pageok
pageok
pageok
Klein v. Amtrak Opinions, Which Were Removed from Lexis and Westlaw Pursuant to a Settlement:

The Legal Intelligencer (Law.com) reports:

The confidential settlement in Klein v. Amtrak — a case in which two trespassing teenagers climbed atop a parked train car and suffered serious burns when they got too close to a 12,000-volt catenary wire — included an unusual provision that called for the trial judge to vacate all of his published opinions and have them removed from Lexis and Westlaw....

A few months after holding an hourlong oral argument, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in late July to remand the case to the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel, who, in turn, agreed to vacate eight of his published opinions and to "direct" Lexis and Westlaw to remove them from their databases....

[A] spokeswoman for Westlaw[] said Stengel's request to remove the opinions would "absolutely" be honored, and that any instance in which a judge vacates a published opinion automatically leads to its withdrawal from Westlaw's database.

Calls to Lexis were not returned by press time.

It seems to me that it would be very helpful for scholars to have these opinions available somewhere, even if lawyers might find them less useful because they were withdrawn. I've therefore downloaded several of them and placed them here:

  1. Klein v. Amtrak, Feb. 9, 2006.

  2. Klein v. Amtrak, Mar. 31, 2006.

  3. Klein v. Amtrak, Jul. 13, 2006.

  4. Klein v. Amtrak, Aug. 16, 2006.

  5. Klein v. Amtrak, Oct. 11, 2006.

  6. Klein v. Amtrak, Oct. 12, 2006.

  7. Klein v. Amtrak, Mar. 31, 2008.

[UPDATE: Maxwell S. Kennerly (Litigation & Trial) links to most of these, plus two Oct. 2, 2006 orders and an Oct. 10, 2006 order, but not the Feb. 9, 2006 and Jul. 13, 2006 orders. Thanks to commenter Mike& for the pointer. I had also originally linked to a Dec. 16, 2005 document, but as commenter troll_dc2 pointed out, that was a motion for summary judgment with a proposed order, so I've removed it from the list.]

Of course, it would be best if they were stored somewhere where they could more easily be found. Perhaps it might be some central repository for such documents that professors, students, and lawyers will know to search when they're looking for such things. Or perhaps if such deletion of opinions proves to be quite rare, some journal will want to publish these, so that the opinions will be findable using Lexis and Westlaw law review article queries even if not the case law queries. Or perhaps someone else is already providing copies of the opinions, in which case I'll happily link to those copies [UPDATE: I've done this, having learned of Litigation & Trial's post]. So I'd love to hear others' suggestions about what should be done in cases such as this.

(By the way, even district court opinions that haven't been withdrawn are generally only persuasive precedent, not binding precedent; and an opinion withdrawn pursuant to a settlement shouldn't lose any of its persuasive force. But I expect that most judges would still decline to pay attention to an opinion that the authoring judge has vacated, which is why I think the opinions are probably mostly useful for scholars, not for practitioners.)

Many thanks to Kevin Gerson of the UCLA Law Library for his help.

Officious Intermeddler:
How would a settlement between the parties be enforceable against Lexis and Westlaw, if they choose not to comply with the judge's de-publication?
8.19.2009 7:13pm
Mike McDougal:
Will Klein and Amtrak v. Volokh be published?
8.19.2009 7:13pm
Eugene Volokh (www):
Officious Intermeddler: It sounds like Lexis and Westlaw are likely voluntarily going along with the judge's request, as seems to be their normal policy (at least according to the Westlaw spokeswoman).

Mike McDougal: What's the cause of action?
8.19.2009 7:16pm
krs:
and that any instance in which a judge vacates a published opinion automatically leads to its withdrawal from Westlaw's database

Weird. I'd think a big red flag and an notation that the opinion had been vacated would do the trick.

Officious, assuming that the article got the details right, all that is required is that the judge make the request. I don't see how a settlement could possibly be binding on nonparties in that way. The parties could write a contingency into the agreement such that the deal's off if WL and Lexis don't grant the request, but unless Wexis has an agreement with the court system, I don't see any way they could be forced to remove the opinions.
8.19.2009 7:16pm
Stash:
I think this is a bad decision, but, of course, there is no party to appeal. I have been on plaintiff's side where the defense wanted to vacate an opinion. I practice mostly in the Seventh Circuit which does not allow this. In re Memorial Hosp. of Iowa County, Inc., 862 F.2d 1299 (7th Cir.1988). That settled the matter, so we did not have to decide whether to agree to it, or, as would have been logical, seek a premium for the vacatur. One thing we most certainly were not going to do was accept it as a "throw-in" after we had come to an agreement on the number.

The Seventh Circuit stated:

When a clash between genuine adversaries produces a precedent ... the judicial system ought not allow the social value of that precedent, created at cost to the public and other litigants, to be a bargaining chip in the process of settlement. The precedent, a public act of a public official, is not the parties' property.

See also, Judith Resnik, Whose Judgment? Vacating Judgments, Preferences or Settlement, and the Role of Adjudication at the Close of the Twentieth Century, 41 UCLA L.Rev. 1471 (1994).
8.19.2009 7:19pm
Barbara Skolaut (mail):

[A] spokeswoman for Westlaw[] said . . . that any instance in which a judge vacates a published opinion automatically leads to its withdrawal from Westlaw's database

What am I missing here? I do a fair amount of cite-checking, admittedly on Lexis whenever possible, and have more than once run into withdrawn or vacated opinions that are still in the Lexis database; they just note at the top that the opinion is withdrawn/vacated.

Why would they want to make it disappear down the memory hole? As you say, Eugene, the cases are useful for legal research. This is at the very least creepy.
8.19.2009 7:20pm
troll_dc2 (mail):
You have listed six opinions, but the article said eight (and implied that there might be others ["agreed to vacate eight of his published opinions"] that were not published). Westlaw regards itself as official, even though it is not. I don't know about Lexis, but I suspect that it will do the same thing as Westlaw.

On a philosophical basis, I am opposed to letting parties hide decisions that are made after briefing and argument and that the judge thought significant enough to make available to the wider public. I also wonder about the authority of a court of appeals to control the publication of lower court opinions, although from the article it appears that the appeals court did not directly order the district judge to withdraw his rulings. I recall that the Tenth Circuit once forced West not to publish an opinion by Judge Fred Winner (D. Colo.) that excoriated some government (FBI?) agents. I never understood where its authority to so order came from.
8.19.2009 7:21pm
The Original TS (mail):
[A] spokeswoman for Westlaw[] said Stengel's request to remove the opinions would "absolutely" be honored, and that any instance in which a judge vacates a published opinion automatically leads to its withdrawal from Westlaw's database.

I question whether this is always the case. I'm sure I have seen vacated orders/opinions on Westlaw. This is logical because without them it would often be impossible to follow the case.

Vacating an order is one thing. Vacating an order means it has no continuing legal force, not that it never existed. The parties seem to be trying to push the reset button and pretend that the whole dispute never happened.

I question the legal/social utility of this. The courts should not be a party to sending things down the memory hole. That's what arbitration is for.
8.19.2009 7:27pm
The Original TS (mail):
Why would they want to make it disappear down the memory hole?

Heh. Great minds, Barbara.
8.19.2009 7:29pm
troll_dc2 (mail):
Well, it was a huge verdict for kids who caused their injuries by doing things that they absolutely should not ahve been doing. I wonder whether the argument in the Third Circuit went poorly enough for the plaintiffs that they decided to do whatever they had to do so as to salvage some money and avoid a reversal.

I still think that the court opinions should have been left along.
8.19.2009 7:31pm
troll_dc2 (mail):
The December 15, 2005 document is not an opinion. It is the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

So you need to find three opinions. If they are published, they may be in F.Supp.2d. Perhaps you could have someone look at the table of cases for each volume beginning in 2006 and then, if you find them, scan them into a database.
8.19.2009 7:36pm
Steve:
It certainly makes sense that if an opinion is vacated because there was some kind of error, perhaps resulting in a corrected opinion, Lexis and Westlaw might want to remove the vacated opinion from their database in order to avoid confusion.

But if the opinion is vacated due to a settlement, there's hardly the same concern. Prof. Volokh suggests that judges wouldn't pay attention to a vacated opinion; I think many judges would still find the opinion perfectly persuasive as long as they knew that the reason for the vacatur was solely due to a settlement agreement.

I guess it would be nice if judges wouldn't agree to do this sort of thing, but they like their dockets cleared as much as the next guy.
8.19.2009 7:36pm
troll_dc2 (mail):
Sorry, I meant December 16, 2005. I should have checked before hitting the posting box, but I am trying to do a lot of things simultaneously.
8.19.2009 7:38pm
Mike& (mail):
Eugene: The cases were made available due to RECAP. Concurring Opinions had a great post about this.

There are a couple of documents I think you missed, at this law blog.
8.19.2009 7:46pm
Dave N (mail):
I haven't looked but it seems to me that the opinions should all be available to anyone with a PACER account (and since court decisions are not copyrighted, they can then be cut-and-posted anywhere).
8.19.2009 7:46pm
Stash:
Steve, good point. One can always cite opinions that are "vacated on other grounds." So, "vacated by settlement" should theoretically have no effect on their persuasive value.
8.19.2009 7:52pm
U.Va. Grad:
I don't practice in CA, so perhaps you California folks can correct me if I'm wrong: When the CA Supreme Court grants review of a case, doesn't that automatically vacate the Cal. Ct. App. opinion? And yet there are all sorts of red-flagged Cal. Ct. App. opinions floating around on Westlaw whose procedural history stops at "review granted" with no further opinion. If those are vacated, why is Westlaw keeping them around?
8.19.2009 7:55pm
Eugene Volokh (www):
Dave N: They are on PACER, but it's conceivable that they might be removed from there, too, so that's why I thought it would be good to archive them.
8.19.2009 7:57pm
Stash:
If vacating such decisions is allowed as a general part of settlement, as a practitioner, I would be compelled to accept, and even recommend it when my clients would get more in settlement with the clause than without it. I would be selling something my clients do not own. The danger is that such clauses would become standard. (Slippery slope!) In that case, only the tiny proportion of cases that are litigated to final judgment and exhaustion of all appeals would generate usable opinions. Heck, even after an appeal, a litigant could throw in some money, over and above the judgment to "settle" a cert petition and get the pesky precedents vacated.

Perhaps, as troll_dc2 suggests "the argument in the Third Circuit went poorly enough for the plaintiffs that they decided to do whatever they had to do so as to salvage some money and avoid a reversal." If this is a special and compelling case for allowing vacatur, however, that should have been made clear by the court, and it should have laid out the narrow circumstances when it will be granted.
8.19.2009 8:07pm
ayzc:
What am I missing here? I do a fair amount of cite-checking, admittedly on Lexis whenever possible, and have more than once run into withdrawn or vacated opinions that are still in the Lexis database; they just note at the top that the opinion is withdrawn/vacated.



Possibly, the vacated opinions on Lexis and Westlaw were vacated by a higher court, but those vacated by the ruling judge are removed from the Lexis and Westlaw databases.
8.19.2009 8:13pm
Dave N (mail):
I have practiced in federal court for a dozen years and I honestly do not know the answer to this question, which is somewhat related to the issue at hand:
How are District Court cases chosen for inclusion by West in the F. Supps. and Westlaw database in the first instance? Same question for Lexis.
I am guessing the district courts submit them to West--but that is just a guess.
8.19.2009 8:24pm
The Original TS (mail):
Steve, good point. One can always cite opinions that are "vacated on other grounds."

Well, I wonder. A lot of times I see "vacated on other grounds" when the judge's clerk really meant "overuled on other grounds."

I think there is a colorable argument that you could not cite a truly "vacated" opinion under Rule 32.1. Overuled on other grounds =/= unpublished =/= vacated.

You could always cite published cases that had been overuled on other grounds. They were not de-published by virtue of being overuled by subsequent case law. In federal court, before Rule 32.1, you could only cite unpublished opinions if they were law of the case. But you could never cite a vacated opinion for anything, not even law of the case because a truly vacated opinion ceases to legally exist. For example, the most common case where an opinion is vacated is were a court is modifying its opinion on re-hearing. You can't cite the earlier version of the opinion for anything even though it was, at least for a brief time, published. The earlier version of the opinion has ceased to exist and had been replaced by the new opinion.
8.19.2009 8:29pm
Just Dropping By (mail):
A check of Lexis reveals that it only has two of the orders, the February 9, 2006 and July 13, 2006 ones. They aren't yet flagged as having been vacated.
8.19.2009 8:32pm
Fub:
U.Va. Grad wrote at 8.19.2009 7:55pm:
I don't practice in CA, so perhaps you California folks can correct me if I'm wrong: When the CA Supreme Court grants review of a case, doesn't that automatically vacate the Cal. Ct. App. opinion? And yet there are all sorts of red-flagged Cal. Ct. App. opinions floating around on Westlaw whose procedural history stops at "review granted" with no further opinion. If those are vacated, why is Westlaw keeping them around?
The law library of Prof. Volokh's own UCLA provides a guide that addresses your questions: Depublication of California Court of Appeal Decisions (PDF)
8.19.2009 8:43pm
Stash:
The Original TS: I think you are correct when the opinion is vacated by the court that entered it. I disagree if you are suggesting that one cannot cite an opinion that is vacated by a higher court on grounds unrelated to the proposition of law you are citing.
8.19.2009 8:56pm
Stash:
A correction on the law: I earlier cited a Seventh Circuit opinion, but I misremembered. One can get vacatur with a settlement, but only on a strong equitable showing. The relevant case seems to be U.S. Bancorp Mortgage
Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18 (1994).


That opinion states:


We hold that mootness by reason of settlement does not justify vacatur of a judgment under review. This is not to say that vacatur can never be granted when mootness is produced in that fashion. As we have described, the determination is an equitable one, and exceptional circumstances may conceivably counsel in favor of such a course. It should be clear from our discussion, however, that those exceptional circumstances do not include the mere fact that the settlement agreement provides for vacatur-which neither diminishes the voluntariness of the abandonment of review nor alters any of the policy considerations we have discussed. Of course even in the absence of, or before considering the existence of, extraordinary circumstances, a court of appeals presented with a request for vacatur of a district-court judgment may remand the case with instructions that the district court consider the request, which it may do pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
8.19.2009 9:01pm
JasonF:
It seems to me that it would be very helpful for scholars to have these opinions available somewhere


Why? Do they present a uniquely cogent analysis of some legal issue?
8.19.2009 9:13pm
Bobolinq (mail):
I suggest that you post them on www.scribd.com.
8.19.2009 9:22pm
Stash:
The Original TS:

"A lot of times I see "vacated on other grounds" when the judge's clerk really meant "overuled on other grounds."

Really? I have never seen that error. Do you mean "reversed on other grounds"?
8.19.2009 9:24pm
PatHMV (mail) (www):
JasonF... For one, because they're public record, and it's rather unseemly for them to be dropped down a memory hole so that the taxpayers who paid for them can't see them. For another, scholars and future courts may want to see what the precedent is for such "unpublishings," to determine whether it should be done in the future. They also provide an historical record of the specific facts and legal issues of that case; it's quite routine to do historical surveys to see how various legal issues are treated over time.
8.19.2009 9:29pm
Stash:
JasonF: I think torts professors love liability to trespassers cases, and are tired of the "spring-gun" example, which, perversely, I still remember. That, and the one where Learned Hand says "the law does not rest on such quicksands." But really he was talking about a diving board.
8.19.2009 9:36pm
The Original TS (mail):
The Original TS:

"A lot of times I see "vacated on other grounds" when the judge's clerk really meant "overuled on other grounds."

Really? I have never seen that error. Do you mean "reversed on other grounds"?


Yes. I'm sure there are different usages in different jurisdictions, but, strictly speaking, courts can only "vacate" opinions/judgments/orders in the action before it. Supreme courts can, however, overrule/disapprove of opinions issued by lower courts -- or even their own opinions.

A truly vacated judgment/opinion legally ceases to exist. That's very different than a higher court disapproving a part of the reasoning in an older case.
8.19.2009 9:45pm
Sammy Finkelman (mail):
Does anyone know when was the first time anybody tried something like this?
8.19.2009 10:25pm
mgarbowski:
Out Of The Frying Pan And Into The Fire: The Emergence Of Depublication In The Wake Of Vacatur," The Journal Of Appellate Practice And Process (Fall 2002). Link goes to a pdf hosted at my firm site. I'm a co-author, but admittedly haven't followed this issue very much since then.
8.19.2009 10:42pm
Max Kennerly (mail) (www):
Thanks for the link. The orders I posted were the same ones covered by the vacating order; the text I used to describe them comes verbatim (OCR'd) from the vacating order.

As I noted in the comments at Concurring Opinions, this case was very significant in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and I'm sure it appeared in many briefs (not to mention many plaintiffs' demand letters). Purging it from the databases is no mean feat for the defendants and their insurers.
8.19.2009 11:05pm
Harry Eagar (mail):
I have no interest on the parochial concerns of lawyers, but I read this thread to see whether it contained as much indignation as the Yale University Press thread.

No, it doesn't.
8.19.2009 11:40pm
Daryl Herbert (www):
I expect that most judges would still decline to pay attention to an opinion that the authoring judge has vacated

I suspect that judges would pay more attention to an opinion that was vacated pursuant to a settlement agreement, than one vacated for other reasons.
8.20.2009 12:57am
Mike McDougal:

Mike McDougal: What's the cause of action?

Being mean to their settlement agreement.

I was really just commenting on the fact that they might be peeved.
8.20.2009 1:10am
JasonF:
PatHMV -- I certainly understand why, as a general rule, one would not want opinions to just disappear. But Professor Volokh's phrasing suggested that there was soemthing in particular about these opinions that made them worthy of saving, apart from the general principle.

But the truth is that there are a lot of opinions out there of minimal precedential value, simply because they don't contain any generally applicable analysis that's not found in a hundred other similar opinions. A dozen more or less really won't make a difference in the grand scheme of things. If all we're talking about is yet another boring application of black-letter tort law or civil procedure (how many cases do you need to be able to cite for the proposition that on a motion to dismiss, the Court takes as true all well-pleaded facts?), then I won't shed too many tears about not having access to these opinions (though again, I do recognize why, as a matter of principle, the removal of opinions is problematic).
8.20.2009 2:27am
jc851 (mail):
This was an issue when I was recently doing research... there was a big tax case in the 1st circuit (textron) where the En Banc circuit vacated an earlier panel decision... but if you were to search for the vacated opinion, it is removed from westlaw (but not lexis, last time i checked). This is a HORRIBLE policy... surely that vacated decision will be of interest to people writing about this case in the future, and should not have been removed.

What can be done about this?
8.20.2009 3:59am
Soronel Haetir (mail):

What can be done about this?


Start a competitor that refuses to delete anything. Perhaps your company would also gather every filing instead of using some sort of selection criteria.
8.20.2009 7:06am
Anderson (mail):
Note that while federal court opinions can't be copyrighted, Lexis and Westlaw are convinced that their markups of those opinions can be.
8.20.2009 9:20am
Shannon Duffy (mail):
I'm Shannon Duffy, the reporter who wrote this article for the Legal Intelligencer and law.com.

It occurs to me that Lexis and Westlaw, by agreeing to remove these opinions from their respective databases, are simply taking stock of the fact that the judge who authored them has declared that they are now "vacated."

Put aside for a moment the debate about whether it's proper for the judge to "vacate" an opinion for no other reason than to grease the wheels of a settlement.

Lexis and Westlaw seem to be responding to the practical reality that no lawyer would ever want to cite a "vacated" opinion.

It also seems to me that the lawyers who have taken steps to make these available might not realize that while these opinions have been or will soon be removed from the research databases, they are still in the court's file (they were not sealed) and are still also available on the court's website. And there's no reason to believe they'll ever be removed from those two places. The judge's decision to vacate and to un-publish does not include the additional notions of sealing or destroying existing court records.

Go to http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/usci2004.asp

Here you'll find an archive of EDPa opinions whose docket numbers start with 2004. Scroll down to 2004-0955 and you'll find seven opinions in Klein v. Nat'l Railroad Passenger Corp.
8.20.2009 9:49am
nyugrad (mail):
The March 31 opinion contains an amusing footnote:


At trial, Amtrak's counsel was joined by "issues and appeals" counsel whose function appeared to be to preserve, or to create, appellate issues. Counsel officially entered an Entry of Appearance with the Clerk of Court on October 19, 2006, but was present for the entire trial. As the trial progressed, many of trial counsel's questions to witnesses and arguments to the court seemed to be coming from the "press box" in the person of the so-called "issues and appeals counsel" (or Amtrak representatives in the gallery).


How brazen--preserving "irrelevant" issues for appeal!
8.20.2009 9:57am
rick.felt:
Prof. V:

Mike McDougal: What's the cause of action?

We recently have a discussion here about how attorneys (or clients) do not waive copyright in pleadings when they file them in Federal court. And given that at least one of these documents is a motion for summary judgment, it's not the work of the Federal government. I'll quote you:
That something becomes publicly available doesn't strip it of copyright protection — the point of copyright protection is largely to prevent copying even of material that is publicly available. So the fact that they are descriptively accessible to the public, at least if the public is willing to go to court or to read the briefs on PACER, doesn't resolve the copyright infringement question.
I'm sure you could come up with a (successful?) fair use defense, but a copyright infringement claim against you would survive a 12(b)(6) motion, right?
8.20.2009 10:20am
rick.felt:
Whoops, didn't read the update.
8.20.2009 10:22am
The Original TS (mail):
To round off my earlier comments, there's another reason why serial defendants would want to vacate unfavorable decisions even if unpublished: issue preclusion.

I don't know how important it was in this case but a defendant who is, in the nature of things, subject to a lot of litigation may be seriously impacted by losing, say, a tort case that impose a new duty of care. Even if the case itself was not a big deal, it can become a very effective club in the hands of future plaintiffs.

So there are strong policy reasons why the courts should not permit parties to vacate judgments as a condition of settlement. First, it undercuts the entire policy underlying issue preclusion/collateral estoppel. Defendants with deep enough pockets can buy a second bite at the apple.

Second, it discourages -- or at least fails to encourage -- settlement. If defendants know that they can buy a "do over" if they lose, they are much less likely to reach a settlement at an early stage, even when a P has a claim that even the D thinks is meritorious.
8.20.2009 12:25pm
tvk:
Shannon Duffy, the problem is that Lexis and Westlaw include vacated and overruled and reversed opinions in its database all the time. This appears to be a special case where they are, as others point out, putting this opinion "down the memory hole" because the parties want to hide its contents for some reason. As a journalist, I would have expected you to be most offended by this practice since the parties benefit from the secrecy at the public's expense.

It is hardly a reply that the secrecy is not complete because the records will still be in the court file in the courthouse. The only plausible rationale for this settlement clause--not only removing the opinion's legal effect but also removing it from a public database--is to make finding the opinion harder. That it may not succeed completely does not mean it will not succeed at all.
8.20.2009 12:55pm
scosm:
"Of course, it would be best if they were stored somewhere where they could more easily be found. Perhaps it might be some central repository for such documents that professors, students, and lawyers will know to search when they're looking for such things."

What about the new RECAP service to be hosted by archive.org that intends to make all PACER documents available to the public?
8.20.2009 1:38pm
Stash:

Lexis and Westlaw seem to be responding to the practical reality that no lawyer would ever want to cite a "vacated" opinion.


I think this is an overstatement. Most lawyers would want to avoid a vacated opinion, but may, in certain circumstances, want to cite one. Although it has no value as precedent, it retains any persuasive value inherent in its reasoning. Law Journal articles also lack any binding effect but have a similar value. Lawyers also try to avoid citing dissenting opinions, so why bother to publish them? They are the exact opposite of "good law," so who needs them? The hard questions to litigate are those where there is no clearly controlling law, and it is at that juncture where persuasive materials of any kind are at a premium, whether it is a law journal article, a dissent in another jurisdiction, or a vacated opinion.

These cases also have a value apart from one's ability to cite them. My use of dissenting opinions is rarely to cite them directly. Instead, when they are outside your own jurisdiction, they are extremely useful for their reasoning and marshalling of citations in support of their positions. Furthermore, for every case on a major issue I cite, I suspect that I read another ten. For an unsettled, complicated or nuanced part of the law, much research is necessary to determine "the lay of the land" and get an idea of what arguments, pitfalls and strategies exist. A vacated opinion fulfills this function as well as any other case. That is, aside from its depleted authority, it has as much heuristic and practical value as any other legal writing. In this particular case, from my reading, the opinions seem to be a virtual roadmap to successfully litigating a very hard case under the law.

If it is vacated, fine--give it a red flag. Give it ten. Write: "This opinion may not be cited in any court" across the top. It would still be extremely useful to someone bringing a similar case. That is the reason it is being hidden--not any need to save attorneys from wasting their time reading a vacated opinion.
8.20.2009 4:07pm
HS of AUS:
Klein v. Amtrak was also deleted from my Amazon Kindle
8.20.2009 8:18pm
TomHynes (mail):
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/tag/pacer/

SCOSM deserves a point for mentioning RECAP. See the above description. They are trying to have all PACER documents available for free through a Mozilla plugin.

Is someone ambitious enough to see if those documents are available?
8.20.2009 8:48pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.