Page 1 of 5

Electronic Public Access Public User Group Meeting 

November 14, 2022

EPA Public User Group Members Present:

Jaime Miguel El Koury, Student, Harvard Law School

Brian R. Gallagher, Director of Content Acquisition, Thomson Reuters

Dana S. Griffin Robinson, Regional Docket Manager, Jones Day

Mark Harris, Investigative Technology Journalist, Wired, The Guardian, IEEE Spectrum, and The 

Economist

Michael Jay Lissner, Executive Director, Free Law Project

Benton C. Martin, Deputy Defender, Federal Community Defender Office, Detroit, Mich.

Roksana D. Moradi-Brovia, Partner, RHM Law

Lindsay A. Owen, Assistant Managing Clerk, White & Case

Janet Peros, Senior Research Analyst, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison

Anna Liese Price, Senior Legal Reference Librarian, Law Library of Congress

Ken Rodriguez, Reference and Intellectual Property Law Librarian, George Washington 

University Law School

Blayne V. Scofield, Senior Product Manager/Dockets, Bloomberg Industry Group

Administrative Office of the United States Courts

Stephen Grant Group Chair and Division Chief, Programs Division, Court Services Office

James Cartwright Branch Chief, PACER Development Branch, Enterprise Operations Center

Anna Garcia Branch Chief, Chief, PACER Support Branch, Enterprise Operations Center

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

George Chenkeli Branch Chief, Case Management Branch, Court Services Office

Linda Melchor Program Analyst, EPA section, Court Services Office

Aicha Campbell Program Analyst, EPA section, Court Services Office

Michelle Gardner Attorney Advisor, EPA section, Court Services Office

Meeting Summary 

Stephen Grant, Public User Group chair and Division Chief within the Court Services Office,

welcomed the new Electronic Public Access (EPA) Public User Group (Group) members and 

called the meeting to order. 

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) and Group members reviewed the Group’s 

mission and scope, which is to give advice and feedback on enhancing electronic public access 

services (including the Case Management/ Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system, the PACER 
Page 2 of 5

service, and the PACER Case Locator). The purpose of this meeting was for the AO to provide an 

overview of the Judiciary’s policy-making processes, laying the foundation for the Group’s work. 

The AO stated that the Judiciary is dedicated to seeking and implementing the Group’s 

suggestions where feasible. In turn, the Group members are expected to seek the views of 

others in the user sectors that each member represents.

Judiciary Governance and Administrative Process

The AO described the federal Judiciary’s rule-making and policy-making processes, reviewed 

the roles of the Judicial Conference and its committees, the circuit judicial councils, and the AO, 

and discussed local court governance. Cases brought before the federal Judiciary are managed 

locally by the federal court in which the case is brought. The management of the cases is

governed by the rules and procedures that the Judiciary prescribes, subject to the legislative 

right of the Congress to reject, modify or defer any of the rules (see the Rules Enabling Act (28 

U.S.C. §§ 2071-2077)). Because the impact of rules on the practice of law in courts is so critical, 

any change requires meticulous analysis and multiple stages of formal comment and review 

(including public comment). Courts also prescribe local rules governing practice and procedure 

that must be consistent with statutes and the Federal Rules. Ultimately, the needs of each case 

differ, and thus there can be differences in the procedures governing court filings in different

courts. 

Revenue and Costs

The electronic public access program relies on PACER fee revenue to operate.

1 In its most 

recent budget submission to Congress, the Judiciary projected approximately $142 million in 

PACER revenue. Due to waivers and exemptions, approximately 86 percent of revenue comes 

from less than two percent of active users. In any given calendar quarter (fees are billed to 

users quarterly), only about 19 percent of active users actually received an invoice for their 

PACER use. 

Systems and Services Overview

The AO presented information to the Group about the Judiciary’s CM/ECF system and the 

portal to CM/ECF – the PACER service. Finally, the AO described the various electronic public 

access services the Judiciary provides to the public as follows:

• CM/ECF system - the electronic docketing and case management system used by all federal 

courts for nearly 20 years

1 Congress authorized the Judiciary to fund electronic public access services through the collection of 

user fees (Judiciary Appropriations Act, 1991, Pub. L. No. 101-515, Title IV, § 404, 104 Stat. 2102 and 

Judiciary Appropriations Act, 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-140, Title III, § 303, 105 Stat. 782).
Page 3 of 5

• PACER service – service providing access since 1988 to over 1.5 billion documents filed in 

the Judiciary’s 204 CM/ECF systems

• PACER Service Center – customer support center serving all PACER users by telephone and 

email with search questions, account help, and registration assistance at 800-676-6856 or 

pacer@psc.uscourts.gov

• PACER Case Locator – a national tool enabling case searches across all federal courts and 

provides hyperlinks to case records in the respective court’s CM/ECF system

• Federal court websites – individual court websites providing information about local rules, 

court procedures, and other court-specific information

• Public Access Terminals in Federal Court clerks’ offices – computer terminals providing 

access to court records free of charge

• Digital audio recordings of court proceedings (available via PACER service)

• PACER Training and Education Programs 

o PACER Training Application – a free mock website with actual court records that 

enables users to learn how to use PACER service effectively

o Written PACER User Resources (e.g., manuals and learning aids) 

• Real Simple Syndication (RSS) feeds – a feature in CM/ECF that provides notifications of 

newly docketed events (either of all public documents or specific types of documents) that 

many courts have made available 

• Opinions on the govinfo website – providing free judicial opinions from participating courts

via the Government Publishing Office’s govinfo.gov website

• Multi-Court Voice Case Information System (McVCIS) – a telephone interactive voice 

response system providing free general case information for bankruptcy and district court 

cases in English and Spanish at (866) 222-8029

EPA Services Assessments

The AO provided information about the three electronic public access user assessments 

administered in 2010, 2012, and 2020, which measured satisfaction with PACER services. These 

assessments helped determine which improvements to the PACER service would be most 

valuable to the users. The 2010 assessment provided insight into who uses PACER, features that 

provide the highest level of satisfaction for those users, and features that could be improved. 

At that time, 75% of the users who completed the survey said they were satisfied with the 

services. Based on the feedback received, the PACER Case Locator was created, the PACER 

website was redesigned, and RSS feeds were promoted amongst courts, among other 

improvements. In 2012, the assessment was refreshed, and 90% of the users that completed 

the survey said they were satisfied. As a result of the responses from the 2012 survey, several 

additional improvements were implemented, including central sign-on, increasing the fee 

waiver, and redesigning the PACER Case Locator (PCL) and PACER website, among other
Page 4 of 5

enhancements. In 2020, the AO undertook another user assessment, and 84% of users reported 

being satisfied with services. One of the primary areas identified for improvement was search 

functionality, which the AO has prioritized through its recent unified search project.

One member asked whether the AO was satisfied with the results of the surveys or whether the 

AO’s view was that work needed to be done to improve satisfaction. The AO assured members 

that the goal is always to improve user satisfaction, and as happened after prior surveys, new 

improvements are being considered and planned.

Upcoming Releases and Initiatives 

The AO discussed upcoming releases and initiatives with the members. In addition, the 

members will be given the opportunity to assist with testing and/or provide feedback on the 

efforts discussed. These efforts include: 

Unified Search Project

The AO reported on an initiative to improve PACER search functionality, known as the unified 

search project. The goal is to provide a modern, intuitive, user-friendly search interface, 

allowing the user to easily search across the federal courts for publicly available case data, 

documents, and docket entries. The AO is currently working on project planning activities and 

preparing for the solicitation process. 

The Public User Group members were informed that they would be integrated into the user

feedback loop, working with the Judiciary’s Unified Search Product Team to help develop and 

inform requirements for the new search functionality. As a starting point, members were 

provided with an overview of the previous Public User Group’s prioritized recommendations for 

enhancing the search functionality. Members were asked to participate in individual interview 

sessions with the AO’s User Research Coordinator in November and December. In addition to 

providing their individual suggestions for improvements to PACER, members were asked to 

reach out to others in their user sectors to provide a broader range of input during these 

sessions. 

One member asked whether the unified search project was dependent on pending legislation 

passing. The AO advised that the project is not dependent on pending legislation.

One member asked whether searches would be free. The AO responded that the Judicial 

Conference endorsed making searches free specifically for non-commercial users in future 

systems.
Page 5 of 5

Future of CM/ECF 

The AO provided the Group with an overview of the path forward for the modernization of 

CM/ECF. The vision for the new system is a modern, sustainable digital platform for the 

Judiciary to manage cases and improve communication, collaboration, and engagement among 

courts, the public, and partners. The AO is committed to delivering the new system in an agile 

manner and with a user-centered design. In doing so, the AO will engage with User 

Representatives (URs) through user interviews and other user-centered strategies to refine 

product requirements and validate them at regular intervals. 

The AO is currently in the Pre-Discovery Phase, and the path forward includes the Discovery / 

Inception Phase, Phase 1: Prototype, Phase 2: Development, and Phase 3: Roll out / Migration. 

The last two phases will result in a feedback loop, according to the agile development method 

being employed. The Pre-Discovery Phase consists of market research to inform the 

procurement approach for the entire platform with lessons from the industry

regarding Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) products and offerings.

One member asked how the development of the new system would differ from the 

development of the current system. The AO indicated that new development would be 

governed by a multitude of new factors, including the security landscape, end-user input, and 

minimizing variations and customizations. A methodical approach will be taken to develop 

requirements, so there will be no surprises. However, difficult decisions will need to be made 

about which requirements to tackle and when.

Next Steps

The AO plans to conduct the next meeting with the full Group in early 2023. Members were 

advised that they may submit agenda topics in advance of the meeting.