Vickie M. Stringer v. Kensington Publishing Corp.

Background

By a motion dated November 28, 2025, Vickie M. Stringer asked the court to exempt her from PACER fees and to credit or refund fees previously assessed during her fee-waiver status. The opinion identifies the motion as ECF No. 11.

Court’s reasoning

The court explained that PACER-fee exemptions may be granted when necessary to avoid unreasonable burdens and promote public access to information. It also noted that parties who consent to electronic service receive one free electronic copy of each document filed electronically when receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. After receiving the notice of electronic filing, a person who consents to electronic service may use the document link for one free access.

The court found that Stringer had not provided a reason why she could not save or print the free copies available to her. It therefore concluded that she had not shown that an additional exemption from PACER charges was necessary. The court separately declined to grant retroactive relief for charges incurred to date, explaining that a discretionary exemption cannot rest solely on fee-waiver status.

Disposition

Judge Jesse M. Furman denied the motion. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Stringer a copy of the order and terminate ECF No. 11. The court stated that Stringer may renew the request if she has difficulty accessing or using PACER. A renewed request should include any PACER invoices, explain why she cannot download and save electronically filed documents, and state any reasons supporting exemption from previously incurred charges.