Button et al v. Breshears

Filing 38

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WAIVE PACER FEES denying without prejudice to renewal by formal motion 35 Motion. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' request for the Court to waive PACER fees associated with this case is DENIED without prejudic e to renewal should there be a demonstrable need in the future for such access. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the motion pending at docket entry 35. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil on 1/29/2025) (tg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DUSTY BUTTON and MITCHELL TAYLOR
BUTTON,
1:24-cv-03757-MKV

Plaintiffs,
-againstMADISON JANE BRESHEARS,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
WAIVE PACER FEES

Defendants.
MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge:
Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, filed a request for the Court to waive PACER fees as a matter
of course associated with this case. [ECF No. 35 (“Pl. Mot.”)]. Plaintiffs previously moved to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this action and for waiver of PACER fees. [ECF Nos. 19,
20]. Both motions were denied as moot because the Plaintiffs had already paid the initial filing
fee and, as such, were authorized to and did receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed
electronically in the case, via the notice of electronic filing or notice of docket activity. [ECF No.
26] (citing Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule, United States Courts (December 31, 2019),
https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/electronic-public-access-fee-schedule).
Plaintiffs’ PACER account has been deactivated for non-payment. Pl. Mot. at 2. Plaintiffs
argue that they cannot afford the fees required to “keep their PACER account current which allows
them to file into the case, research case law and find other cases which are cited and used in their
motions.” Id. Plaintiffs assert that a denial of their request would prejudice them and harm their ability
to properly litigate their case. Id.
The Judicial Conference of the United States has issued a fee schedule that sets the price for
accessing PACER. See Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule, Effective January 1, 2020 (“Fee

Schedule”),

http://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/electronic-public-access-fee-schedule.

Paragraph 8 of the Fee Schedule lists the automatic fee exemptions:
•

No fee is owed for electronic access to court data or audio files via PACER until an account
holder accrues charges of more than $30.00 in a quarterly billing cycle.

•

Parties in a case (including pro se litigants) and attorneys of record receive one free electronic
copy, via the notice of electronic filing or notice of docket activity, of all documents filed
electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer.

•

No fee is charged for access to judicial opinions.

•

No fee is charged for viewing case information or documents at courthouse public access
terminals.

•

No fee is charged for Chapter 13 bankruptcy trustees to download quarterly (i.e., once every
90 days) a list of the trustee's cases from the PACER Case Locator.
Id.
The Fee Schedule also permits courts to grant additional, discretionary exemptions under

limited circumstances. Fee Schedule ¶ 9. Courts may exercise their discretion to grant additional
exemptions, but the party seeking a discretionary exemption “must demonstrate that an exemption
beyond the [] automatic exemptions ‘is necessary ... to avoid unreasonable burdens and to promote
public access to information.’” In re Club Ventures Invs. LLC, 507 B.R. 91, 99-100 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
As the Court has previously explained, Plaintiffs and as pro se litigants are entitled to one free
electronic copy of all documents filed electronically in this case. In addition, Plaintiffs have consented
to electronic service, and thus will receive notices of court activity and documents by email. [ECF No.
4.]
Plaintiffs have not shown that they need free access to PACER to obtain information about this
case. While Plaintiffs assert that they their PACER account has been deactivated, the notice regarding
deactivation attached to Plaintiffs’ motion indicates that “[Plaintiffs] may continue to log in and

2

perform other activities (e.g., e-file request filing privileges), but [Plaintiffs] will not have PACER
search privileges.” Pl. Mot. at Ex. A. Plaintiffs assert that their PACER account “allows them to file
into the case”; however, Plaintiffs subsequent filings in this case demonstrates that Plaintiffs are still
able to review the documents on the docket and respond to them with their own filings. [ECF Nos. 33,
34]. Further, to the extent Plaintiffs are requesting a PACER fees exemption for documents filed in
other cases to “research case law and find other cases which are cited and used in their motions,” that
request is overbroad. See Delgado v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., No. 19-CV-11764 (AT)
(KHP), 2024 WL 3534451, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2024). Plaintiffs appear to fundamentally
misunderstand what PACER is and the proper function of PACER. “Legal research is not the primary
purpose of PACER” and “[i]t is atypical for litigants to be given free access to documents filed in cases
in which the litigant is not a party.” Id. Further, Plaintiffs may access free copies of judicial opinions
on PACER. 1
Aside from noting that they are “indigent,” Plaintiffs allege no facts suggesting that they will
suffer an unreasonable burden without free access to PACER. See Pina v. New York State Gaming
Comm'n, No. 24-CV-5383 (LTS), 2024 WL 3565780, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2024). Even if Plaintiffs
had been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action, that would be insufficient to
establish that their PACER fees should be waived. See id. (“A party seeking a discretionary exemption
cannot solely rely on his IFP status alone.”). Instead, the party must demonstrate that an exemption
beyond the automatic exemptions “is necessary ... to avoid unreasonable burdens and to promote public
access to information.” Id.; see also Waheed v. Rentoulis, No. 24 CIV. 6476 (AT), 2024 WL 4373304,
at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2024).

CONCLUSION

The Court advises PlaintiffS that there are many free resources available for legal research, including Justia and
CourtListener. Harvard Law School has compiled a list of free legal resources at the following link:
https://guides.library.harvard.edu/law/free.
1

3

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ request for the Court to waive PACER fees associated
with this case is DENIED without prejudice to renewal should there be a demonstrable need in the
future for such access. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the motion pending

at docket entry 35.

SO ORDERED.
_________________________________
MARY KAY VYSKOCIL
United States District Judge

Date: January 29, 2025
New York, NY

4