Lawfare Daily: Dockets Die in Darkness with Peter Beck and Seamus Hughes

[Intro]

Seamus Hughes: Like, we're not gonna be able to cover that with a two-man shop, right? And no other small startup is going to either, which means things happen, right? It means that when your reporters' laptop and phone gets seized because they're doing an investigation to leak classified information, maybe you don't have a lawyer around to fight that back.

Tyler McBrien: It's the Lawfare Podcast. I'm Tyler McBrien, managing editor of Lawfare, with Peter Beck, an associate editor at Lawfare and a reporter with Court Watch, as well as Seamus Hughes, a senior research faculty at the University of Nebraska, Omaha's National Counterterrorism Innovation Technology and Education Center, and the founder of Court Watch.

Peter Beck: This is a little bit of an opportunity in that we see the government and the Justice Department become less transparent, and if I were a public defender, or I were a defense attorney, I'd really be thinking about my relationships with journalists and reaching out to them and wanting to kind of let them hear what's going on when I think that they should.

Tyler McBrien: Today we're talking about Peter's recent piece called “Dockets Die in Darkness,” and what the slow death of local newsrooms means for legal journalism.

[Main Episode]

So, Peter, I wanna start with you. I think many of our listeners will be unfortunately, all too familiar with the trend that journalism in general, and especially local news, has been trending, which is to say, downward, for, you know, quite some years now.

But maybe listeners will have thought less about how this trend, specifically affects legal journalism and the coverage of dockets. You've coined or perhaps one of you has coined this trend as ‘dockets die in darkness.’ So Peter, can you just sort of set the scene here, what does dockets die in darkness mean? And what were you trying to highlight with this recent piece in Court Watch?

Peter Beck: Yeah. So when it comes to legal journalism, and there are certainly a lot of great legal reporters out there in the U.S., but there's a lot of emphasis on kind of what we think of as the larger districts. So California, Virginia, D.C., New York, they have a couple different eyes on 'em every day. Anything that's filed there, it's gonna show up, if it's prominent, in the relevant big newspapers.

What isn't happening in the rest of the country is there are all of these other districts that have less media there that aren't as nationally or legally prominent, and stuff still happens there.

So what we did was, about a week ago, we picked a district, it happened to be the middle district of Georgia. We kind of just threw a dart on a map and picked it randomly, and we said, okay, we're gonna just read through all of the cases that were filed in one week and we're gonna see whether they're interesting, whether anyone covered them, and what we found was by and large, I don't think any of them were covered.

And that's a problem because you can't just look at these kind of central locations, because that's not how the law develops in the U.S. There's stuff that happens all over the country and they certainly deserve eyes on 'em as much as those central locations do.

Tyler McBrien: Yeah. Seamus, I want to go to you to hear a bit more about the middle district of Georgia.

If you could just tell the listeners a bit about the flavor of the district as someone, especially as someone who has visibility into quite a few of the 90 plus federal districts in the country. What sticks out to you about the middle district and maybe what were some of the stories that you found that were especially shocking that you didn't see coverage elsewhere?

Seamus Hughes: Yeah, listen, I have a sweet spot for the middle district of Georgia and I don't really know why. It's just like, you know, if I look at the 94 different districts and I really like middle district of Georgia. I like, you know, Iowa, I like Nebraska, and I like them as a reporter who's covered this for like, you know, the last decade or so in a sad way in that I know no one else has looked at them.

Meaning that what Peter just pointed out is absolutely right. So, it's a relatively quiet-ish district, meaning that, you know, if you run the docket activity for Southern District of New York today, it would be, I don't know, five to six times the docket activity volume for the middle district of Georgia for all of the week, right.

So, but there are interesting points and like, I think the reason why we picked this is one was if you look at—Northwestern put out a report and they put it out every year of news deserts, right. And what they found was 212 counties of lack, even one source of news in their coverage, right.

And the middle district of Georgia in there, there's 12 counties that don't have a daily newspaper of only—not even a weekly newspaper, right.

But there's a lot of interesting stuff happening in that district, right? You've got Stewart Detention Center, so, a large ICE detention center, which means a lot of habeas cases are coming out of there.

So much so that, you know, judges are sound sounding, the alarm about the emergency number of cases that are coming through and just, they're just sitting like they're untouched. And if I'm looking at this: It's hard enough to cover the courts in general, right? 'Cause you've got a fee-based system, some records are only gonna be available at the courthouse. There are weird intricacies of how things happen and rulings, you've gotta kind of understand all those things. And so the bar is already high. You put onto the fact that there's no reporters around and you can get away with some stuff, right.

And you can sue, like we found this way, you can sue a local bar for playing a song that maybe is copyrighted. And a big multi-billion dollar conglomerate can pick on a small guy who just started a company and had a jukebox that played, you know, the “Lonely Hearts and Broken Dreams” of Billy Ray Cyrus, right.

And that I think would just happen without anyone noticing. Whereas if you were in a bigger district. Make a phone call, you'd be like, listen, are you serious? You gonna file that lawsuit? Are, do you really wanna do this? And they would drop it, right? The, those type of things.

And so when you don't have any sunshine or light in the system, you can get away with some pretty egregious stuff.

Tyler McBrien: Yeah, the—it probably won't shock listeners to know that highly specific scenario you just mentioned with the jukebox is not a hypothetical, but an actual case.

Peter, could you talk a bit about the specific case that Seamus was just referencing, I guess make this concrete for people. It's not just about shedding light on dockets and general public awareness, which is I think a virtue in and of itself, but there are some real, concrete, material consequences of coverage versus no coverage. So maybe, if you wanna use this BMI case as an example here, or any other cases from your latest piece?

Peter Beck: Yeah, so we've, as you mentioned, we've reported on this a couple different times.

One had to do with kind of ‘Big Whataburger,’ the Whataburger that everyone thinks about in Texas. They filed a civil suit against another chain of Whataburgers that was a drive-in that had been around for decades in North Carolina. And then Court Watch reported on it a little bit, and then they said that they was—I think Seamus could correct me—but I think they said it was filed in error or something along those lines. Basically, ‘Big Whataburger’ was trying to come into North Carolina's Whataburger's territory, and amidst that, they filed a brief civil suit against little Whataburger.

And that's one example. The other examples that we've done now too on are BMI, which is a big music license collector. So they represent a bunch of artists, and anytime that an artist's intellectual property is used, they expect a fee for that use. So, with both this story and another one, BMI sued a local music venue, somewhere where local people would drive past and go into every day, and, you know, if it happened in another district, there would be the kind of questions that Seamus mentioned of: Why does BMI feel that it's necessary to sue this really small local business that no one's paying attention to?

But because it's happening in a little district, they can kind of get away with it and basically bully these little small music venues into settling over just playing a couple of songs.

Tyler McBrien: Yeah. Seamus, I wanna go back to you to learn a bit more about the scope of this trend or this problem.

I'm not sure if you knew how prescient you would be with the ‘Dockets Die in Darkness’ tagline having, you know, come out just a few days before the massive round of layoffs at the Washington Post, which is—the tagline is a reference there.

So it strikes me as this is not only now a local news problem, but we're now seeing big layoffs coming to national papers. I assume I, I don't have the data in front of me, but I assume some of the layoffs, it hit a third of the newsroom, so some of the more, you know, legal oriented journalists were also affected.

How big is this problem? Is it growing? What's, where is the trend headed?

Seamus Hughes: Yeah, I think that's the issue, right? So like if you look at the Washington Post, so they laid off 300 journalists, including one of which that covered the Eastern District of Virginia. And so you know, that's a full-time job, right? There is a lot of activity in the Eastern District, Virginia, and it, a lot of it's national security, a lot of it's public corruption—it's national news, it's the Jim Comey's of the world and all of those things. And having a daily reporter there actually matters, right? Because then you can figure out like—

I'll give you an example. There's a daily reporter—and I love this example. There's a daily reporter in Detroit who covers the federal courts in Detroit, and he realized that the back of the courthouse is where they bring people in for the indictments.

And so he would sit at his office and look at the back of the courthouse to see which mayoral candidate or some corrupt guy had walked in and he'd write the story, right? But you only know that by being a bird dog reporter who knows those weird quirks, right?

Like, you and I like have covered Eastern District of Virginia. Like, we know the fourth floor. Like if you sit in this one little corner, the prosecutors don't see you and they can talk about what they're doing. And maybe you get a little few notes—and you know that the clerk goes on lunch from 12 to 12:30, and so if you wanna get a document, you gotta get it before that.

Like those things matter, right? And we can't, now we're seeing like we can't rely on big national papers to cover even big districts anymore, right? Wall Street Journal has pulled out, they don't do metro coverage in New York. You know, D.C. or Washington Post has basically ceded all of metro to whoever's around left, right. That's—sure, a business decision, right.

But in the vacuum, what happens is you have these kind of small, random startups, you know, be it a Court Watch of the world or anything else that we try to fill the void. But like, you know, we lose money every year. Not as much of the Washington Post, and we don't have a British editor-in-chief, so we're pretty lean on what we do.

But, you know, if you brought in like these small startups, like, you know, we, do they have liability insurance? Do they have the ability to spend? Which would—what we do is $20,000 in PACER fees every year. Do they have the time and health and benefits and things like that? Like we're not gonna be able to cover that with a two-man shop, right? And no other small startup is going to either.

Which means things happen, right? It means that when your reporters' laptop and phone gets seized because they're doing an investigation to leaking of classified information, maybe you don't have a lawyer around to fight that back, right? And those things matter.

Then you said the precedent that it's okay to look at reporter sources and methods on those things. And so when we lose these things, it matters a great deal on a whole host of options, right? And so it's not even the small, the big districts, but like the small districts matter too, because sometimes outside groups are trying to play the system, meaning that you might use, and I'm using a hypothetical that is not a hypothetical—

You might use an Alaskan plumber to sue about union rights and having to hire union workers for a Alaskan government project. And you might say, why would you do that in Alaska? Well, you figure your way up and you get your way through the circuit and now you have an easy shot to the Supreme Court to debate union rights in this country, right?

But if you don't have an Alaska reporter to catch that on the front end, you don't see all the chips happening at the same time. And so this does matter on this.

Tyler McBrien: Before we go any further, I wanna make sure everyone caught that figure. Seamus, I believe you said, $20,000 in PACER fees every year. Is that correct?

Seamus Hughes: Yeah. We could take down a small country if we needed to with that.

Tyler McBrien: Yeah. I just—I'm sure a lot of people listening will be quite impressed with the receipt.

Seamus Hughes: It is a sad record that we hold, yes.

Tyler McBrien: But you bring up a good point. I mean, even with a fully staffed newsroom, there are still more stories on the docket to cover.

So Peter, I'm curious how you think about it as a docket lurker, a docket watcher, how you focus your time and energy, to which cases do you try to look out for, to highlight? I think you had mentioned to me once that you're quite interested in pro se cases, for example. What motivates you when you're looking through a docket of these little covered cases?

Peter Beck: Yeah, that's a great question. So you learn to get a feel for it just because, as Seamus does so well, you read so many cases that you know how to pick the ones that will kind of evolve down the pipeline to become bigger things. And then, as far as pro se cases go, some of them aren't the craziest in the world.

So for instance, there's a label that comes with pro se cases, that there's a skepticism that, okay, these people don't have lawyers, therefore they can't get a lawyer, therefore, what they're saying is just totally off the wall. And that's certainly true, right? Like I've covered sovereign citizens and for those who don't know, they don't believe in the legal system as the rest of us see it, and they're bonkers to say it lightly.

But some of these other pro se cases, they are grounded in some truth. And part of reporting on this pro se case is too, gives them the kind of coverage that pulls them out into the light, that they can get legal representation and set their cases up better to win in court.

But because they don't get that kind of focus and attention, and because we do have the kind of somewhat appropriate judgment of pro se cases, they're largely neglected.

Seamus Hughes: And listen, the story that Peter did last week is an, a great example of a pro se case where an inmate is worried, has stage four lung cancer, and is worried that he is in a prison cell that is, you know, smoke-filled because, you know, they've been smoking cigarettes in there and wants to just get to a place where he doesn't have to do solitary confinement to be able to breathe, right.

That is, let's be fair. Like if a judge doesn't pay attention to that case is going to probably get dismissed on standing or some other random, small thing and nothing will change. Alright? And we were, didn't have the bandwidth to, you know, check the veracity of his claims. But there are interesting claims nonetheless, right?

And the fact that there's no one else there is a little ridiculous to look at this. I said, you know, when Peter and I are looking at cases, you know, reporters, in general, should have a healthy skepticism by, for anyone in power, right? Not, don't allow that to kind of color the way you do your reporting or things like that. But you should assume some level of ‘okay, they're trying to get one off on us,’ right?

And so it's, our job is to highlight, kind of, the things where the little guy is trying their best and maybe they're pushing against a machine that's not gonna allow them to do so. And what are the touch points in the courts that is screwing up the ability to have a fair and legal fight about some issue?

Tyler McBrien: Why should reporters go to the actual primary source documents? Why should they actually go to PACER, pull the indictment, pull the complaint, rather than, ‘it's nicely summarized by the Justice Department in the press release.’ I'm, you know, being a bit flippant here, but you know, why do these primary source documents matter?

Seamus Hughes: 'Cause the third footnote will completely underwrite the entire press release that DOJ just put out, right? And I say that kind of jokingly, but not really. Right? I'll give you an example.

Last week we did a quick blurb about a guy who was arrested for material sports of terrorism for Hezbollah, right? But if you look at the plea agreement, he was talking to someone who he believed to be Hezbollah, right? So that's an informant case. But if you had looked at like the coverage there would be like, you know, neo-Nazi loves, joins Hezbollah—maybe not. Like, you gotta look at the third or fourth cases on this and the general tracking of all this matters too, right?

So there's always the initial press release, which, you know, gets a lot of coverage, the Don Lemons of the world gets arrested, things like that. Six months later when nobody else is checking, maybe they drop the charges when, of purported assault against a law enforcement officer, and a protest or things like that.

And so it is the constant kind of focus on it that matters a great deal, right. Peter and I have been doing this long enough that if we see a prosecutor that we know is a little bit fuzzy on things or, you know, stretches a little bit, we may take that at a different grain of salt than we do another prosecutor.

Or if we see a lawyer who is suing some company and we know they're gonna settle and they don't really actually care about, you know, stopping kids from being poisoned in West Virginia, they just want a money thing, like that is a different way of covering that lawsuit than like a true believer who's trying to do the right thing on that, and you only get that by doing this repeatedly, every day and getting a sense of it.

Tyler McBrien: Yeah. In many ways it's the same benefits of beat journalism, just knowing the context, knowing when one word actually means something else, et cetera. And so this, I think this is a good segue to my next question or set of questions, which is what we do about this if we want local journalism to survive and we want these stories to get out there.

I'm curious both of your thoughts, but Peter, first, how you think of solutions here. Is it to scale a Court Watch or a Lawfare? Is it to incorporate AI tracking tools to track dockets? As someone who has been doing this for a bit of time now and read quite a few indictments and looked at quite a few districts, what do you think about those types of solutions or others?

Peter Beck: Yeah, so first of all, I love the work that I do for both Lawfare and Court Watch, and we do amazing work and thank you to all of our listeners. But with that being said, we can't completely fill the hole that local journalists do every day.

So when I'm reading an indictment, I simply don't have the bandwidth to, and I read a couple indictments a day and, search warrants and all of these court documents. I don't have the bandwidth to call up all of the defense attorneys and public defenders. I don't have the bandwidth to go call up the local businesses that are being sued and all of these interesting cases, and to email these press offices of these big companies and say, ‘Hey, why are you suing these people?’

Local reporters can do that. And going back to Seamus’s point, like local reporters are gonna be the ones to stick around in a courthouse and get to know the judges, get to know the attorneys, and really understand the nuances and grittiness of the system. So we will keep on doing what we're doing and we will highlight all the cases that we can, and advocate for why they're important, and how we think that they're going to evolve.

But at the end of the day it's not a perfect solution to reporters and boots on the ground.

Tyler McBrien: Seamus, same question. Why can't I just vibe code a Peter Beck to help me out here?

Seamus Hughes: You should do that. Like, that should be your afternoon project. There are some models that are trying, right?

So like, you look at ProPublica's local news initiative. You look at the New York Times, as you know, local news fellowship they put on, but they're largely kind of band-aids into a gaping wound in the chest, right? I don't have a solution other than I know the solution isn't me. Meaning that, it is not enough for Peter and I to spend a few days looking at the middle district of Georgia and then moving on to another district.

It needs to be sustained. It needs to be in a place that, you know, it's all well and good that we push it on Court Watch, but I highly doubt that small towns in Georgia have been religiously reading Court Watch’s coverage of the middle district of Georgia. And so it has to go in a place and a venue of which the community can actually see what's happening.

And there are a lot of smart people that are trying to do it. And I don't have a solution to it. And if I did, I'd run the Washington Post better than anybody else, right? So, I don't know what the answer is, but I do know there are a few things that would be helpful.?

So it would be helpful if the courts would stop not filing unsealed documents on the dockets, right? They should file the public documents should be available to the public. It would be helpful if it didn't cost 10 cents a page to search every district, right? It would be helpful if they ran when they uploaded the documents, they did it through OCR, so you could keyword search things, right. Those like lower the bar for entry for the general public to get access to their public records, I think is better, right?

In an ideal world, you have reporters who can put context to those primary service stockings, 'cause we see, like, you know, the Epstein files, you'll get, you know, one crazy email that, you know, has no veracity or things, and it'll go viral online. Whereas another reporter will put in context and say, oh, actually that was just a walk-in informant who knew nothing about that.

So those types of things do matter, but at the bare minimum, I'm okay with more information getting out and then we weed out the misinformation from there.

Tyler McBrien: Just a quick follow up. I'm wondering how many solutions you see on the side of the legal profession. So, being perhaps more proactive in reaching out to journalists or a greater willingness to engage with the public, or is this not really a barrier that you see currently?

Seamus Hughes: You talking about lawyers or the—

Tyler McBrien: The lawyers, the legal teams on either side. I mean, and this administration isn't really known for its transparency and willingness to engage with journalists in the public, but perhaps future justice departments. And then of course, on the defense teams as well to flag when a case seems especially important for the public interest.

Seamus Hughes: Yeah, my concern is whenever I get an email from a press person pitching a story about some filing in a court record, I usually am just automatically suspect of it. But I think there are other ways we can do this, right?

So, like, Minnesota, the clerk's office there has a proactive press list where they send when the Don Lemons of the world get arrested, 'cause they know they're gonna get 45 different phone calls in an hour and they might as well be proactive on it, right. So a more forward-leaning public affairs office at the federal courts would be helpful in general.

You know, we do—I've been like batting around the idea of having kind of a network of law clerks who, you know, occasionally flagstaff for us and things like that. I think that would be helpful, too, on these type of things.

You know, my general concern is just the volume is such that it's not gonna be covered in any real way. And listen, if you're racking and stacking priorities, like I probably would rather you send a report to the city council meeting where they're gonna vote on the new zoning requirements of schools versus checking a lawsuit against a local—right.

And so beggars can't be choosers, but you know, I get there's going to be priorities that fall in. In the meantime, we'll try to fill the gaps.

Peter Beck: In the past, I think legal journalism has been a little bit too easy on the side of law enforcement and prosecutors. So they have read indictments or police reports and announcements and kind of taken them at their word.

And you know, most people who are charged with crimes have some culpability for them, but there are also innocent people out there. Plenty. And I think that this is a little bit of an opportunity and that we see the government and the Justice Department become less transparent. And if I were, a public defender, or I were a defense attorney, I'd really be thinking about my relationships with journalists and reaching out to them and wanting to kind of let them hear what's going on when I think that they should.

And I think that journalists now are gonna be thinking about how they want to really scrutinize a lot of that information more than they have in the past.

Seamus Hughes: My, also, my other concern is the incentive system encourages us to be as aggressively political and partisan in the lens of reading the court documents as humanly possible.

Meaning that you are more likely to get paid subscriptions if you're, you know, firing off an email saying, you know, the Trump administration did this, the Trump administration didn't do this, and how great is that? And how bad is that? Right? And there is a world where that's important to have kind of that level of analysis, but it can't be the only world on this.

There are models out there that have done pretty good work, like Bloomberg Law News does a hell of a job covering the federal dockets, but they largely focus on the civil side because, you know, there are law firms that care about that and will pay subscriptions to that. And on the other side, on the criminal side, there are, you know, you open up your podcast and the first nine of them of the 10 are gonna be true crime podcasts.

So there is a world where sensationalizing of murders and crimes pays big bucks, right? There is less of a market for a, just the facts ma’am approach to covering the federal dockets in general, and that's really my concern.

Tyler McBrien: Peter, for our listeners who may be concerned about this, you know, slow death of local journalism and the effect it'll have on the quality of legal journalism, do you have any advice for consuming news about dockets or about indictments.

You were mentioning a few moments ago about keeping in mind that often the indictment is one side of the story. It's the, you know, it's the story that the prosecutors are trying to weave that they believe would, you know, will lead to a conviction.

What other things do you keep in mind to be a very discerning consumer of legal journalism, especially given the challenges that we've laid out?

Peter Beck: Yeah, I mean, first of all, take everything with a grain of salt. So any kind of legal filing that you read, whether it's a civil case, a criminal, whether it's a defense attorney filing a motion, whatever it is, they want to tell you a story, and it's not just a story to the judge.

They're trying to build a story to back up their argument. So don't ever read a court filing as gospel.

With that being said, you can kind of tell whether or not things add up in cases, as Seamus mentioned, you know the fourth footnote. Read the footnotes, and if the fourth footnote doesn't match up with everything else, then really start to ask yourself why they wanted to put that on the footnote, and it's because they wanted to tell you a certain to convince you of what they wanted you to do.

As far as you know, following local news, I think that you should follow the couple of journalists in your area who do the kind of long form legal reporting. Don't just read the reporting that is just summarizing press releases or whatever. Don't just read about, okay, this shooting or civil case happened in my area.

Like pay attention to the reporters who are doing the more long form stuff because they're gonna be the ones to reach out to the people who are impacted and get that broader story of what's going on.

Seamus Hughes: I mean, I would say also have a healthy bench of skeptical people who have no problem telling you're full of shit.

Meaning that, you know, every time we put out a Court Watch issue on a Friday, I get a text message from a defense attorney who is very angry at the seventh bullet that I wrote because it was too pro-assistant U.S. attorney or something like that, right? And maybe I don't, I'm not gonna change it like on the backend, but maybe in the back of my mind I might be a little bit more skeptical the next time.

And so there is a learning curve here that's important, and it's also important to hear as many possible voices and sides of this as humanly possible.

Tyler McBrien: I wanna end here with a question for both of you, the same question. Peter, we can start with you. Other than the middle district of Georgia, what other district do you have a special fondness for and why? Why that district?

Peter Beck: Oh, I'm biased, but I've I have to say South Carolina, so I grew up in Charleston and for me, I don't know why, but all legal roads lead to South Carolina and we always get something crazy nutty outta there.

Like we had a case this past week about a guy who went around threatening all of the airports in the low country, which is where I grew up, because there were planes flying over his house and we've had a big scandal down there of a bunch of restaurants were accused of selling frozen shrimp that was shipped over from China and it was dubbed like Shrimp-gate. So, there's always something going on, but that's just mine.

Tyler McBrien: Seamus, what weird and wacky docket do you always keep coming back?

Seamus Hughes: Like trying to pick which kid you love the most. Okay. So I have a strong love for the Middle District of Florida for two reasons. One is there's not a lot of reporters that are covering that. There’s a lot of good TV reporters, and actually that's something we haven't talked about.

There are good TV channel reporters that are covering this type of stuff, but the way they're covering it is looking for video and imaging. And so, court records sometimes don't allow for that without some level of sensationalization of it all. But I like the Middle District of Florida, 'cause not a lot of reporters are coming in, so it's usually goes untouched a little bit and it's Florida, right? So you're always gonna get a Florida man somewhere in there. And so you get a good story out of the vibe on that.

But it also depends on the topic, right? So like, if I care about Russian exports, I really like New Hampshire because they punch above their weight on Russian export cases. If I care about seizure notices, I really like the Southern District of California, 'cause every time you do a border crossing, there's a seizure notice and it tells you, kind of a window into the world. If I like human trafficking and smuggling cases or I care about those issues, I don't like them. I would look at like Arizona, right?

And so—The sense of it is there is districts, there's 94 different districts, there are districts that will focus on things at a higher clip than other districts. And so if you're a new—reporter working this, you can, you know, reach out to us and we'll be like, listen, this is the district you should care about. Like this is what works on this.

And then also I'm also biased to Nebraska, given that I work at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, and there's a few stories that we're working on now in there that I think is interesting.

Tyler McBrien: Did you wanna share any of those before we break?

Seamus Hughes: We are gonna talk about 1980s bands for the next couple stories, and whether a manager stealing your music is going to affect whether you could wear a red hat on your 1980s movies.

So there are fascinating stories happening in Nebraska that I just, we are gonna run down.

Tyler McBrien: Well, that seems like a good cliffhanger to end on. Subscribe to Court Watch if you want to hear more about that. And I guess if you want an endless stream of Florida man content, then navigate to the Middle District of Florida docket on PACER.

But Seamus and Peter, thank you so much for joining me today and for your excellent “Dockets Die in Darkness” piece on Court Watch. Thank you.

Peter Beck: Thank you.

Seamus Hughes: Thank you.

[Outro]

Tyler McBrien: The Lawfare Podcast is produced by the Lawfare Institute. If you want to support the show and listen ad free, you can become a Lawfare material supporter at lawfaremedia.org/support. Supporters also get access to special events and other bonus content we don't share anywhere else.

If you enjoy the podcast, please rate and review us wherever you listen. It really does help. And be sure to check out our other shows, including Rational Security, Allies, the Aftermath, and Escalation, our latest Lawfare Presents podcast series about the war in Ukraine. You can also find all of our written work at lawfaremedia.org.

The podcast is edited by Jen Patja with audio engineering by Hazel Hoffman of Goat Rodeo. Our theme music is from Alibi music.

As always, thanks for listening.