PUBLIC RECORDS
CourtListener data scraping service.
Automated daily extraction of federal court records, case filings, and docket data across all US circuit courts. Structured, deduplicated, delivered on schedule.
The problem.
WHY THIS IS HARDER THAN IT LOOKS
Legal research firms, litigation analytics companies, and law firm research teams need structured data from federal court filings. CourtListener and PACER are the primary sources, but both are designed for case-by-case lookups, not bulk data extraction.
It helps to understand what each source covers and why both matter. CourtListener is a nonprofit database maintained by the Free Law Project. It aggregates federal court opinions, docket entries, and filings and makes them searchable without per-page fees. The coverage is deep for opinions and some docket data, but it is not always complete for the most recent filings or for district courts with slower publishing cycles. PACER is the official federal judiciary system. It has the authoritative, complete record for every federal case, but it charges per page and is built for individual lookups. A pipeline that uses CourtListener for breadth and PACER for depth and recency gets the best of both: historical coverage without per-page costs, and authoritative completeness where it matters.
Manual workflows involve paralegals searching one case at a time, copying data into spreadsheets, and running searches across 13 circuit courts separately. For firms tracking hundreds or thousands of cases, this manual approach consumes 15+ hours per week and still misses filings that happen between search sessions.
For a legal research firm I work with, the pipeline monitors new filings daily across all US circuit courts, extracts structured case metadata (case number, parties, judge, filing date, document type, docket text), deduplicates across overlapping searches, and delivers via Google Sheets with daily email alerts. The pipeline processes 50,000+ records with 99.7% data accuracy and runs in under 2 minutes per daily cycle.
This service automates the same workflow for your firm, whether you are monitoring a specific set of cases, tracking filings by party name, or building a comprehensive litigation database.
Is this right for you?
GOOD FIT IF ANY OF THESE SOUND LIKE YOU
You are a legal research firm or legaltech company building a litigation analytics product
You need daily monitoring of federal court filings for specific parties, judges, or case types
Your paralegals spend 10+ hours per week on manual PACER searches that could be automated
You need structured court data for compliance, risk monitoring, or competitive intelligence
What you receive.
EXACT FIELDS, DELIVERED IN YOUR FORMAT
Sample record.
{
"case_number":"23-cv-04817",
"court":"US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit",
"parties":"Martinez v. State Farm Insurance",
"judge":"Hon. Sandra Ikuta",
"filing_date":"2024-11-18",
"document_type":"Motion to Dismiss",
"docket_text":"Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim",
"case_status":"open",
"nature_of_suit":"440 - Civil Rights: Other",
"date_filed":"2023-08-14",
"extracted_at":"2026-04-14T06:12:00Z"
}Straightforward pricing.
SCALE DETERMINES PRICE · NO HIDDEN FEES
Case set extraction
One-time extraction of filings for a defined case set. Delivered in 2 to 5 days.
- Up to 5,000 filings
- Any federal circuit
- Structured case metadata
- CSV, JSON, or Google Sheet
Daily monitoring
Daily extraction of new filings across your watched courts and parties.
- All federal circuits
- Daily email alerts
- Deduplication included
- Google Sheet + email delivery
Litigation database
Comprehensive litigation database with historical depth and custom filters.
- Full docket history
- Party-name tracking
- Custom classification
- Scoping call required
Frequently asked questions.
EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW
All 13 US circuit courts of appeals and federal district courts accessible through CourtListener and public court records. State courts are handled case by case depending on whether the court publishes records online.
PACER charges per page and is designed for individual case lookups. This service automates bulk extraction, monitors for new filings daily, deduplicates across searches, and delivers structured data to your system. For firms tracking hundreds of cases, the time and cost savings are significant compared to manual PACER searches.
Yes. Party-name monitoring watches for new filings involving specific companies, individuals, or law firms across all covered courts. This is useful for firms doing competitive intelligence, litigation risk monitoring, or client conflict checks.
The daily pipeline runs once per day and captures filings published since the last run. For the running client engagement the pipeline processes the full daily cycle in under 2 minutes. Filings are typically available in the delivery within 24 hours of publication.
Docket metadata (case number, parties, judge, filing date, document type) is the standard extraction. Full document text from PDF filings is available as a Custom tier engagement and depends on document availability and format.
A one-time case set extraction starts at $199 for up to 5,000 filings. Daily monitoring starts at $499 per month for all federal circuits with party-name tracking. Litigation database engagements scope per use case.
Case set extraction delivers in 2 to 5 days. Daily monitoring setup takes about 1 week for court selection, party watchlist configuration, and delivery integration. After setup the pipeline runs daily with zero manual intervention.
Yes. Federal cases are classified by nature of suit codes, which I use to filter by case type during extraction. Patent cases (NOS 830), antitrust cases (NOS 410), and securities fraud cases (NOS 850) each have specific codes that make targeted monitoring straightforward. You can watch for new filings in a specific case type across all federal courts, or narrow to specific districts where activity concentrates for your area of focus.
CourtListener's historical depth extends to the mid-1990s for opinions and to the early 2000s for docket data in many federal courts. For the most recent 3 to 5 years coverage is near-complete for circuit courts. Older records vary by court and may have gaps for district courts that digitized their records later. If you need historical depth for a specific court or date range, I scope that before the engagement starts so there are no surprises.