Lee v. City of Bloomington, The
- Susan Nelson
- 0:23-cv-02652
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Lee v. City of Bloomington, Judge Foster denied Claire J. Lee’s request to waive or reduce Public Access to Court Electronic Records fees.
Claire J. Lee’s ability to obtain a waiver or reduction of current and future fees for accessing court records through PACER.
What happened
Claire J. Lee, representing herself, asked the court to waive or reduce her current and future fees for accessing court records through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records system. She said she was indigent, had difficulty using free access at the courthouse, and preferred to monitor her case at a local library.
The court explained that users generally receive one free electronic view of documents filed and served in their case, fees are waived for users who spend less than $30 in a fiscal quarter, and court opinions are free. It found that Lee’s financial status alone did not justify an exemption because she did not say she was unable to receive filing notices and had successfully filed numerous documents.
In Lee v. City of Bloomington, Judge Dulce J. Foster denied Lee’s request to waive or reduce her current and future court-record access fees.
The detailed version
- Lee v. City of Bloomington, The · No. 0:23-cv-02652
- Susan Nelson
- June 3, 2024
Background
Claire J. Lee, who was representing herself, asked the court to waive or reduce her current and future fees for accessing court records through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records database, commonly called PACER. She stated that she was indigent, had difficulty accessing free PACER access at the courthouse, and preferred to monitor her case at her local library. The opinion states that she provided no legal authority supporting her request.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that PACER charges user fees to cover the cost of maintaining the service. It noted that parties, including people representing themselves, receive one free electronic view of documents filed and served in their case. After that free view, PACER charges fees, but fees are waived for users who spend less than $30 in a fiscal quarter, and court opinions are free.
The court stated that an exemption may be granted when it is necessary to avoid unreasonable burdens and promote public access to information, but that exemptions are exceptions rather than the ordinary rule. The court was sympathetic to Lee’s situation but found that financial status alone was insufficient. It also relied on the facts that Lee did not allege she had been unable to receive filing notices and had successfully filed numerous documents on the docket. The court said those facts indicated that she could litigate the case without a waiver and that this case was not an exception to the normal rule against exemptions.
Ruling
Judge Dulce J. Foster denied Lee’s request to waive or reduce her current and future fees for accessing court records through PACER. The order did not state that the request was denied with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.