search

freelawproject / courtlistener

A fully-searchable and accessible archive of court data including growing repositories of opinions, oral arguments, judges, judicial financial records, and federal filings.
https://www.courtlistener.com
Other
544 stars 151 forks source link

Docket with wrong filing #4493

Open v-anne opened 1 month ago

v-anne commented 1 month ago

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 commented 1 month ago

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

ERosendo commented 1 month ago

@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 commented 1 month ago

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!