that litigants are obligated to follow the rules redaction requirements. Also, the AO has encouraged courts to stress the rules redaction requirements with those who file, and has received input from courts on actions they have taken to ensure compliance with the privacy rules.