Using PacerPro for an “all fed” search of complaints and other pleadings against a defendant

PacerPro is a powerful Pacer portal for federal litigators. It’s also one of my best tricks to find sample complaints, responses to motions for summary judgment, and other pleadings once you’ve identified the defendants you’re going to sue.

A brightly lit bridge spans across a body of water, with city buildings visible in the background under a twilight sky, and a webpage header titled "Driving Innovation Through Automation" prominently displayed above.

PacerPro is a website that lets you access Pacer data in a much more efficient way. Most of their features are free, including the stuff that we need: (1) powerful searching and (2) free access to documents that have already been downloaded into Pacer (docs that haven’t already been downloaded are charged at the Pacer rate).

You start at the search screen when you sign in:

A webpage displaying a case search interface for the PacerPro service, featuring dropdown menus for selecting court type and nature of suit, along with input fields for entering business names or attorney details, date filing range options, and a search button.

Cliking on “Pacer Case Locator” brings you to a stripped-down screen with only two search options: litigant and date range.

A webpage segment featuring a search interface for the Pacer Case Locator, including fields for entering a business name, first name, date filing range, and client code, along with a search button.

Let’s say you have a client whose house burned down because the propane tank on their portable gas grill exploded. The tank was filled bty AmeriGas, the largest propane company in America.

We want to search every federal court in the United States for cases involving Amerigas. Put “amerigas” as the litigant (we’re using the shortest possible name for the litigant so the search will return any company with the name Amerigas—this way the search will include subsidiaries) and a date range of roughly ten years.

A web form titled "Search" displaying fields for entering a business name or last name, first name, a date filing range with start and end dates, a client code field, and a blue "SEARCH" button beneath these fields.

This search returns 213 results and gives us some analysis right off the bat. We’re presented with a map of the US showing where these cases were filed, a pie graph showing the type of cases filed, and a timeline showing the frequency of cases filed.

A color-coded map of the United States displaying varying shades of blue across different states, with darker shades indicating higher values or frequencies, complemented by a legend that ranges from 1 to 40.
A pie chart illustrating the distribution of various types of lawsuits categorized as "Nature of Suit - All," with segments representing "Other," "410 Anti-Trust," "442 Civil Rights: Jobs," and unspecified cases, each marked with different shades of blue and grey.
A bar graph titled "Case Volume" displays the yearly case volume from 2010 to 2019, showing varying levels of both pending (light blue) and new cases (darker blue), with a notable peak in 2015.

Most of these results won’t be useful to us. Luckily you can refine the search by type of court, location, if the case is open or closed, or the nature of suit. We captured a bunch of different types of lawsuits in our search:

A vertical list of legal categories with corresponding numbers, including "Insurance," "Contract," "Civil Rights," and "Labor," each accompanied by a checkbox and a count of cases or references.

What we want are personal injury cases, so I’m going to select 360 PI Other and 365 Personal Injury Product Liability. When I do that, the results list shows only those cases:

A webpage displaying a list of closed legal cases with details including case names, docket numbers, statuses, judges, and matched parties, sorted by nature of suit such as personal injury and contract disputes.

Now the fun part. Click on a case name to bring up the docket. I picked the second case, Cruz et al v. Weber-Stephen Products LLC because it probably involves a Weber grill.

Here’s the docket:

The image displays a webpage layout for a court case titled "Cruz et al v. Weber-Stephen Products LLC," including case details, docket entries, and information about the court's settings and officials involved.

Clicking on the complaint entry brings up a box on the right-hand side with the text of that entry and the uploaded documents.

You’ll see that the main document is labeled “now available” and “free”—that’s because I downloaded it last night. Any documents that are downloaded through PacerPro—whether by you or someone else—are available free to everyone. No one has downloaded the attachment, so I’d still have to pay Pacer fees to see that.

If you click on multiple docket entries, they stack on the right hand side. Then you can select which documents you want and download them as a batch For example, if there are three amended complaints and you want to look at all of them, or you want to see the complaint and the MSJ and the response. You get to batch download twice a month on the free plan and unlimited on the paid plan.

Clicking on the main document pulls it up in the browser

A legal document titled "PLAIN TIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT" from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, detailing a civil action case involving plaintiffs Jose S. Cruz and Lucia Cruz against the defendant Weber-Stephen Products, LLC, with headings and numbered sections.

And it matches our case facts! This guy was using a Weber grill when the gas leaked out of the tank and exploded, injuring him.

A legal document detailing facts about an incident involving plaintiff Jose F. Cruz using a Weber portable propane gas grill, specifically model number 30400040, and the connection mechanism between the grill and propane tank, including descriptions of mechanical threads and valve operations.
A text excerpt detailing a safety incident involving a person who was engulfed in flames after opening a grill cabinet to check a gas connection.

(For people with sharp eyes: Yes, Airgas is not a party. They get added later in a third-party complaint).

Now that we’ve identified a similar case involving Airgas, we can:

  • review the complaint and steal good language

  • look at discovery requests and steal good ones (sometimes they’re not filed, but they’re usually included in cases that were removed to federal court)

  • review any motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment to foresee weaknesses and prep for them

  • look for any service issues (especially relating to defendants outside of the United States that have to be served through the Hague Convention)

  • look at discovery plans to identify experts

  • contact the plaintiff’s lawyer and ask for advice

  • and so much more!

I hope this helps you find relevant federal pleadings. Email me if this helps you, if you have ideas about improving this process, or you use some other good method—ryan@thelockefirm.com

Previous
Previous

10 Crucial Questions to Ask in Your First Law Consultation in Midtown, Atlanta

Next
Next

Personal Injury workflows