NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM et al v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 55

MOTION for Leave to File Brief Amici Curiae by AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LAW LIBRARIES (Attachments: #1 Proposed Brief, #2 Text of Proposed Order)(Samberg-Champion, Sasha)

Case 1:16-cv-00745-ESH Document 55 Filed 09/05/17 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL
SERVICES PROGRAM, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil Action No. 16-745-ESH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF AND PROPOSED AMICI
CURIAE BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LAW LIBRARIES, ET AL.
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Sasha Samberg-Champion
(D.C. Bar No. 1026113)
Stephen M. Dane
(DC Bar No. 982046)
RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX PLLC
1225 19th Street, N.W., Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20036
[phone]
[phone] (fax)
[e-mail]
Counsel for Amici Curiae

Case 1:16-cv-00745-ESH Document 55 Filed 09/05/17 Page 2 of 5

INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(o), the American Association of Law Libraries and four
legal scholars with an interest in the subject matter of this case respectfully move for leave to file
the attached brief as amici curiae in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiffs consent to the filing of this brief. Counsel for proposed amici curiae advised
Defendant’s counsel of their intent to file this brief and has received no response.
ARGUMENT
I.

Movants have an interest in this matter
Movants have a strong interest in this Court ruling consistent with the Plaintiffs’ position

that current PACER fees are unreasonable such that they do not conform to the requirements of
the E-Government Act of 2002. As set forth in greater detail in the attached brief, Movants are
dedicated to studying or increasing public understanding of court documents and proceedings.
High PACER fees frustrate their mission.
For example, the American Association of Law Libraries represents nearly 4,500 law
librarians and other legal information professionals who are committed to providing people
timely access to relevant legal information. The need to ration PACER use to conserve money
makes it harder for them to do this job. The AALL helped draft the statutory provision at issue
on this motion in order to remedy that problem, and has since worked closely with the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to make various judicial documents more readily
available to the public.
The four legal scholars similarly engage in activities that are hampered by excessive
PACER fees, as described in detail in the attached brief. These scholars and the institutions with
which they are affiliated build innovative systems for using technology to access, teach, and

1

Case 1:16-cv-00745-ESH Document 55 Filed 09/05/17 Page 3 of 5

practice the law. They also study societal issues and contribute to jurisprudential development by
examining the legal record in ways that would be made easier by greater access to PACER
records. Several of them also lead clinical work where, again, they confront limitations caused
by excessive PACER fees.
II.

Movants’ proposed brief satisfies the requirements of Local Rule 7(o)(2)
Movants’ proposed brief presents arguments and information that are not found in the

parties’ briefs and that are timely and relevant to the question of what are reasonable PACER
fees. In particular, the Movants’ proposed brief describes specific ways in which PACER fees
that are far higher than required to recoup the marginal cost of downloading documents have
harmful effects extending beyond the damage done to individual PACER users who are
overcharged. Bloated PACER fees also disserve the public interest by preventing or making
more difficult vital work by libraries and scholars.
For example, the proposed brief describes how PACER fees make it difficult for scholars
to rigorously study vast numbers of pleadings and decisions to ascertain the practical effects of
the Supreme Court’s Iqbal and Twombly decisions, even though the Judicial Conference has
made clear that such study is necessary to evaluate whether legislation to alter these decisions is
warranted. In considering whether current fees are reasonable, this Court may find relevant the
kinds of beneficial and creative uses that those fees are precluding.
This motion is timely made in accordance with the timetable specified in Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 29 (which this Court’s Local Rules incorporate by reference). Specifically,
it is made within 7 days of the filing of Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, consistent with
the treatment of a holiday under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C). Consideration of this motion and the
attached brief will not unduly delay this Court’s ability to rule on the matter.

2

Case 1:16-cv-00745-ESH Document 55 Filed 09/05/17 Page 4 of 5

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Movants respectfully request that this motion for leave to file
the accompanying brief be granted.
Dated: September 5, 2017
/s/ Sasha Samberg-Champion
Sasha Samberg-Champion
(DC Bar No. 1026113)
Stephen M. Dane
(DC Bar No. 982046)
RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX PLLC
1225 19th Street NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Amici Curiae

3

Case 1:16-cv-00745-ESH Document 55 Filed 09/05/17 Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 5, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing document
with United States Court for the District of Columbia by using the CM/ECF system. I certify that
all parties or their counsel of record are registered as ECF filers and that they will be served
through the CM/ECF system.
Dated: September 5, 2017
/s/ Sasha Samberg-Champion
Counsel for Amici Curiae

4