Stringer v. Simon & Schuster
- Vyskocil
- 1:25-cv-00670
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Vickie M. Stringer v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., Judge Vyskocil denied Stringer’s request for an exemption from PACER fees.
Vickie M. Stringer’s request for additional free access to PACER was denied; the order concerned docket entry 92 and did not decide the underlying claims against Simon & Schuster, Inc.
What happened
Vickie M. Stringer v. Simon & Schuster, Inc. concerns Stringer’s request for free access to PACER, the federal courts’ electronic records system. Stringer, who was representing herself, sought the exemption solely to access her own case and cited her financial hardship and status as a person allowed to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court explained that parties already receive one free electronic copy of documents filed electronically, and Stringer had agreed to electronic service, so she would receive case notices and documents by email. The court also said that Stringer provided no facts showing that access beyond those existing options was necessary to avoid an unreasonable burden.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied Stringer’s request for an exemption from PACER fees and asked the Clerk of Court to terminate docket entry 92.
The detailed version
- Stringer v. Simon & Schuster · No. 1:25-cv-00670
- Vyskocil
- Dec. 5, 2025
Background
Vickie M. Stringer initiated the case on January 21, 2025, while representing herself. The court considered her request for an exemption from fees charged through PACER, the federal court system’s electronic service for accessing case records. Stringer stated that she wanted the exemption solely to access her own case. She referred to her status as allowed to proceed without paying filing fees and to ongoing financial hardship.
Court’s analysis
The court described several automatic PACER exemptions, including free access until quarterly charges exceed $30, one free electronic copy of electronically filed documents when receipt is required or directed, free access to judicial opinions, and free access at courthouse public-access terminals.
The court also explained that courts may grant additional, discretionary exemptions when the requesting party shows that the exemption is necessary to avoid unreasonable burdens and promote public access to information. The court found that Stringer was already entitled to one free electronic copy of electronically filed documents as a party. It also noted that she had consented to electronic service and would receive court notices and documents by email. The court concluded that she alleged no facts showing that she would face an unreasonable burden without additional free PACER access, and that her status as a person allowed to proceed without paying filing fees was not, by itself, enough to justify a special exemption.
Ruling
The court denied Stringer’s request for an exemption from PACER fees. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also requested that the Clerk of Court terminate docket entry 92. The opinion addresses the PACER-fee request and does not state a ruling on the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.