Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Docket with wrong filing #4493

Open
v-anne opened this issue Sep 24, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Docket with wrong filing #4493

v-anne opened this issue Sep 24, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@v-anne
Copy link
Contributor

v-anne commented Sep 24, 2024

The file linked here does not seem to be related to the case:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66750803/earthworks-v-doi/?order_by=desc#entry-1208665360

@mlissner
Copy link
Member

Thanks. This is usually due to the extension uploading something in a bad way. We'll take a look!

@ERosendo
Copy link
Contributor

@mlissner Here are my findings about this issue:

  1. The document was uploaded by the RECAP extension. You can verify this in the admin panel:

    https://www.courtlistener.com/admin/recap/processingqueue/14687170/change/

  2. There were no docket report uploads or docket fetches for this case before the PDF upload today.

  3. Since there was no prior docket upload or fetch, the new entry likely originated from the RSS feed. This record on the admin panel matches the creation time of the new entry:

    https://www.courtlistener.com/admin/recap_rss/rssfeeddata/10557580/change/

  4. The processing queue for the PDF upload shows that the document was uploaded just a few minutes after the new entry was created.

  5. Based on the above, it seems the user likely purchased the document directly using the 'Buy on Pacer' button. Typically, when a user navigates PACER, we receive a docket report before the document itself. However, in this case, we only received the document, indicating that the user accessed the file directly without loading the report.

  6. The content of the PDF indicates that the documents belong to entry 63 of case 22-cv-00193. However, I checked the uploads for this case and found no activity today for this docket.

is it possible that the court might have initially published a wrong document for this entry and then corrected the error?

@mlissner
Copy link
Member

is it possible that the court might have initially published a wrong document for this entry and then corrected the error?

It's possible, but unlikely. I'd be fine closing this for now and monitoring to see if an issue like this comes up again. You have to be the one to remember this happened before though!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: Main Backlog
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants