Older Records No Longer Accessible on PACER

, Legal Times


The federal judiciary this month removed years of court records from its online archives, including cases from the Second Circuit, drawing concern from attorneys, journalists, researchers and open-record advocates who rely on remote access to files.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Also Anonymous

    Totally concur with Anonymous. Comments are rare to find here, but this move raises concerns about where our priorities are. One less marble column at the courthouse would have paid for this ten times over in perpetuity.

  • Anonymous (you know why)

    The trend to deny access to the courts continues. Now it‘s court records. They‘re already electronically filed, so why charge $30 to click a docket number? It‘s an unconscionable charge and stating that one can go to court to read a file (and then pay a ridiculous per page photocopy charge) is stupid. The court probably would strike that time from any fee request. This affects only the poor and those who represent them. The easiest thing would be to have two Pacers: before and after 2010. Both are electronic and the pre-2010 Pacer would require no staffing - it‘s complete. But, that won‘t get the courts an unearned $30 - for an entire and perhaps unneeded file. Phooey.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202668267341

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.