Remove Court Records from PACERPro (2026 Guide)

What Is PacerPro and How It Differs from PACER

PACER -- the Public Access to Court Electronic Records system -- is the federal government's official repository for federal court documents. Every federal district and bankruptcy court uses PACER to store and provide access to case dockets, filings, and orders. Access requires registration, and documents are available for a per-page fee (currently $0.10 per page, capped at $3.00 per document). PACER is managed by the Administrative Office of the US Courts and is the authoritative source for all federal civil, criminal, and bankruptcy records.

PacerPro is a private, subscription-based service built on top of PACER. It provides attorneys, paralegals, and legal professionals with a significantly improved interface for accessing and managing PACER records. Where PACER's native interface is notoriously dated and difficult to navigate, PacerPro offers enhanced search capabilities, automated docket alerts when new documents are filed, document organization tools, and billing management for PACER fees. Law firms subscribe to PacerPro to increase their efficiency when working with federal court records -- but the underlying records themselves still come from PACER.

The critical distinction for anyone concerned about their court record: PacerPro's pages are not publicly indexed by Google. The platform operates entirely behind a subscription paywall, with no publicly accessible case pages that search engines can crawl. This means that if your name appears in a Google search result linked to federal court records, PacerPro is almost certainly not the source of that visibility. The source is almost always one of the public-facing platforms that mirror PACER data: CourtListener, PlainSite, DocketBird, or DocketAlarm.

Why PacerPro Records Can Surface in Google

The confusion about PacerPro and Google visibility stems from the broader ecosystem of federal court record aggregators. PACER contains the authoritative records, but PACER's per-page fees and registration requirements create barriers that have spawned a robust secondary market of services that republish those records more accessibly. Some of these services are paid professional tools like PacerPro -- others are free, public-facing platforms specifically designed to make federal court records searchable without cost or registration.

The most significant of these public platforms is CourtListener, operated by the Free Law Project. CourtListener maintains a comprehensive public database of federal court records that is fully indexed by Google and optimized for search. The RECAP browser extension -- widely used by attorneys -- automatically uploads PACER documents to CourtListener whenever a subscriber downloads them, creating a continuously updated public mirror of PACER content. When an attorney accesses your case docket through PacerPro or directly through PACER using the RECAP extension, those documents are simultaneously added to CourtListener's public database.

PlainSite takes a similar approach, providing public access to a broad range of federal court records with clean, indexable pages that rank well in Google. DocketBird and DocketAlarm also provide varying degrees of public access to federal court information. Each of these platforms -- not PacerPro -- is the likely source of federal court records that appear prominently in Google searches for your name. If you're searching for your own name in Google and finding links to federal court records, click through to confirm which platform is actually hosting the content before deciding on a removal strategy.

How Do You Pursue Removal for PacerPro Records?

The route to removal for PacerPro content runs through the original source rather than through PacerPro itself. PacerPro is a professional productivity tool that mirrors official PACER records for its law firm subscribers. It does not operate as a publisher making editorial decisions about which records to include or exclude -- it simply provides attorneys with better access to the same records available through PACER. Because PacerPro's content reflects the authoritative federal court record, the effective move is to work at the underlying source: the federal court that maintains the original record in PACER.

This mirrors the situation with PACER itself. PACER removal requests go to the originating federal district court as motions rather than to the Administrative Office of the US Courts. A court order (sealing, redaction, or record restriction) is what changes what PACER holds, and those changes are then reflected in downstream services including PacerPro. The court is the gatekeeper of the record; PacerPro is simply a more sophisticated interface to that record.

If someone has suggested contacting PacerPro directly with a removal request, that is worth a second look, because PacerPro only mirrors PACER. Your time and effort go furthest when directed toward the court where your case was filed (for a sealing or redaction motion) and toward the public mirror sites (CourtListener, PlainSite, DocketBird) that are the actual source of any Google visibility your federal court records currently have.

The PACER Source-Level Approach

The most comprehensive solution to federal court record visibility -- whether the concern is PacerPro, CourtListener, PlainSite, or any other aggregator -- is addressing the record at its source in the federal court. A successful motion to seal or redact in the originating federal district court produces a court order that requires PACER to restrict access to the specified records. Once that restriction is in place in PACER, any service mirroring PACER data (including PacerPro) no longer has access to the restricted content.

Federal courts start from a presumption of public access to court records, rooted in First Amendment and common law principles, so a sealing motion is built around showing that specific, articulable interests outweigh the public's right of access. The strongest grounds include: records containing sensitive personal information that should have been redacted before filing (Social Security numbers, financial account numbers, medical information); records involving minor children; records subject to privacy protections under federal law; and records where continued public access creates specific, documented harm disproportionate to any ongoing public interest in the case.

Cases that were fully contested matters of public record -- civil disputes between businesses, criminal cases with public verdicts, regulatory enforcement actions -- are the advanced category: they often need deeper analysis, and may still be possible to address through sealing, redaction, or de-indexing. Redaction motions targeting specific sensitive information within documents are often a practical first step. Many federal court filings contain personal information that the filing parties should have redacted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure but did not. FRCP Rule 5.2 requires automatic redaction of Social Security numbers, taxpayer identification numbers, birth dates, financial account numbers, and minor children's names -- and documents filed without proper redaction can often be redacted after the fact through a court motion.

Partial Redaction as a Practical Strategy

When full sealing is not the right fit, targeted redaction of the most sensitive personal information within court documents can meaningfully reduce the harm caused by those documents appearing in public search results. A document that previously exposed a Social Security number or home address -- information that could enable identity theft or physical harm -- becomes significantly less dangerous after a successful redaction motion, even if the case name and general nature of the dispute remain public. Working with an attorney experienced in federal court privacy motions is the appropriate path for this approach.

PACERPro Court Record Removal - FAQ