Did a Federal Judge in NC go too far in banning Docket Management Tools?

Last week, the Chief Judge in the United States for the Eastern District of North Carolina issued an Order that lawyers stop using third-party automated docket management tools (ADMT) like PacerPro, DocketBird, CourtDriv, RECAP, and ECFX (Note1 - ECFX was not explicitly mentioned in the Order. Note2 - this is not an exhaustive list of ADMTs.) The concern arose when a lawyer improperly filed some sealed documents publicly.[1] Chief Judge Richard E. Meyers II was concerned with allowing ADMTs access to "sealed and/or restricted case documents, docket text, and other case information, [was] in violation of Court orders and rules." This raises some ethical and practical questions.

For background, ADMTs are a service that streamlines and enhances various aspects of legal case management, providing lawyers with tools for efficient electronic document filing, tracking, and retrieval. When lawyers can suddenly no longer use a service they have been relying heavily on for years as part of their workflow, it will cause a significant disruption in their business. (Imagine being told you could no longer use MS Word as your word processor - I'd picture most lawyers would freak out!) This ban, as inconvenient as it may be for lawyers, is really a reflection of a greater problem: Not understanding how technology works.

Did a Federal Judge in NC go too far in banning Docket Management Tools when a lawyer forgot to file under seal?

The Federal Courts have cautioned lawyers using Docket Services for several years.[2] But, I'm confused about how Chief Judge Meyers II believes using ADMTs violates their local rules. Their local rules, Civil Rule 5.1(c) and Criminal Rule 49.1(c), Authorized User of CM/ECF Password, mirror each other:

No attorney shall knowingly permit or cause to permit the attorney's CM/ECF password to be used by anyone other than an authorized employee of the attorney's law firm. No person shall knowingly use or cause another person to use the password of a registered attorney unless such person is an authorized employee of the attorney's law firm.

How are ADMTs not an employee, contractor, or service of a lawyer or law firm? This is no different than securely using cloud storage, e-mail, fax, or phone services to transfer information to or through your employees.

It wasn't the third-party software's fault that it exposed and potentially made public PII. It was the filers - that's right, the attorney who filed these documents but failed to do so under seal. Indeed, it appears that for many years, most of the ADMT providers have taken seriously the issue of confidentiality with sealed documents.[3]

Judges appear concerned with maintaining confidential and private information in sealed documents. They should be concerned. But these concerns have nothing to do with ADMT's receipt of "sealed" documents. The onus rests with the party who misfiled a document that should have been filed under seal. The ADMT providers are just as much liable as PACER: I posit neither are responsible - it was the errant attorney.

Judges, lawyers, and the general public must have a basic understanding of how these ADMT providers, let alone technology, in the legal arena work.

Respectfully, I think the judge's Order may have been a step too far.

MTC

[1] See Federal Judge in North Carolina Deals Big Blow to Innovative Docket Workflow Efficiency Tools Including PacerPro, Dewey B Strategicby Jean O'Grady on August 16, 2023

[2] See As Federal Courts Urge Caution On Docket Services, Vendors Respond, LawSites, by Bob Ambrogi on November 19, 2018.

[3] See fn 1, supra.