Thursday, February 06, 2020

“Do you have a lot of trouble answering questions in life or just when you come to the court?”

That was Federal Circuit Judge Raymond Clevenger to a DOJ lawyer when she wouldn't answer hypotheticals during oral argument on PACER fees. From Politico:
A lawsuit accusing the federal court system of treating nearly a billion dollars in online access fees like a slush fund got a favorable reception on Monday from an appeals court, where the main question that judges seemed interested in debating was how to calculate the extent to which the public was bilked.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard arguments on a class-action lawsuit filed in 2016 that picked up on federal judges’ claims that the user fees from the so-called PACER system were being used to broadly subsidize the courts’ information technology budget, rather than being used solely to cover costs related to making court records available online.

At issue is about $145 million in fees that users pay each year to search for and download federal court filings. The courts typically charge 10 cents a page for electronic copies of those filings. It’s a meager amount, but the bills can add up to hundreds or thousands of dollars a month for law firms, electronic publishers, news organizations and nonprofit groups that use the records for a wide variety of purposes.

Two of the judges, Raymond Clevenger and Todd Hughes, sounded inclined to allow the lawsuit to continue over the objections of the Justice Department, which argued for dismissal of the case.

A Justice Department attorney, Alisa Klein, told the judges that Congress’ directions about what costs could be recovered through user fees were too vague to be the basis for a suit. She also said the alleged overcharges were impossible to calculate because surpluses in the accounts were carried from year to year, with the courts requesting appropriations to make up for shortfalls.

“That’s unknowable,” she said.

Clevenger asked, incredulously, whether the Justice Department was contending that PACER users couldn’t get refunds even if the courts incurred “knowingly, blatantly illegal” expenses on the accounts, like new curtains for the Supreme Court or “gold-plated toilets” for judges. He also raised the possibility that, under the government’s broad interpretation of the law, courts could use the PACER funds to publicize the menu in the Supreme Court cafeteria.

Klein initially resisted those hypotheticals, prompting a barbed response from the judge: “Do you have a lot of trouble answering questions in life or just when you come to the court?”

16 comments:

  1. Anonymous10:28 AM

    Shocking. A federal judge abusing a lawyer.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous1:14 PM

    @10:28, that's not abuse. That's holding the lawyer's feet to the fire - which should happen more. Don't come to court with BS and then cover yourself later saying, "its my job to advocate for the client." When the BS comes out of your mouth, its your BS; whether you're being instructed to say it or not. Have a spine.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous1:27 PM

    Kudos to the judge. In and of itself, probably borderline comment but if you have to sit and listen/read this nonsense day in and day out, it is called restraint.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous1:27 PM

    No, it's an abusive question. Could just say, fine, your not answering my question. Judge gets to rule and have final word. Why does he feel the need to engage in a fight with someone who cannot punch back? Bullying 101.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous1:57 PM

    Why is that "kudos" to the judge? The lawyer was just trying to do her job. And then the judge has to mock her? Grow up.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous2:00 PM

    Some pertinent facts. Judge is 83 and attended Phillips, Yale, and Yale Law. Not a surprise he's abusive.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous3:06 PM

    9 out 10 hypotheticals from the bench are completely useless (I'm looking at you Stanley). For example, let's say that a judge asks a rambling hypothetical questions that is not based on the actual facts of the case, but rather on a stream of consciousness thinking that the judge is currently engaged in like when President Reagan went off script and started talking about highway one on the California coast, by the way that is an amazing drive starting about Santa Cruz and heading south to Monterey, Carmel and Big Sur. Clint Eastwood used to be the mayor of Carmel. We used to cycle from Monterey to Carmel and you get to go right by the famous Pebble Beach golf course and one time we stopped and saw a pod of elephant seals and their cubs on the beach just spectacular and before you know it nobody knows what the question was and you are out of time.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous4:47 PM

    Nothing like getting a 6 minute hypo when you only have a 15 minute argument. Looking at you know who.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous7:46 PM

    Nothing like getting a hypo when you are splitting your 15 with the 3 codefendants and you reserved 2 of you 5 minutes for rebuttal. Or, better yet, the smirk of Pryor when he disagrees with you. That is so much worse.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous7:01 AM

    Always wondered how they paid for all the good food and booze and Judicial investitures

    now I know

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous10:29 AM

    What about Hull's eyerolls? "

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous11:13 AM

    Ever been yelled at by Carnes for just doing your a job?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous12:24 PM

    11:13
    That's how you know you are doing your job and doing it well.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous9:46 AM

    david I am impressed that you did not post something saying that you wanted Madoff released early
    I was certain that you were going to do that

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous4:06 PM

    https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/story/2020-02-08/judge-must-weigh-furtherance-of-justice-in-ruling-whether-to-dismiss-charges-in-newport-surgeons-rape-case

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous9:24 AM

    Old male judge’s comments directed at female DOJ attorney are abusive and meant to demean! Sadly this still happens in 2020!

    ReplyDelete