Mitchell Taylor Button et al v. Craig Lopresti

1
25-cv-00867-DMS-BJW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MITCHELL TAYLOR BUTTON;
DUSTY BUTTON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CRAIG LOPRESTI,
Defendant.
Case No.: 25-cv-00867-DMS-BJW
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR WAIVER OF PACER
FEES
[ECF No. 31]
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ renewed motion to waive the fees associated
with the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (“PACER”) system. (Mot., ECF No.
31.) This matter is suitable for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local
Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the following reasons, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion.
“Indigent individuals, litigants and other people who cannot afford to pay PACER
fees can request PACER fee exemptions from individual courts, upon a showing of cause.”
Options to Access Records if You Cannot Afford PACER Fees, Pub. Access to Ct.
Electronic Recs., https://pacer.uscourts.gov/my-account-billing/billing/options-access-
records-if-you-cannot-afford-pacer-fees. “A court will grant an exemption upon finding
that the requesting party has demonstrated that an exemption is necessary to avoid
unreasonable burdens and to promote public access to information.” Id.
Case 3:25-cv-00867-DMS-BJW Document 32 Filed 02/04/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

2
25-cv-00867-DMS-BJW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Here, the Court previously granted Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 13.) However, IFP status “alone does not support a
request to waive PACER fees.” Katumbusi v. Gary, No. 2:14-CV-1534, 2014 WL
5698816, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2014). Generally, parties are entitled to one free
electronic copy of all documents filed electronically in their case. Luehring v. Los Angeles
Cnty., No. 2:21-CV-01426, 2021 WL 4533275, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2021). Plaintiffs
contend, however, that they do not and have never received a “one free look” for any filing
in this matter. (Mot. 4.) According to Plaintiffs, a technical glitch stops their receipt of
the “one free look” notifications. (Id. at 2–4.) Because of this error, Plaintiffs must pay to
access the filings for this matter. (Id. at 4.) Most notably, Plaintiffs where charged $19.00
to access Defendant’s 194-page motion to dismiss, which Plaintiffs could not afford. (Id.;
id., Decl. in Supp. of Mot., ¶ 8.) Beyond this most recent charge, Plaintiffs incurred $24.30
in purchasing filings in this matter. (Id., Ex. B.) For these reasons, the Court finds that
Plaintiffs sufficiently demonstrated that an exemption is necessary to avoid unreasonable
burdens and to promote public access to information. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS
Plaintiffs’ motion for waiver of PACER fees.
“[T]he exemption must be ‘granted for a definite period of time, should be limited
in scope, and may be revoked at the discretion of the court granting the exemption.’” Mintz
v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co., No. 2:24-CV-05494-MRA-MAA, 2025 WL 1108230, at *1 (C.D.
Cal. Mar. 24, 2025). In addition, “the user receiving the exemption must agree not to sell
the data obtained as a result, and must not transfer any data obtained as the result of a fee
exemption, unless expressly authorized by the court.” Chima v. Perkins, No. 25-CV-
06385-TSH, 2025 WL 2202521, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2025). Accordingly, Plaintiffs
are “exempted from the payment of fees for access via PACER to the electronic case files
maintained in this Court, to the extent such use is incurred in the course of this action only.”
Raymong v. Cnty. of Kauai, No. CV 15-00212 ACK-RLP, 2017 WL 11577365, at *1 (D.
Haw. Feb. 10, 2017) (emphasis added). And “[b]y accepting this exemption, [Plaintiffs]
agree not to sell or transfer any data obtained as a result of receiving this exemption.” Id.
Case 3:25-cv-00867-DMS-BJW Document 32 Filed 02/04/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

3
25-cv-00867-DMS-BJW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“This exemption is valid only until this action is terminated and may be revoked at the
discretion of the Court at any time.” Id. The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk’s Office
to email a copy of this Order to the PACER Service Center.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 4, 2026
_________________________________
Hon. Dana M. Sabraw
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-00867-DMS-BJW Document 32 Filed 02/04/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3