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

Filing 74

Memorandum in opposition to re #52 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Liability filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support, #2 Declaration Decl. of W. Skidgel, #3 Statement of Facts, #4 Text of Proposed Order)(Field, Brian)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case No. 16-745-ESH

DECLARATION OF Wendell A. Skidgel Jr.
I, Wendell A. Skidgel Jr., declare as follows:
1.

I have Bachelor’s Degrees in Mathematics and Computer Science from

Eastern Nazarene College and a Juris Doctorate with a concentration in Intellectual
Property from Boston University School of Law. In addition to serving as an attorney at
the Administrative Office of the United States Courts for the past eleven years, I
served as the Systems Manager at a Federal Appellate Court for more than five years
and served as an IT Director at a Federal Bankruptcy Court. Based on my personal
experiences and knowledge gained through my official duties, I make the following
declarations.
2.

Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of pages 1 and 83 from the Rep. of

Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States (Sept. 18, 1988).
3.

Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of pages 1, 19 and 20 from the Rep. of

Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States (Mar. 14, 1989).
4.

Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of pages 1 and 21 from the Rep. of

Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States (Mar. 13, 1990).
5.

Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of pages 1, 44, and 45 from the Rep.

of Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States (Sept. 20, 1993).
6.

Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of pages 1 and 16 from the Rep. of

Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States (Mar. 15, 1994).
7.

Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of pages 1 and 16 from the Rep. of

Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States (Mar. 12, 1996).
8.

Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of pages 1, 64, and 65 from the Rep.

of Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States (Sept. 15, 1998).
9.

Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of pages 1, 12, and 13 from the Rep.

of Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States (Mar. 14, 2001).
10.

Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of pages 1 and 11 from the Rep. of

Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States (Mar. 13, 2002).
11.

Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of pages 1 and 12 from the Rep. of

Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States (Sept. 21, 2004).
12.

Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of pages 1 and 39-46 from the

Judiciary’s FY2007 Financial Plan (March 14, 2007). Based on my knowledge working at
the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, before Electronic Public Access
(EPA) funds are used for a new purpose or program, the proposed use is included in the
Judiciary’s Financial Plan which is submitted to Congress. EPA funds are not expended on
the proposed use until the Judiciary receives explicit approval/consent from Congress.
13.

Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of a Letter from Sens. Durbin and

Brownback (May 2, 2007).
14.

Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of a Letter from Rep. Serrano (May 2,

15.

Exhibit N is a true and correct copy of pages 1 and 16 from the Rep. of

2007).

Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States (Sept. 13, 2011).
16.

Exhibits A thru J and N were all obtained from the uscourts.gov website:

www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/reports-proceedings-judicial-conference-us.

17.

Software development, software maintenance, software and hardware

implementation, computer operations, technical and operational training, and efforts to
modernize/upgrade/replace are costs inherently associated with a robust multi-user
computer systems, such as CM/ECF.
18.

Telecommunication costs directly associated with a multi-user computer

system include communications hardware (such as network circuits, routers, and switches)
and network management devices. When a multi-user system, such as CM/ECF, is available
to the public via the internet, costs associated with network security, security hardware and
software, intrusion detection, and other security services are required.
19.

Through EPA allotments, courts are able to determine the best ways to

improve electronic public access services (such as by adding a public printer or upgrading to
a more robust internet web server). Funding court staff to work on EPA projects, such as
CM/ECF, utilizes existing expertise and reduces training time and associated costs compared
to that of hiring contractors.
I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Executed on November 11, 2017.

/s/ Wendell A. Skidgel Jr.
Wendell A. Skidgel, Jr.

EXHIBIT A

REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

September 14, 1988

The Judicial Conference of the United States convened on
September 14, 1988, pursuant to the call of the Chief Justice of the
United States issued under 28 U.S.C. 331. The Chief Justice presided
and the following members of the Conference were present:
First Circuit:
Chief Judge Levin H. Campbell
Chief Judge Frank H. Freedman, District of
Massachusetts
Second Circuit:
Chief Judge Wilfred Feinberg
Chief Judge John T. Curtin, Western District of

New York
Third Circuit:
Chief Judge John J. Gibbons
Chief Judge William J. Nealon, Jr., Middle District of
Pennsylvania
Fourth Circuit:
Chief Judge Harrison L. Winter
Judge Frank A. Kaufman, District of Maryland
Fifth Circuit:
Chief Judge Charles Clark
Chief Judge L. T. Senter, Jr., Northern District of
Mississippi

49

RELEASE AND SALE OF COURT DATA
The judiciary generates a large volume of data which is of
considerable interest and value to the bar and litigants, to the media, to
scholars and government officials, to commercial enterprises, and to the
general public. The courts and the Administrative Office are frequently
requested to release or sell court data to individuals and organizations
outside the court family, including a growing volume of requests from
credit agencies and other commercial organizations desiring bankruptcy
case information for purposes of resale.
On recommendation of the Committee, 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 the authority to establish access fees during
the pendency of the program. Although existing law requires that fees
collected in the experimental phase would have to be deposited into the
United States Treasury, the fees charged for automated access services
could defray a significant portion of the cost of providing such services,
were the Congress to credit these fees to the judiciary's appropriations
account in the future.
VIDEOTAPING COURT PROCEEDINGS
Under 28 U.S.C. 753, district judges may voluntarily use a
variety of methods for taking Jhe record of court proceedings, subject to
guidelines promulgated by the Judicial Conference. At the request of a
court that it be allowed to experiment with videotaping as a means of
taking the official record, the Judicial Cont erence authorized an experimental program of videotaping court proceedings.
Under the
two-year experiment, which would include approximately six district
courts (judges), in no more than two circuits, the courts of appeals would
have to agree to accept as the official record on appeal a videotape in
lieu of transcript or, in the alternative, the circuit must limit the production
of transcript to be accepted on appeal to a very few pages. Participating
judges would continue to utilize their present court reporting techniques
(court reporter, electronic sound recording, etc.) during the experimental
program.
The Cont erence designated the chair of the Committee on
Judicial Improvements to seek approval of the Director of the Federal
Judicial Center for the Judicial Center to design, conduct, and evaluate
the experiment.

83

EXHIBIT B

REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 14, 1989

The Judicial Conference of the United States convened on
March 14, 1989, pursuant to the call of the Chief Justice of the United
States issued under 28 U.S.C. 331. The Chief Justice presided and the
following members of the Conference were present:
First Circuit:
Chief Judge Levin H. Campbell
Chief Judge Frank H. Freedman, District of
Massachusetts
~
Second Circuit: ·
Chief Judge James L. Oakes
Judge John T. Curtin, Western District of New York
Third Circuit:
Chief Judge John J. Gibbons
Judge William J. Nealon, Jr., Middle District of
Pennsylvania
Fourth Circuit:
Chief Judge Sam J. Ervin, Ill
Judge Frank A. Kaufman, District of Maryland
Fifth Circuit:
Chief Judge Char1es Clark
Chief Judge L. T. Senter, Jr., Northern District of
Mississippi

1

~.,-:·;-,, .--.~--.--

,-.-... --------,.-:--··--

circuit and the distance traveled. Henceforth, the guidelines will provide
that a judge assigned to work on the court of appeals should serve for at
least one regular sitting (as defined by that circuit); and a judge assigned
to work on the general calendar of a district court should serve at least
two weeks.
COMMITTEE ON THE INTERNATIONAL APPELLATE
JUDGES CONFERENCE OF 1990

The Committee. on the International Appellate Judges
Conference reported on its progress in planning and raising funds for the
International Appellate Judges Conference to be held in Washington,
D.C., in September, 1990.
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIAL BRANCH

-JUDICIAL PAY
The single greatest problem facing the judiciary today is
obtaining adequate pay for judicial officers. Judges have suffered an
enormous erosion in their purchasing power as a result of the failure of
their pay to keep pace with inflation. It is becoming more and more
difficult to attract and retain highly qualified people on the federal bench.
In order to obtain a partial solution to this critical problem, the
Judicial Conference, by unanimous vote, agreed to recommend that
Congress immediately increase judicial salaries by 30 percent, and
couple these increases with periodic cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs)
similar to those received by other government recipients.
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL E"rHICS

The Committee on Judicial Ethics reported that as of January,
1989, the Committee had received 2,495 financial disclosure reports and
certifications for the calendar year 1987, including 1,021 reports and
certifications from judicial officers, and 1,474 reports and certifications
from judicial employees.
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL IMPROVEMENTS

RELEASE AND SALE OF COURT DATA
A. At its September 1988 session (Conf. Apt., p. 83), the
Judicial Conference authorized an experimental program of electronic
19

,:,

'!
I

'

access by the public to court information in one or more district,
bankruptcy, or appellate courts,. and delegated to the Committee on
Judicial Improvements the authority to establish access fees during the
pendency of the program. Under existing law, fees charged for such
services would have to be deposited into the United States Treasury.
Observing that such fees could provide significant levels of new
revenues at a time when the judiciary faces severe funding shortages,
the Conference voted to recommend that Congress credit to the
judiciary's appropriations account any fees generated by providing public
access to court records.
B. The Administrative Office and the Department of Justice
have entered into an agreement whereby bankruptcy courts download
docket information from the NIBS and BANCAP systems to local United
States Trustee offices' computers. The agreement does not deal directly
with use of this information _by the Trustees.
Since it is essential that this court data be disseminated and sold
by the judiciary consistent with a uniform policy to be developed under
the use and sale of court data program (above), the Conference
resolved that data provided by the courts in these circumstances be for
the Trustees' internal use only, and may not otherwise be disseminated
or sold by the Trustees. Should the Trustees fail to comply, the judiciary
will discontinue providing the data or seek an appropriate level of
reimbursement.

I

ONE-STEP QUALIFICATION AND SUMMONING
OFJURORS

'

!?1

i

Title VII of the Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act
(Public Law 100-702) authorizes the Judicial Conference to conduct a
two-year experiment among up to ten districts testing the viability of a
one-step qualification and summoning procedure. The Conference
selected for inclusion in the experiment the Northern District of Alabama,
the Districts of Arizona and the District of Columbia, the Southern District
of Florida, the Northern District of Illinois, the Western District of New
York, the Districts of Oregon and South Dakota, the Eastern District of
Texas, and the District of Utah.

I

LAWBOOKS FOR BANKRUPTCY JUDGES
The Conference approved revised lists of lawbooks for
bankruptcy judges, Exhibits C-1 and C-2 of Volume I, Guide to Judiciary
Policies and Procedures, Chapter VIII, Part E. A concise bankruptcy
20

.

~--·----· --------

EXHIBIT C

r
1
I
I

REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
JUDICIAL CONFERENpE OF 11-IE UNITED STATES

I

.I

March 13, 1990
The Judicial Conference of the United States convened on .
March 13, 1990, pursuant to the ~II of the Chief Justice of the
United States issued under 28 U.S.C. 331. The Chief Justice
presided and the following members of the Conference were
present:
First Circuit:
Chief Judge Levin H. Campbell
Chief Judge Frank H. Freedman,
District of Massachusetts
Second Circuit:
Chief Judge James L. Oakes
Chief Judge Charles L. Brieant,
Southern District of New York
Third Circuit:
Chief Judge A Leon Higginbotham
Judge William J. Nealon, Jr.,
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Fourth Circuit:
Chief Judge Sam J. Ervin, Ill
Judge Frank A Kaufman,
District of Maryland

1

COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL IMPROVEMENTS
AUTOMATION
The Judicial Conference approved the 1990 update to the
Long Range Plan for Automation in the United States Courts.
The Conference declined to delegate authority to the Judicial
Improvements Committee to approve the annual updates Of the
Plan on the Conference's behalf.
MISCELLANEOUS FEES
The Conference amended the schedules of fees to be
charged in the district and bankruptcy courts to establish the
following rates for electronic access to court data on the PACER
system, barring congressional objection. PACER allows a law
firm, or other organization or individual, to use a personal
computer to access a court's computer and extract public data in
the form of docket sheets, calendars, and other records.
Yearly Subscription Rate:
Commercial - $60 per court
Non-profit - $30 per court
Per Minute Charge:
Commercial - $1.00
Non-profit - $0.50
Under language included in the judiciary's appropriations
act for the fiscal year 1990 (Public Law 101-162), the judiciary will
be entitled to retain the fees collected for PACER services in the
bankruptcy courts. The Conference agreed to seek similar
legislative language to permit the judiciary to retain the fees
collected for district court PACER services.

21

EXHIBIT D

REPORT OF ·rHE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES
September 20, 1993
The Judicial Conference of the United States convened in Washington, D.C.,
on September 20, 1993, pursuant to the call of the Chief Justice of the United
States issued under 28 U.S.C. § 331. The Chief Justice presided, and the following
members of the Conference were present:
First Circuit:
Chief Judge Stephen G. Breyer
Judge Francis J. Boyle,
District of Rhode Island
Second Circuit:
Chief Judge Jon 0. Newman
Judge Charles L. Brieant,
Southern District of New York
Third Circuit:
Chief Judge Dolores K. Sloviter
Chief Judge John F. Gerry,
District of New Jersey
Fourth Circuit:
Chief Judge Sam J. Ervin, Ill
Judge W. Earl Britt,
Eastern District of North Carolina
Fifth Circuit:
Chief Judge Henry A. Politz
Chief Judge Morey L. Sear,
Eastern District of Louisiana

Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, the Judicial Conference
supported in principle the substance of section 3 of the proposed Act, but referred
to the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure the issue of whether the
matter is more appropriately within the authority of federal rules. The Rules
Committee is to report on the matter to the March 1994 session of the Judicial
Conference.
The Judicial Conference agreed with the .recommendation of the Court
Administration and Case Management Committee to support section 5(b) of the
proposed Act, which would amend 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) by adding "failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted" as a cause for dismissal.
Section 5 of the proposed Civil Justice Reform Act of 1993 would amend the
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)) to direct the courts
to continue any action brought by an inmate pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for up
to 180 days in order to extend the period required for exhausting administrative
remedies. On recommendation of the Committee, which was concerned about the
impact of this section on the manner in which many courts process these types of
cases, the Conference opposed the amendment. As an alternative, the Conference
offered the provisions included in the judiciary's "housekeeping bill," which would
allow a case to be continued for up to 120 days rather than the 180 days
contemplated by the proposed Act. Further, the housekeeping provisions would
allow a judge to determine if the administrative procedures are "otherwise fair and
effective," eliminating the need to wait for certification by the Attorney General.
MISCELLANEOUS FEE SCHEDULES
At its March 1990 session, the Judicial Conference approved an amendment
to the miscellaneous fee schedules for district and bankruptcy courts to provide a
fee for electronic access to court data (JCUS-Mar 90, p.21). The Committee on
Court Administration and Case Management believed that the policy with respect
to fees for similar services in the federal courts should be consistent and,
accordingly, there should be a fee for electronic access to court data for the courts
of appeals.
However, while the costs of implementing a billing system in the courts of
appeals for the Public Access to Electronic Records System (PACER) used by the
district and bankruptcy courts (or for a similar alternative public access system)
would be modest, only a small number of appellate courts offer PACER, and the
usage rates of the appellate PACER system are low. Some appellate courts utilize
a very different electronic access system called Appellate Court Electronic Services·
(ACES) (formerly known as Electronic Dissemination of Opinions System (EDOS)).
The Committee determined that, at this time, the costs of implementing and
operating a billing and fee collection system for electronic access to the
ACES/EDOS system would outweigh the benefit of the revenues to be generated.

44

Thus, on recommendation of the Committee, the Judicial Conference agreed
to amend the miscellaneous fee schedule for appellate courts promulgated under
28 U.S.C. § 1913 to provide a fee for usage of electronic access to court data, but
to limit the application of the fee to users of PACER and other similar electronic
access systems, with no fee to be applied to users of ACES/EDOS at the present
time. The Conference further agreed to delegate to the Director of the
Administrative Office the authority to determine the appropriate date to implement
the fee, to ensure that usage rates warrant the administrative expense of collecting
the fee and that the appropriate software and the billing and fee collection
procedures are developed prior to implementation in the appellate courts.
INTERPRETER TEST APPLICATION FEES
Since 1985, the Administrative Office, which is responsible under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1827 for the development and administration of interpreter certification .

examinations, has contracted with the University of Arizona to perform this function.
Due to concerns raised about the legal validity of language in the contract
permitting the contractor to collect and budget funds without clear statutory
authorization, the Judicial Conference approved a recommendation by the Court
Administration and Case Management Committee that legislation be sought to
authorize the Administrative Office to prescribe fees for the development and
administration of interpreter certification examinations and permit a contractor to
collect fees and apply them as payment for services under the contract.
FILING BY FACSIMILE
After consideration of the conflicting recommendations of three of its
Committees, the Judicial Conference referred to the Committee on Rules of Practice
and Procedure, in coordination with the Court Administration and Case
Management and the Automation and Technology Committees, the question of
whether, and under What technical guidelines, filing by facsimile on a routine basis
should be permitted. A report on the issue should be made to the September 1994
Judicial Conference.
ARBITRATION
At the request of the Committee on Court Administration and Case
Management, the Judicial Conference reconsidered its March 1993 decision not to
support legislation authorizing the expansion of mandatory arbitration (JCUS-MAR
93, p. 12). The Conference again declined to support the enactment of legislation
that would provide authorization to all federal courts to utilize mandatory arbitration
at the courts' discretion.

45

EXHIBIT E

REPORI' OF THE PROCEEDINGS
OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
OF THE UNITED STATES
March 15, 1994
The Judicial Conference of the United States convened in
Washington, D.C., on March 15, 1994, pursuant to the call of the Chief
Justice of the United States issued under 28 U.S.C. § 331. The Chief Justice
presided, and the following members of the Conference were present:
First Circuit:
Chief Judge Stephen G. Breyer
Judge Francis J. Boyle,
District of Rhode Island
Second Circuit:
Chief Judge Jon 0. Newman
Judge Charles L. Brieant,
Southern District of New York
Third Circuit:
Chief Judge Dolores K. Sloviter
Chief Judge John F. Gerry,
District of New Jersey
Fourth Circuit:
Chief Judge Sam J. Ervin, III
Judge W. Earl Britt,
Eastern District of North Carolina
Fifth Circuit:
Chief Judge Henry A. Politz
Chief Judge Morey L. Sear,
Eastern District of Louisiana

Judicial Conference of the United States

COMPUTER INTEGRATED COURTROOM SYSTEM

Computer integrated courtroom systems allow participants in a court
proceeding "real-time" access to a transcript as it is being reported, enabling
them to read testimony immediately after it is given. Such systems are
substantially more expensive than other transcription methods because of
the increased cost of the equipment and the reporter, who must be more
highly skilled. In light of today's tight budgetary climate, on
recommendation of the Committee on Court Administration and Case
Management, the Judicial Conference disapproved the use of computer
integrated courtroom system/real-time reporting systems as a method of
recording proceedings in bankruptcy courts.

MISCELLANEOUS FEE SCHEDULE FOR COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

The miscellaneous fee schedules for the district, bankruptcy and
appellate courts provide a fee for usage of electronic access to court data and
do not exempt federal agencies from such fees (JCUS-MAR 90, p. 21; JCUSSEP 93, pp. 44-45). On recommendation of the Committee, the Judicial
Conference approved a corresponding amendment to the miscellaneous fee
schedule for the Court of Federal Claims promulgated under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1926.

VIDEO-CONFERENCING

The Judicial Conference approved a Committee recommendation to
authorize the Middle District of Louisiana to conduct, at no cost to the
judiciary, a one-year pilot project for video-conferencing prisoner civil rights
and habeas corpus cases. The Conference also endorsed a Committee
recommendation that a sunset date of September 30, 1995, be established for
all video-conferencing pilot projects.

COURT INTERPRETING BY TELEPHONE

Based upon the successful results of a pilot program on the feasibility
of interpreting by telephone, the Committee recommended that the
Conference approve the use of basic telephone technology as a method of
providing interpreting services in short proceedings such as pretrial hearings,
16

EXHIBIT F

REPORI' OF THE PROCEEDINGS
OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
OF THE UNITED STATES

March 12, 1996

The Judicial Conference of the United States convened in Washington, D.C.,
on March 12, 1996, pursuant to the call of the Chief Justice of the United States issued
under 28 U.S.C. § 331. The Chief Justice presided, and the following members of the
. Conference were present:
First Circuit:
Chief Judge Juan R. Torruella
Chief Judge Joseph L. Tauro,
District of Massachusetts
Second Circuit:
Chief Judge Jon 0. Newman
Chief Judge Peter C. Dorsey,
District of Connecticut
Third Circuit:
Chief Judge Dolores K. Sloviter
Chief Judge Edward N. Cahn,
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Fourth Circuit:
Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, III
Judge W Earl Britt,
Eastern District of North Carolina
Fifth Circuit:
Chief Judge Henry A. Politz
Chief Judge William H. Barbour,
Southern District of Mississippi

Judicial Conference of the United States

MISCELLANEOUS FEE SCHEDULES - SEARCH FEE

Although the miscellaneous fee schedules for the district and bankruptcy courts
include a fee for every search of the records of the court conducted by the clerk's
office, the fee schedule for the United States Court of Federal Claims (28 U.S.C.
§ 1926) contains no search fee. On recommendation of the Committee, the Judicial
Conference approved an amendment to the miscellaneous fee schedule for the Court of
Federal Claims to add a $15 search fee and to include a reference to the guidelines for
the application of the search fee found in the district court miscellaneous fee schedule.

MISCELLANEOUS FEE SCHEDULES - ELECTRONIC PUBLIC ACCESS FEE

In March 1991, the Judicial Conference approved a fee for electronic access
to court data for the district and bankruptcy courts (JCUS-MAR 91, p. 16), and a
similar fee was approved in March and September 1994 for the appellate cour:ts
(JCUS-MAR 94, p. 16) and the United States Court of Federal Claims (JCUS-SEP
94, p. 4 7), respectively. This fee has been incorporated into the appropriate
miscellaneous fee schedules. The fee was initially established at $1.00 per minute; it
was reduced in March 1995 to 75 cents per minute to avoid an ongoing surplus
(JCUS-MAR 95, pp. 13-14). At this session, the Conference approved a Committee
recommendation to reduce the fee for electronic public access further, from 75 cents
per minute to 60 cents per minute.

CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISING OF COURT PROCEEDINGS

Proposed legislation would require federal courts to order the closed circuit
televising of proceedings in certain criminal cases, particularly cases that have been
moved to a remote location. The legislation would authorize or require the costs of
the closed circuit system to be paid from private donations. The Judicial Conference
determined to take no policy position on the legislative amendments pertaining to
closed circuit television. It also approved a recommendation of the Court
Administration and Case Management Committee that the House and Senate Judiciary
Committee leadership be informed that such legislation, if enacted, should be modified
to (a) remove any prohibition relating to the expenditure of appropriated funds; and (b)
make discretionary any requirement that courts order closed circuit televising of certain
criminal proceedings.

16

EXHIBIT G

REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS
OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER15,1998
WASHINGTON, D.C.

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES
CHIEF JUSTICE WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST,
PRESIDING
LEONIDAS RALPH MECHAM, SECRETARY

Judicial Conference of the Un ired States

MISCELLANEOUS FEE SCHEDULES
Internet Fee for Electronic Access to Court Information. The
miscellaneous fee schedules for the appellate, district and bankruptcy courts, the
U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
provide a fee for public access to court electronic records (PACER) (28 U.S.C.
§§ 1913, 1914, 1926, 1930 and 1932). The revenue from these fees is used
exclusively to fund the full range of electronic public access (EPA) services.
With the introduction oflnternet technology to the judiciary's current public
access program, the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management
recommended that a new Internet PACER fee be established to maintain the
current public access revenue while introducing new technologies to expand
public accessibility to PACER information. On the Committee's
recommendation, the Judicial Conference approved an amendment to the
miscellaneous fee schedules for the appellate, district and bankruptcy courts, the
U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
establish an Internet PACER fee of $.07 per page for public users obtaining
PACER information through a federal judiciary Internet site.

The Committee also addressed the issue of what types of data or
information made available for electronic public access should have an associated
fee and what types of data should be provided at no cost. On recommendation of
the Committee, the Judicial Conference agreed to include the following language
as addenda to the same miscellaneous fee schedules:
a. The Judicial Conference has prescribed a fee for access to court
data obtained electronically from the public dockets of individual
case records in the coun, except as provided below.
b. Courts may provide other local court information at no cost. For
example:
•
•
•
•
•

local rules,
court forms,
news items,
court calendars,
opinions designated by the court for publication, and

64

September 15, 1998

•

other information-such as court hours, court location,
telephone listings--determined locally to benefit the public
and the court.

Court of Federal Claims. In September 1997, the Judicial Conference
approved an amendment to the district court and bankruptcy court miscellaneous
fee schedules to increase the fee for exemplifications to twice the amount of the
fee for certifications (JCUS-SEP 97, p. 59). The miscellaneous fee schedule for
the United States Court of Federal Claims also contains a provision on fees for
exemplifications and certifications, which was inadvertently excluded from this
Conference action. At this session, the Conference approved a Committee
recommendation that the Conference amend Item 3 of the United States Court of
Federal Claims miscellaneous fee schedule to make the fee for certification of any
document or paper, where the certification is made directly on the document or by
separate instrument, $5 4 and the fee for exemplification of any document or paper
twice the amount of the fee for certification.

The Court of Federal Claims was also omitted from action taken by the
Conference in March I 993 amending the miscellaneous fee schedule for district
courts to increase the fees for admission to practice and for duplicate
admission certificates and certificates of good standing (JCUS-MAR 93, p. 6).
Since the miscellaneous fee schedule for the Court of Federal Claims contains
similar provisions, at this session the Conference approved the Committee's
recommendation that the Conference raise the attorney admission fee, prescribed
in Item 4 of the United States Court of Federal Claims miscellaneous fee
schedule, to $50 and the fee for a duplicate certificate of admission or certificate
of good standing to $15, provided that legislation permitting the judiciary to retain
any increase in fees collected under the miscellaneous fee schedules is enacted.

CONSOLIDATION - SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

At its March 1998 session, the Judicial Conference adopted procedures for
combining functions in the district and bankruptcy courts. The procedures
provide for the review of requests for the consolidation of district and bankruptcy

'The Judicial Conference, in September 1996, approved an inflationary increase of
this fee to $7 .00, provided legislation is enacted permitting the judiciary to retain
the resulting increase (JCUS-SEP 96, p. 54).
65

EXHIBIT H

REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS
OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 14, 2001
WASHINGTON, D.C.

Judicial Conference of the United States

(iv) ownership of government securities is a “financial
interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding
could substantially affect the value of the securities.

COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES
Since its last report in September 2000, the Committee on Codes of
Conduct received 25 new written inquiries and issued 26 written advisory
responses. During this period, the average response time for requests was 19
days. The Chairman received and responded to 23 telephonic inquiries. In
addition, individual Committee members responded to 135 inquiries from
their colleagues.

C OMMITTEE ON C OURT A DMINISTRATION
AND C ASE M ANAGEMENT
MISCELLANEOUS FEE SCHEDULES
Electronic Public Access. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1913, 1914,
1926(a), 1930(b) and 1932, the Judicial Conference is authorized to prescribe
fees to be collected by the appellate and district courts, the Court of Federal
Claims, the bankruptcy courts, and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, respectively. While the various fees included in these
miscellaneous fee schedules are often court-specific, the fees pertaining to
electronic public access (EPA) to court information cut across fee schedule
lines. The Judicial Conference approved a Court Administration and Case
Management Committee recommendation that EPA fees be removed from the
various courts’ fee schedules and reissued in an independent miscellaneous
EPA fee schedule that would apply to all court types.
The Committee also recommended three substantive amendments to
the EPA fee schedule. The first amendment concerned the user fee for
Internet access to the judiciary’s new case management/electronic case files
(CM/ECF) system. Pursuant to section 404 of Public Law No. 101-515,
which directs the Judicial Conference to prescribe reasonable fees for public
access to information available in electronic form, the judiciary established a
seven cents per page fee for Internet access to electronic court records that will
apply to CM/ECF when it is introduced (JCUS-SEP 98, p. 64). In response to

12

March 14, 2001

concerns about the effect of these fees on open access to court records,
especially with regard to litigants, the Committee recommended that the
schedule be amended to state that attorneys of record and parties in a case
(including pro se litigants) receive one free electronic copy of all filed
documents, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer, which could
then be printed and saved to the recipient’s own computer or network. The
Committee further recommended that no fee under this provision be owed
until an individual account holder accrued charges of more than $10 in a
calendar year. This would allow free access to over 140 electronic pages,
providing a basic level of public access consistent with the services
historically provided by the courts. After discussion, the Conference adopted
the Committee’s recommendations.
The Committee’s second proposal was for the establishment of a new
fee of 10 cents per page for printing paper copies of documents through public
access terminals at clerks’ offices. This proposed fee, set at a level
commensurate with the costs of providing existing services and developing
enhanced services, is less than the 50 cents per page fee currently being
charged for retrieving and copying court records and would therefore
encourage the use of public access terminals and reduce demands on clerks’
offices. The Conference approved the Committee’s recommendation.
Lastly, the Committee recommended, and the Conference approved,
the establishment of a Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER)
Service Center search fee of $20. The PACER Service Center provides
registration, billing, and technical support for the judiciary’s EPA systems and
receives numerous requests daily for particular docket sheets from individuals
who do not have PACER accounts. This fee would be consistent with the fees
currently imposed “for every search of the records of the court, and for
certifying the results thereof” in the other fee schedules.
Reproduction of Recordings. The miscellaneous fee schedules for the
appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts include a provision requiring that a
fee be charged for “reproduction of magnetic tape recordings, either cassette
or reel-to-reel...including the cost of materials.” The Committee
recommended that this fee be modified to account for the expanded variety of
media technologies, including the use of digital equipment, rather than
magnetic tape recordings. In addition, the Committee recommended that the
current exemption from the fee for the federal government be eliminated when
the requested record is available through the judiciary’s CM/ECF system.
Approving the Committee’s recommendations, the Conference amended

13

Case 1:16-cv-00745-ESH Document 52-10 Filed 08/28/17 Page 1 of 8

EXHIBIT I

REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS
OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 13, 2002
WASHINGTON, D.C.

March 13, 2002

accommodate a recent high-profile case filed in the Eastern District of
Virginia (see supra, “Privacy and Public Access to Electronic Case Files,”
pp. 5-6). At this session, the Conference approved the Committee’s
recommendation to allow such exceptions on a permanent basis.

JURY WHEEL DATA
To ensure that juries are selected randomly from a fair cross section of
the community, the Administrative Office provides Census Bureau data for
every jury division in each federal district showing racial, ethnic and gender
composition of the general voting-age population to serve as a basis for
comparison to jury wheel samplings. However, two recent court rulings have
found that because an individual must be a citizen to be eligible to serve as a
juror, the relevant population with which to make these comparisons is the
voting-age population of citizens, rather than the voting-age population of all
persons. Finding that the voting-age citizen population would provide a more
precise basis for comparison against jury wheel samplings, the Committee
recommended, and the Conference approved, the use of such data in lieu of
voting-age general population data for district courts to complete Part IV of
the Form JS-12, “Report on the Operation of the Jury Selection Plan.” The
Conference directed the Administrative Office to make any necessary
amendments to the form to comport with this change.

ELECTRONIC PUBLIC ACCESS FEE SCHEDULE
The Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule imposes a fee of seven
cents per page for case file data obtained via the Internet (JCUS-SEP 98,
p. 64; JCUS-MAR 01, pp. 12-13). This fee is based upon the total number of
pages in a document, even if only one page is viewed, because the case
management/electronic case files system (CM/ECF) software cannot
accommodate a request for a specific range of pages from a document.
Concerns have been raised that this can result in a relatively high charge for a
small usage. Balancing user concerns with the need to generate sufficient
revenue to fund the program, the Committee recommended that the Judicial
Conference amend Section I of the Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule to
cap the charge for accessing any single document via the Internet at the fee for
30 pages. The Conference adopted the Committee’s recommendation.

11

Case 1:16-cv-00745-ESH Document 52-11 Filed 08/28/17 Page 1 of 13

EXHIBIT J

REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS
OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 21, 2004
WASHINGTON, D. C.

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES
. CHIEF JUSTICE WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST,
PRESIDING
LEONIDAS RALPH MECHAM, SECRETARY

Judicial Conference of the United States

Appellate Attorney Admission Fee. The Conference adopted a
recommendation of the Committee to establish an appellate attorney
admission fee of $150 to be incorporated into the Court of Appeals
Miscellaneous Fee Schedule. This fee is in addition to any attorney admission
fee charged and retained locally pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 46(a)(3). The proceeds from the new fee will be deposited into the
judiciary’s fee account.
Central Violations Bureau (CVB) Processing Fee. The Central
Violations Bureau processes the payments of approximately 400,000 petty
offense citations every year that are issued by various government agencies
for violations on federal property. No fee has been charged for the
considerable work the CVB does in processing these cases. On
recommendation of the Committee, the Judicial Conference agreed to seek
legislation establishing a processing fee of $25 for cases processed through
the CVB and allowing the proceeds to be retained by the judiciary.4
Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) Internet Fee.
Congress has specified that electronic public access (EPA) fees be used to
enhance electronic public access, which is currently available through the
PACER program. More recently, in the congressional conference report
accompanying the judiciary’s FY 2004 appropriations act, Congress expanded
the permitted uses of EPA funds to include case management/electronic case
files (CM/ECF) system operational costs. In order to provide sufficient
revenue to fully fund currently identified case management/electronic case
files system costs, the Conference adopted a recommendation of the
Committee to amend Item 1 of the Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule to
increase the fee for public users obtaining information through a federal
judiciary Internet site from seven to eight cents per page.

SHARING ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
An independent study is currently being conducted on ways to deliver
administrative services to the courts in a more efficient and cost-effective
manner. In order to help contain costs in the short-term while the study is
being completed, the Committee on Court Administration and Case
Management recommended that the Judicial Conference strongly urge all

4

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 also provided the Judicial
Conference with the authority to prescribe and retain a fee for the processing of
violations through the CVB.
12

EXHIBIT K

THE JUDICIARY
Fiscal Year 2007 Financial Plans

M ARCH 14, 2007

Fiscal Year 2007 Financial Plan
JUDICIARY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND
The Judiciary Information Technology Fund (JITF) was established by Congress in fiscal year 1990
(28 U.S.C. § 612) to assist the Judiciary in implementing its automation initiatives. The authority of
the JITF was extended indefinitely in the fiscal year 1998 Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-119). The JITF was authorized “without fiscal year
limitation,” which allows the Judiciary to carry forward funds for projects that incur obligations over
multiple years. The fund makes it possible to implement the Long-Range Plan for Information
Technology in the Federal Judiciary and to manage the information technology (IT) program over a
multi-year planning cycle while maximizing efficiencies and benefits.

The JITF provides the judiciary with a funds management tool which allows more effective and
efficient planning, budgeting, and use of appropriated funds for IT activities. In keeping with the
judiciary’s IT mission, these activities include the design, development, acquisition, implementation,
and maintenance of systems for the collection, management, manipulation, dissemination, and
protection of information used by the judiciary, the bar, and the public. All IT expenses for the
appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts, as well as for the probation and pretrial services offices, must
be made from the fund.
Each fiscal year, current year requirements are financed via the JITF from a variety of sources:
•
•
•
•
•
•

deposits from the courts’ Salaries and Expenses account;
fee collections from the Electronic Public Access program;
unobligated balances in the fund resulting from prior year financial plan savings (unencumbered);
proceeds from the sale of excess equipment;
court allotments for non-IT purposes that are reprogrammed locally by the courts for IT initiatives
under the budget decentralization program; and
voluntary deposits from non-mandatory judiciary users of the fund (such as the Court of
International Trade, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and the Administrative Office).

The following table displays JITF requirements and funding sources for fiscal years 2006 and 2007.

Obligations
($000s)

Fiscal Year
2006
Financial Plan

Fiscal Year
2006
Actuals

Fiscal Year
2007
Financial Plan

Percent
Change
Plan to Plan

Salaries and Expenses

$

288,267

$

289,275

0.4%

Encumbered Carryforward (slippage)

$

61,020

$

53,759

-11.9%

Subtotal, Salaries and Expenses

$

349,287

$

289,653

$

343,034

-1.8%

Electronic Public Access Program

$

20,153

$

11,560

$

27,229

35.1%

Court of International Trade

$

313

$

148

$

357

14.1%

U. S. Sentencing Commission

$

1,901

$

0

$

1,901

0.0%

Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts

$

727

$

727

$

726

-0.1%

Total Obligations:

$

372,381

$

302,088

$

373,247

0.2%

39

The following section outlines JITF programs funded from each of the judiciary accounts.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
The Salaries and Expenses financial plan includes available funding of $298.3 million for the fiscal year
2007 plan as detailed below.
Sources of Funding ($000)

FY 2006
Financial Plan

FY 2007
Financial Plan

Percent
Change

Deposit from the Salaries and Expenses Account

$

251,460

$

223,693

-11.0%

Fiscal year 2006 balances (savings)

$

0

$

24,210

Utilization of EPA Receipts

$

36,807

$

41,372

12.4%

Subtotal Current Year Obligations

$

288,267

$

289,275

3.0%

Note: Encumbered project slippage is shown separately on page 44.

Current Year Spending ($000)

FY 2006
Financial Plan

FY 2007
Financial Plan

Percent
Change

Court Allotments

$

80,154

$

88,900

10.9%

IT Infrastructure and Project Development

$

120,833

$

118,641

-1.8%

Courtroom Technologies

$

13,561

$

17,808

31.3%

Telecommunications

$

47,563

$

38,628

-18.8%

Automation Support Personnel

$

26,156

$

25,298

-3.3%

Subtotal, Final Plan (excluding slippage)

$

288,267

$

289,275

0.3%

The content of each program activity included in the Salaries and Expenses plan is outlined below:
1)

Court Allotments: $88,900,000

This category provides for the non-salary information technology formula allotments to fund court
information technology and data communications/local area network equipment and infrastructure,
including the cyclical replacement of this equipment, and other information technology operating
expenses and telecommunication needs.
The information technology infrastructure formula is updated regularly to reflect changing IT needs
of the courts. Considerations for the refreshed formula include how, when, and where technology is
being used by the courts as well as updated information on life-cycle replacement periods for
desktop/laptop personal computers and peripheral equipment, and emerging technologies that may
benefit the courts. The refined and additional elements contained in the formula are not new
requirements; rather, they reflect the courts’ current IT infrastructure needs.

40

SALARIES AND EXPENSES continued
2)

IT Infrastructure and Project Development: $118,641,000

This funding supports seven separate and distinct IT program components. The Judicial
Conference’s Information Technology Committee has endorsed using these program components to
provide a better overview of the cost drivers in the JITF program. These requirements support the
judiciary’s IT systems and infrastructure, and provide judges and staff with the tools they need to
perform their day-to-day work.

IT Infrastructure and Project Development by Program Component
FY 2006
Financial Plan

IT Program Component

FY 2007
Financial Plan

Percent
Change

Court Administration and Case Management

$

20,753

$

14,778

-28.8%

Judicial Statistical and Reporting Systems

$

3,183

$

2,131

-33.1%

Probation/Pretrial Services Management Systems
Financial Systems
Human Resources Systems
Management Information Systems
Infrastructure and Collaboration Tools

$
$
$
$
$

9,094
14,955
9,778
10,084
52,986

$
$
$
$
$

12,285
14,706
15,622
9,509
49,610

35.1%
-1.7%
59.8%
-5.7%
-6.4%

$120,833

$

118,641

-1.8%

Subtotal

Court Administration and Case Management Systems:
$14.8 million
This category encompasses systems that manage cases and case files for appellate, district and
bankruptcy courts and the Central Violations Bureau. Other systems also include juror qualification,
management, and payment; the management and administration of library functions (e.g., acquisitions,
cataloging, serial control); and the operations and maintenance for the Central Violations Bureau which
provides case management and financial information for petty offense and misdemeanor cases initiated
by violation notices.
Via this financial plan submission, the Judiciary seeks spending authority to implement a
Memorandum of Agreement with the State of Mississippi to undertake a three-year study of the
feasibility of sharing the Judiciary’s case management electronic case filing system at the state
level, to include electronic billing processes. The estimated cost of this three year pilot will not
exceed $1.4 million.
Judicial Statistical and Reporting Systems: $2.1 million
This category includes systems to support the operations and maintenance and ongoing systems
development for gathering and reporting statistics in the Judiciary; financial disclosures by judges and
Judiciary employees (for completing financial reports required by the Ethics in Government Act of
1978); inter-circuit assignments for courts of appeals and district courts; bankruptcy administrator
management and reporting to manage cases, oversee the trustees’ activity, and provide reports to
federal judges; the law clerk hiring process; and electronic document capabilities for the federal rulemaking process.
41

SALARIES AND EXPENSES continued:
Probation/Pretrial Services Management Systems: $12.3 million
This program provides probation and pretrial services personnel case management and decision support
tools as well as tools to access critical case information while working in the field. Support is also
provided for storage and sharing of electronic documents, collection, analysis, and reporting of client
data, and the IT needs of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
Financial Systems: $14.7 million
In addition to the financial accounting system, this program includes systems to support the local court
budgeting process, make payments for private counsel and expert services, track and monitor criminal
debt imposed by the court, handle cash receipting, report court payroll information, and handle travel
expenses.
Human Resources Systems: $15.6 million
This program encompasses systems for personnel, payroll, and retirement related services, judges’
retirement, fair employment practices reporting, and integration of all human resources-related items as
well as efforts to reduce travel-based training. It also includes equipment to produce educational news
programming for the Judiciary, the public, and Congress. The cornerstone of providing these human
resources services for the courts is to integrate all human resources-related items into a single user
experience through the exploitation of internet architecture and online distributed processing ensuring
timely, accurate and integrated processing of personnel and payroll information.
Management Information Systems: $9.5 million
This category includes a collection of systems and activities to support the procurement process, the
Judiciary’s national web sites, collection of survey information, the national records management
program, the Court Operations Support Center, and the Guide to Judiciary Policies and Procedures.
Also included are systems to manage facilities projects and to support planning and decision-making
with staffing, financial, and workload data.
Infrastructure and Collaboration Tools: $49.6 million
These tools provide support to the national IT program including testing, training, and support;
maintenance and replacement of servers; e-mail messaging (including licenses, server maintenance and
replacement, and help desk services); IT security and national gateways (including security support
services); mainframe computer and national software licenses; IT project management; information
systems architecture (and assessment of new technologies); local court grants for technology
innovation; portal technology; and infrastructure for identity management services.

42

SALARIES AND EXPENSES continued:
3)

Courtroom Technologies: $17,808,000

These funds equip courtrooms with a variety of technologies to improve the quality and efficiency of
certain aspects of courtroom proceedings. These technologies include video evidence presentation
systems, video conferencing systems, and electronic methods of taking the record. The use of
technology in the courtroom facilitates case management, reduces trial time, litigation costs and
improves fact-finding, jury understanding and access to court proceedings.
Through the implementation of CM/ECF, court case files are becoming fully electronic, and that
technology is revolutionizing trial processes. To fully realize the benefits of electronic case files in the
courtroom, the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management
recommends the expanded use of available balances derived from electronic public access fees in the
Judiciary Information Technology Fund to fund court allotments for the much needed implementation
of a cyclical equipment replacement and maintenance program for courtroom technologies.
Via this financial plan submission, the Judiciary seeks authority to expand use of Electronic
Public Access (EPA) receipts to support courtroom technology allotments for installation, cyclical
replacement of equipment, and infrastructure maintenance. The Judiciary seeks this expanded
authority as an appropriate use of EPA receipts to improve the ability to share case evidence with
the public in the courtroom during proceedings and to share case evidence electronically through
electronic public access services when it is presented electronically and becomes an electronic
court record.

4)

Telecommunications: $38,628,000

These funds support the judiciary’s telecommunications program, and allow the judiciary to fund
recurring expenses such as long distance and FTS charges, maintenance and follow-on service,
relocation/reconfiguration of existing systems; and purchase or replacement of existing court systems
including systems for new courthouses and prospectus alterations projects. The telecommunications
program allows the judiciary to maintain telecommunications services for the appellate, district, and
bankruptcy courts and for probation and pretrial services offices, and procure telecommunications
equipment for new courthouses and for courthouses undergoing major repairs and alteration. Funds are
provided directly to the courts for annual recurring requirements such as charges for local, commercial
long distance, and cellular services. The judiciary also incurs recurring charges for FTS long distance
services for both voice and data transmission.
5)

Automation Support Program: $25,298,000

These funds provide for staffed operations at the Administrative Office including salaries, contractual
services, and other operating expenses to provide support to the courts for data communications,
network applications, and other information technology systems. The FTEs associated with these
Administrative Office reimbursable positions are approved annually by the Executive Committee of the
Judicial Conference. Since 1995, the number of automation support positions has declined from a high
of 230 to the current 197.

43

Salaries and Expenses Encumbered Financing Requirements (Project Slippage)
The Salaries and Expenses financial plan also includes several areas where information technology
obligations that were included in the fiscal year 2006 financial plan were delayed and the requirements,
along with the funds, carried forward into fiscal year 2007. In order to provide appropriate
comparisons between fiscal years, these encumbered funds are being displayed separately. A summary
of the planned uses of these funds is provided below.
Financing ($000s):
FY 2006
Financial Plan
Judiciary Information Technology
Fund Slippage

$

61,020

FY 2007
Financial Plan

$

53,759

Percent
Change

-11.9%

These slipped requirements include funding from project development efforts, operations and
maintenance initiatives, and courtroom technology projects. The slippage is broken out as follows:
•

IT Infrastructure and Project Development $21.9 million:
Includes funding associated with equipment for the new bankruptcy judges, and slippage from
schedule delays affecting contractual outsourcing, training, national licenses, the judiciary data
center, records management, and local initiatives. A summary of slippage by IT program
component is as follows:
<
Court administration and case management $1.0 million;
<
Judicial statistical and reporting systems $1.3 million;
<
Probation and pretrial services case management $0.04 million; financial
systems $2.8 million;
<
Human resources systems $1.2 million;
<
Management information systems $1.9 million; and
<
Information collaboration tools $13.7 million.

<

Courtroom Technology $7.5 million:
Includes equipment and maintenance associated with planned installations for new bankruptcy
judges and from fiscal year 2006 schedule delays.

<

Telecommunications $7.3 million:
Includes $6.4 million in funding for telecommunications equipment as a result of slippage in the
building schedule, the transition to Networx, and $0.9 million from the remaining emergency
communication supplemental funding.

•

Service Delivery Alternative $16.9 million:
Includes funding for the service delivery alternative (including deferred cyclical server
maintenance funding) to identify and evaluate alternate delivery models for IT systems with the
aim of selecting and implementing more cost-effective models that would reduce the number of
servers nationwide.

44

ELECTRONIC PUBLIC ACCESS (EPA)
Financing ($000)
FY 2006
Financial Plan

FY 2006
Actual

FY 2007
Financial Plan

Percent
Change over
FY 2006 Plan

Collections

$

49,152

$

62,300

$

62,120

26.4%

Prior-year Carryforward

$

14,376

$

14,376

$

32,200

124.0%

$

63,528

$

76,676

$

94,320

48.5%

Total

SPENDING
FY 2006
Financial
Plan

($000s)

FY 2006
Actual

FY 2007
Financial
Plan

Percent
Change over
FY 2006 Plan

EPA Program Operations

$

19,346

$

11,560

$

27,229

40.7%

Available to Offset Approved
Public Access initiatives
(e.g. CM/ECF)

$

36,807

$

32,916

$

41,372

12.4%

Planned Carryforward

$

7,325

$

32,200

$

25,719

251.1%

$

63,528

$

76,676

$

94,320

48.5%

Total

The judiciary’s Electronic Public Access (EPA) program provides for the development, implementation
and enhancement of electronic public access systems in the federal judiciary. The EPA program provides
centralized billing, registration and technical support services for PACER (Public Access to Court
Electronic Records), which facilitates Internet access to data from case files in all court types, in
accordance with policies set by the Judicial Conference. The increase in fiscal year 2007 EPA program
operations includes one-time costs associated with renegotiation of the Federal Telephone System (FTS)
2001 telecommunications contract.
Pursuant to congressional directives, the program is self-funded and collections are used to fund
information technology initiatives in the judiciary related to public access. Fee revenue from electronic
access is deposited into the Judiciary Information Technology Fund. Funds are used first to pay the
expenses of the PACER program. Funds collected above the level needed for the PACER program are
then used to fund other initiatives related to public access. The development, implementation, and
maintenance costs for the CM/ECF project have been funded through EPA collections. In fiscal year 2007,
the judiciary plans to use $41.4 million in EPA collections to fund public access initiatives within the
Salaries and Expenses financial plan including:

<
<
<
<

CM/ECF Infrastructure and Allotments $20.6 million
Electronic Bankruptcy Noticing $5.0 million
Internet Gateways $8.8 million
Courtroom Technology Allotments for Maintenance/Technology Refreshment $7.0 million
(New authority requested for this item on page 46)
45

The fiscal year 2007 financial plan for courtroom technologies includes $7.0 million for court allotments to
be funded EPA receipts to provide cyclical replacement of equipment and infrastructure maintenance.
Via this financial plan submission, the Judiciary seeks authority to expand use of Electronic Public
Access (EPA) receipts to support courtroom technology allotments for installation, cyclical
replacement of equipment, and infrastructure maintenance. The Judiciary seeks this expanded
authority as an appropriate use of EPA receipts to improve the ability to share case evidence with
the public in the courtroom during proceedings and to share case evidence electronically through
electronic public access services when it is presented electronically and becomes an electronic court
record.

COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
The following table details the beginning balances, deposits, obligations, and carryforward balances in the
JITF for the Court of International Trade for fiscal years 2006 and 2007.
Judiciary Information
Technology Fund
Balance, Start of Year

FY 2006
Financial Plan

FY 2006
Actual

FY 2007
Financial Plan

Percent
Change over
FY 2006 plan

$

598

$

605

$

657

9.9%

$

0

$

200

$

0

0.0%

Obligations

$

(313)

$

(148)

$

(357)

14.1%

Balance, End of Year

$

285

$

657

$

300

5.3%

Current-year Deposits

The Court has been using the Judiciary Information Technology Fund to upgrade and enhance its
information technology needs and infrastructure. Of the $0.7 million that carried forward into fiscal year
2007 in the Judiciary Information Technology Fund, $0.4 million is planned for obligation in the fiscal
year 2007 financial plan, the remaining $0.3 million will carry forward into fiscal year 2008.
These funds will be used to continue the Court’s information technology initiatives, in accordance with its
long-range plan, and to support the Court’s recent and future information technology growth. The Court is
planning to use these funds to continue the support of its newly upgraded data network and voice
connections; to pay for the recurring Virtual Private Network System (VPN) phone and cable line charges;
replace the Court’s CM/ECF file server; purchase computer desktop systems and laptops for the Court’s
new digital recording system; replace computer desktop systems, printers and laptops in accordance with
the judiciary’s cyclical replacement program; and upgrade and support existing software applications.

46

EXHIBIT L

ROBERT C. BYRD, WEST VIRGINIA, CHAIRMAN
DANIEL K. INOUYE, HAWAII
PATRICK J. LEAHY, VERMONT
TOM HARKIN, IOWA
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, MARYLAND
HERB KOHL, WISCONSIN
PATTY MURRAY, WASHINGTON
BYRON L. DORGAN, NORlrl DAKOTA
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, CALIFORNIA
RICHARD J. DURBIN, ILLINO!S
TIM JOHNSON, SOUTH DAKOTA
MARYL. LANDRIEU, LOUISIANA
JACK REED, RHODE ISLAND
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, NEW JERSEY
BEN NELSON, NEBRASKA

THAD COCHAAN, MISSISSIPPI
TED STEVENS, ALASKA
ARLEN SPECTER, PENNSYLVANIA
PETE V. OOMENfCI, NEW MEXICO
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, MISSOURI
MITCH McCONNELL, KENTUCKY
RICHARD C. SHELBY, ALABAMA
JUDD GREGG, NEW HAMPSHIRE
ROBERT F. BENNETT, UTAH
LARRY CAAIG, fDAHO
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, TEXAS
SAM BROWNBACK, KANSAS
WAYNE ALtAAD, COLORADO
LAMAR ALEXANDER, TENNESSEE

tinitcd ~rates ~cnatc
COMMITIEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6025
http;//appropriations.senate.gov

May 2, 2007

TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, STAFF DIRECTOR
BRUCE EVANS, MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR

Mr, James Duff
Director
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20544
Dear Mr. Duff:
This letter is in response to the request for approval for the Judiciary's Fiscal Year
2007 Financial Plan, dated March 14, 2007 in accordance with section 113 of Public Law
110-5. For Fiscal Year 2007, Public Law 110-5 provided just under a five percent
increase for the Judiciary over last year's level. With the increased funding provided in
Fiscal Year 2007, $20.4 million is provided for critically understaffed workload
associated with immigration and other law enforcement needs, especially at the
Southwest Border.
We have reviewed the information included and have no objection to the financial
plan including the following proposals:
•
•

•
•

a cost of living increase for panel attorneys;
the establishment of a branch office of the Southern District of Mississippi to
allow for a federal Defender organization presence in the Northern District of
Mississippi;
a feasibility study for sharing the Judiciary's case management system with the
State of Mississippi, and;
the expanded use of Electronic Public Access Receipts.

Any alteration of the financial plan from that detailed in the March 14, 2007
document would be subject to prior approval of the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
Sincerely,

Richard J. Durbin
Chairman
Subcommittee on Finartcial Services
and General Government

Sam Brownback
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Financial Services
and General Government

EXHIBIT M

/May-03·0!

03:0lpm

T-216

From-

P. 002/003

F-534

JERRY Li!WIS, CA~IFORNIA
C. W. OILL YOUNG, FLORIDA

DAVID R, 0BEV, WISCONSIN. CHAIAMAN

,IIAU'H U!!GUl.A, OlilD
HP.AOLO i100f.A6, KENTUCKY

JOHN P. MUflWA, PENNSYL\rl\NIA

NDAMAN 0. 0JC){5, WASHINGTON
ALAN 0. MOl,l,OHAN, Wl!STVIR<llf'llA
MARCY KA/•TLJR, OHIO

<r:onyress of the tinited ~tares

PnEn ,,, Vl!!CLOlil<Y;lNOl/'INA

NIT/\ M, l,OWEY, NEW YOAK
J05JC ~. SC!RnANO, NEW YORt::
RO!;IA l, OcLAu1,o, i:ONNECT1CUT
JAMliS r. MORAN, VllllJINlA
JOHN W, OLVER, MASSACHLiliETIS
ED 1'/\$10/l. ARIZONA
DAV\O !!. rm,;i;, ~ORTH CAROLINA

C/iET EDWAOOS, Tl:XAS
ROllERT!:. ·uuD· Cf1AMER,Jll.,ALA!l,AMA

PATRICI( J, l\i:NNl:DY, RHODE l:il.f\ND
MAURIG!! 0, mNCHEY, NEWYOIII(

LUCILLE JT0Yf1AJ.•ALLARD, C/\Lll'00NIA.

SAM FARH, CALlFORNIA

it-louse of 1R.cprr.srntuti11cs
~ammittcc on S?Lppropriatians
~o.shin_gtan, 3B tr :20515-6015

fRAN\t: R. WOLr-, VUlGJf,IIA
'JAMl:S T. WALSl·I, NliW YOflK
DAVID 1-, HOBSON, OHIO

JOE Kt,IOLLENlll!I\C, MICl-llGAN
JACKKIM6TON, GEOAlllA

ROONllY P, ff1j:J.1NGHUYS1!N, N!:W JEREiE)'
AOG~J\ fi, WICKER, MISS1SS!f'P!

TODD TIAMllT1 l(.Ar,ISAS

Z,l,CH WAMI', TrnNl:9SEE

TOM 1,ATI-IAM, IOWA
AO BEAT II. ADEllHOLT, AJ.Al:IA.MA
JO /\NN F.M.E~EiDN, MISSOl.lRI
KAY Gl1Afll0!;11, TEXAS
JOHN It l'G1ERS0N, fENNSYLVANI.I\
Vl/lGIL H. GOODr:i JR,, VIRGINIA
.JOtlN T. DOOLITI!.E, CAUFOHNfA

JJ:SSE L JAC!<SON. JR,, ILLllliOI:,

RAY L,,,,HOOO, JLI.INO!S

CAROLYN C, )(l~PATRlc,;, MICl•IIGAN

PAVE waoON. FLORIDA
MICHAEL K. SJ MPS ON, 1DAH0
JDt1N AONl<Y Cl,ll.ll.ER5DN, TtiXAS
MARK snNEN i<IR1', ILUNOJS
ANOl!A. C(tf.NSHAW, FLDRIGA
OENN(:; i'!, lll:HBERG, MONTANA
JOHN n. CARTER, TEXAS
ROONl:Y ,',.~EXANOER, L01,ltSIANA

A~LEN UOYD, FLORIDA

CHAKAJltffTAtt, PENNSYLVANIA
STEVEN A, flOTliMAN, NEW Jll!lS!;'r'

8AN(,OllD (). BISHOP, Jlt, GEOAIJlA
M/\11101'1 ~1:ARY,ARKANSA$

BAHDMIA J,liE, CALIFOHNII\
TOM 1,,1PALl, NEW Ml!}IICQ

110,\M SCHIFF, CALU1
0nNJA
MICI-\AEL HONDA, Cf\l.JfOANIA
ll!;TTY Mi:COLLUM, MINNESOTA
S.T!!VF. !\!RAEL, NEW YOnt<

CL.ERK AND STA Ff PHI ECTOR
ll08NAB0RS

'flM RYAN, CHIO

TELEPHONI:;
12021 226-2n1

CA "DUTCW AUPPE"$u!:naF.A, MARYLAND
DEN CHANDLER. Kl=NTUCKY
DEB81E WASSEAMA~ SCHULTZ, 1:LOnlDA
C1AO RODRIGUEZ, T!;lCAS

May 2, 2007

Mr. James Duff
Director
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
One Columbus Circle NE
Washington, DC 20544

Dear Mr. Duff,
This letter is in response to the request for &pproval for the Judiciary's fiscal year 2007
Financial Plan, dated March 14111, 2007 in accordance with section 113 of Public Law
110-5.
We have reviewed the information included and have no objection to the financial pla_n
including the following proposals:
•
•
•
•

a cost of living increase for panel attorneys;
the establislunent of a branch office of the Southern District of Mississippi in the
Northern District of Mississippi;
a feasibility study for sharing the Judiciary' s case management system with the
state of Mississippi, and;
the expanded use of Electronic Public Access Receipts.

lij;ly-03-07,

03:02pm

From-

T-216

P.003/003

Any alteration of the financial plan tha,t differs from that detailed in the March 14, 2007
document would be subject to prior approval of the house Committee on Appropriations.

Sincerely,

tlu~

eE. Serrano

hairman
Stibcommittee on Financial Services
and General Government

cc: The Ho.norable Ralph Regula,
Ranking Member

F-534

EXHIBIT N

R EPORT OF THE P ROCEEDINGS
OF THE J UDICIAL C ONFERENCE
OF THE U NITED S TATES
September 13, 2011
The Judicial Conference of the United States convened in Washington,
D.C., on September 13, 2011, pursuant to the call of the Chief Justice of the
United States issued under 28 U.S.C. § 331. The Chief Justice presided, and
the following members of the Conference were present:
First Circuit:
Chief Judge Sandra L. Lynch
Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf,
District of Massachusetts
Second Circuit:
Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs
Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon,
Eastern District of New York
Third Circuit:
Chief Judge Theodore A. McKee
Judge Harvey Bartle III,
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Fourth Circuit:
Chief Judge William B. Traxler, Jr.
Judge James P. Jones,
Western District of Virginia
Fifth Circuit:
Chief Judge Edith Hollan Jones
Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance,
Eastern District of Louisiana

Judicial Conference of the United States

5. Sale of Monthly Listing of
Court Orders and Opinions

September 13, 2011

$19

$22

7. Returned Check Fee

$45

$53

9. Audio Recording

$26

$30

10. Document Filing/Indexing

$39

$46

11. Record Retrieval Fee

$45

$53

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Miscellaneous Fee Schedule
Item

Current Fee

New Fee

1. Record Search

$26

$30

2. Certification

$9

$11

4. Record Retrieval Fee

$45

$53

5. Returned Check Fee

$45

$53

Electronic Public Access Fees. Pursuant to statute and Judicial
Conference policy, the electronic public access (EPA) fee is set to be
commensurate with the costs of providing existing services and developing
enhanced services. Noting that the current fee has not increased since 2005
and that for the past three fiscal years the EPA program’s obligations have
exceeded its revenue, the Committee recommended that the EPA fee be
increased from $.08 to $.10 per page. The Committee also recommended that
the current waiver of fees of $10 or less in a quarterly billing cycle be changed
to $15 or less per quarter so that 75 to 80 percent of all users would still
receive fee waivers. Finally, in recognition of the current fiscal austerity for
government agencies, the Committee recommended that the fee increase be
suspended for local, state, and federal and government entities for a period of
three years. The Conference adopted the Committee’s recommendations.

COURTROOM SHARING
Based on a comprehensive study of district courtroom usage
conducted by the FJC at the Committee’s request, the Judicial Conference
adopted courtroom sharing policies for senior district judges and magistrate
judges in new courthouse and/or courtroom construction (JCUS-SEP 08,
16