Page 1 of 7

Electronic Public Access Public User Group Meeting 

June 21, 2022

EPA Public User Group Members Present:

Christopher Allman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kansas, Department of Justice

Adam Angione, Midwest and Northeast Bureau Chief, Courthouse News Service

JoAnn DiSanti, Associate Director of Managing Clerks, White & Case LLP

Nicholas Goldrosen, Student, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge

Todd Higey, Representative, National Association of Professional Background Screeners

Seamus Hughes, Deputy Director, Program on Extremism, George Washington University

Margo Kirchner, General Counsel and Development Director, Wisconsin Justice Initiative

Tyler Mills, Team Lead, Bloomberg Law

Robert Patrick, Reporter, St. Louis Post-Dispatch (not in attendance)

Theresa Reiss, Law Librarian, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress

Gabriella Sarnoff, Assistant Managing Attorney, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP

Warren Thomas, Principal, Meunier Carlin & Curfman, LLC

Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO)

Angela Jaffee Chief, National Programs Branch, Court Services Office

Candice Murphy-Farmer Attorney-Advisor, Operations Division, Court Services Office

Dena Eaton Chief, CM/ECF Division, Case Management Systems Office

Erin Lane Management Analyst, Office of Compliance and Risk

Eva Roeber Clerk of Court, District of Nebraska

Gary McCaffrey Chief, Operations Division, Court Services Office

James Cartwright Branch Chief, PACER Development Branch

Jane MacCracken Deputy Chief, Court Services Office 

Linda Melchor Program Analyst, National Programs Branch, Court Services Office

Michelle Gardner Attorney Advisor, National Programs Branch, Court Services Office

Stephen Grant Chief, Programs Division, Court Services Office

Meeting Summary

The AO opened the meeting, introduced staff, and reminded the Group to use the dedicated 

Public User Group email inbox for any assistance needed after the meeting. 

Follow-On from Previous Public User Group Meeting

The AO updated the Group on three issues on which members requested follow-up during the

March 2022 teleconference. With regard to the handling of Highly Sensitive Documents (HSDs)

and sealed matters, the AO provided an update discussed in the next section. Regarding
Page 2 of 7

encouraging courts’ robust use of CM/ECF RSS feeds, the Group was informed that the AO will 

send a communication to courts on RSS feeds after courts have completed system updates 

related to the GPO judicial opinions repository.

Highly Sensitive Documents

The AO updated the Group on judiciary efforts to protect documents that contain highly 

sensitive information - HSDs. Following the SolarWinds breach, the AO asked all courts to take 

urgent action to protect the security of HSDs by receiving and storing them only in paper or in a 

secure standalone computer system not connected to any network or the internet (an “airgapped system”). 

To that end, the AO sent multiple communications to courts with guidance on handling HSDs, 

most recently in May 2022. At that time, the Director reminded courts of the continued need to 

protect HSDs from the unprecedented and urgent IT security risks the judiciary has faced, and 

continues to experience. Given the current environment, it is not anticipated that HSD 

procedures will change in the near future. 

The Group was also updated on two initiatives relating to sealing. Partly as a result of this 

Group’s 2020 recommendations regarding best practices for unsealing search warrants, the AO 

formed an expert panel of court personnel consider best practices for handling sealed filings. 

While the project stalled due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, the panel began its 

work in February 2022, and the AO will keep this Group apprised of its progress. 

Status of Public User Group Recommendations

Since the March 2022 call, another recommendation has been implemented. Users now have 

the ability to select which case documents to view or download, and view/download all 

documents in a case with one click of a button. These functionalities were included in the 

District CM/ECF NextGen release 1.7.1 available to courts in April. Users can now view/select 

attachments from the docket sheet in district courts that have implemented release 1.7.1.

Currently, the AO is working on:

• Including similar functionality in the Bankruptcy and Appellate systems,

• Updating learning aids and creating ones focusing on how to search using PACER, and 

• Exploring additional PACER training that can be made available to users, such as 

modules on how to search.

The Group’s remaining recommendations, which require evaluation, technical, or policy

analysis, have been deferred to be addressed as part of the modernization of the Judiciary’s 
Page 3 of 7

electronic case management, filing, and public access system. These remaining 

recommendations include:

• Adding new search criteria, such as the ability to search by judge and full-text searching,

• Ability to track/follow cases,

• Improving timeliness of PACER Case Locator,

• Ability to opt-out of NEF/NDA upon withdrawing from case,

• Improving existing search capabilities by adding the ability to search using one character 

in combination with a wildcard character in the case title and party name fields in 

CM/ECF and providing a glossary and/or definition lists of court case type codes, and 

• Ability to download documents at the Public Terminals.

Update on EPA Services Assessment

In the summer of 2021, a survey was sent to about 60,000 PACER users. This survey was the 

third such outreach to public users following surveys conducted in 2009 and 2012. The Group 

was provided with the following link to the report on uscourts.gov.

Deloitte presented findings, summarized below:

• User profile of PACER users remained consistent with user profile in 2009 and 2012

Users from the legal sector remain the predominant PACER user type with over threefifths reporting that they are in a legal profession.

• User satisfaction with PACER fell slightly from 2012 to 2021

Lower overall satisfaction driven by decrease in satisfaction with search functionalities –

one of the most common PACER use cases.

• Many users are unaware of some of the most valued PACER additions 

Enhancements added since 2012 generally valued by users, but some highly valued 

features – like group billing – are unknown to many users.

• Least satisfied user types are most interested in potential new features

Media members – the most dissatisfied user type -- are most likely to utilize three of the 

five potential new PACER features.

• Most users are satisfied or indifferent about PACER fee structure

Few users express dissatisfaction with billing and fee structures and over 70% are 

satisfied or very satisfied with the value of PACER for the money they pay.

• Use increased since 2012 but PACER Service Center awareness remains low

Percentage of daily and weekly PACER users has increased since 2009 and 2012, but less 

than half of users are aware of the PACER Service Center.
Page 4 of 7

PACER Development Update

The AO discussed development of enhancements in PACER impacting public users. These 

efforts include:

• Multifactor Authentication, which will be an opt-in function for most users, but for 

some, it may be mandatory, and

• Redesigned Account Registration and Management.

Members thanked the AO for developing single character search in PACER. Some members also 

indicated the need to update dropdown menus for case types to include the full range.

NextGen CM/ECF Update

The AO provided an update on recent and future releases of NextGen CM/ECF. While 

development in NextGen CM/ECF will be paused to allow the Judiciary to turn to modernizing 

its case management system, NextGen is being updated to comply with law and policy changes, 

resolve bugs, improve efficiencies, and upgrade security.

Members asked whether courts were pushing back on transitioning to NextGen because of the 

potential removal of plea and sentencing documents on PACER when then transition. The AO 

indicated that plea and sentencing documents were not removed from PACER when courts 

transition to NextGen, so the AO is unaware of any concerns from courts in this regard. There 

is new plea and sentencing functionality available to courts in NextGen, but it is up to each 

court as to whether they want to implement that functionality or not. Moreover, there are only 

three courts not currently on NextGen. 

Modernization of Case Management, Electronic Filing, and Public Access System

The AO briefed the Group on the Judiciary’s plans to modernize its case management, 

electronic filing, and public access system.

The AO’s vision is a modern, sustainable digital platform for the Judiciary to manage cases 

and improve communication, collaboration, and engagement among courts, the public, 

and partners. In line with this vision, the AO will focus on user-centered design based on an 

explicit understanding of users, the tasks they perform, and the environments in which they 

operate. The AO will gather feedback from “hands-on-the-keyboard” users, or User 

Representatives (URs), to refine product requirements and validate them at regular intervals, 

ensuring that the final deliverables are fit for the business purpose. 

The AO has undertaken two key initiatives to begin modernizing the system: (1) unified search

research and development for PACER and (2) market research to determine the platform of the 
Page 5 of 7 

future system. Members asked why the AO would spend resources on updating the search in 

the current PACER service if it would be replaced by the new, modern system in the future. The 

AO responded that the new search functionality will be built to be transferrable to the new 

system. It will provide users with new search functionality in current PACER to address some of 

the public’s most critical needs before the new system is fully functional. 

Brainstorming Sessions – Eliciting and Prioritizing Recommendations for Searches

The Group participated in two brainstorming sessions: (1) to elicit recommendations about new 

unified search functionality and features for PACER, and (2) to prioritize recommendations 

based on criticality and urgency of need. The AO has undertaken an effort to create a unified, 

more user-friendly search experience for court case documents. This is a research and 

development project that, initially, will be limited to a subset of documents that are publicly 

available via PACER. The Group was made aware, at its March 2022 call, that the AO had issued 

a Request for Information for industry sources to provide demonstrations of current 

technologies that could be used to search and retrieve court dockets and documents.

The Group was asked for their suggestions on improvements to PACER search features and 

functionality that would be most beneficial to their needs. The Group’s discussion was guided 

by six categorical questions: 

1. What types of searches do you want to be able to perform in the new system?

2. What types of information do you want to be able to search?

3. What do you want the results to look like?

4. What sorting and filtering options do you want to see for results?

5. Do you have any additional ideas related to search functionality not covered by these 

topics? 

6. Are there any characteristics of search engines that you have found frustrating that 

should be avoided?

The Group’s recommendations will be considered for inclusion in the new unified search tool 

being developed for the current PACER service, which will be transferrable to the new 

modernized system when it is developed. Below are the recommendations grouped into 

categories with the highest priorities listed first.

Recommendations Prioritized by the Group 

Top Priority

• Full-text search across documents
Page 6 of 7 

The majority of members prioritized full-text searching across documents as a top 

priority need. Members also would like to be able to search across documents and with 

more flexible search functionality, such as fuzzy search, natural language, and Boolean

strings. 

• Ability to search using multiple search criteria parameters (i.e., dual searches)

Members indicated that another top priority for searches is to be able to search using 

multiple criteria initially to better narrow search results up-front. 

• Ability to filter search results

Members also believe that the ability to filter search results should be prioritized. This 

will allow users to narrow their search results using additional criteria without having to 

start a new search.

Must Have

• Near real-time search across courts

Members believe that near real-time searching across court databases is necessary, but 

not as urgent as the top priorities noted above. Members believe that being able to 

access up-to-date information from all courts will help keep the public better informed 

of changes in cases.

• Full-text search across case metadata 

Members noted that full-text searching across case metadata, such as docket text and

docket entries, is needed to allow users the ability to quickly capture needed 

information from the dockets. These searches should also be flexible, including fuzzy 

search, natural language, and Boolean strings.

• Ability to export/download results in multiple formats (e.g., Excel format, xml, etc.)

The ability to export and download search results in multiple formats would help users 

vastly improve their search experiences by allowing them to create custom filters or 

more easily conduct data analysis on their search results.

• Provide additional search parameters 

Additional search parameters, such as document type, criminal charge, or sentence, 

would assist users in more quickly identifying cases or documents of interest based on 

more specific search criteria.

Nice to Have

• Provide standard dropdown lists to search by (e.g., party type, case type, etc.)

Members noted that standardizing the search criteria, such as party type and case type, 

would greatly improve search results returned. Currently, there are various naming 

conventions across courts for party types and case types, which makes it difficult for 

users to ensure search results returned are complete. Standardizing the search criteria 
Page 7 of 7

could occur either by requiring courts to comply with certain naming conventions when 

entering a case, or through a built-in dictionary that identifies all variations of a party 

type (e.g., defendant is equal to dft, def, or defendant) or case type.

• Results should be displayed in a standard manner

Members would like to see results displayed in a standard format so that specific criteria 

are identified for each result returned, making the results easier to sort.

• Enhance PACER data by integrating datasets available from other judiciary systems (e.g., 

FJC and USSC)

Members noted that PACER data could be enhanced by cross-referencing and including 

data from other Judiciary systems. This would also assist with improving data integrity 

in PACER.

• Improve naming controls (e.g., United States as a party, standards for inputs, two last 

names for certain parties)

Members also would like common search inputs to be recognized and the search results 

to include all versions of the input. For example, United States, U.S., and US in the party 

field would yield all cases with the United States as a party. 

Conclusion

The AO extends its sincerest gratitude to all members of the first EPA Public User Group for 

their time, effort, and service. The Group’s contributions and recommendations have made a 

significant impact to the electronic public access services the Judiciary provides to the public.

Applications for membership on the second EPA Public User Group were due on April 30, 2022, 

and are currently under review.