Recap.email should properly handle re-generated NEFs

[mlissner]

Sometimes, for whatever reason an NEF is regenerated by the court. When this happens, there are some very subtle tweaks to the notification email:

• it has seconds on the timestamp whereas the regular one doesn't
• the date stamp has leading zeros
• it has single spaces on some sentences

AND:

• there's a notice on the bottom of the NEF that says:

  This is a re-generated NEF. Created on 9/8/2020 at 6:07 PM

We should properly handle this, making sure that when there's a regenerated NEF, we properly send this to the person with a note that it's an update. There's some commentary in the #courtlistener slack channel about this from September 30th, 2021.

 <div><BR>
-The following transaction was entered  on 9/4/2020 at 5:44 PM  and filed 
-on 9/4/2020 <BR>
+The following transaction was entered  on 09/04/2020 at 5:44:08 PM  and filed 
+on 09/04/2020 <BR>
 
@@ -172,12 +173,12 @@
 Relief, 20-cv-1856 (APM), ECF No. 8; (3) the Fonjong Plaintiffs' Motion 
 for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, 20-cv-2128 (APM), ECF No. 7; and (4) the 
 Aker Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary 
-Injunction, 20-cv-1926 (APM), ECF No. 4.  The Panda Plaintiffs' Motion 
+Injunction, 20-cv-1926 (APM), ECF No. 4. The Panda Plaintiffs' Motion 
 for a Preliminary Injunction, 20-cv-1907 (APM), ECF No. 3, is denied as to 
-the consolidated claims.  The Gomez Plaintiffs' and Aker Plaintiffs' 
+the consolidated claims. The Gomez Plaintiffs' and Aker Plaintiffs' 
 respective motions for class certification, ECF Nos. [52], [84], are denied 
-without prejudice or deferred.  See attached Memorandum Opinion and Order 
+without prejudice or deferred. See attached Memorandum Opinion and Order 
-for further details.  The Gomez Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Supplemental 
+for further details. The Gomez Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Supplemental 
 Declarations, ECF No. [109], is granted for the reasons stated in their motion. 
 Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 09/04/2020. (lcapm3)
 
@@ -294,15 +295,19 @@
...
+<p>
+<em>This is a re-generated NEF. Created on 9/8/2020 at 6:07 PM </em></p>

[mlissner]

Correction: The single to double space thing seems to be something a clerk did. Good on 'em, but let's not rely on it for anything useful. :)

[mlissner]

@albertisfu can you check if Juriscraper supports these already? I guess if you check for "re-generated" in our examples, that'd clarify?

If not, I suppose we need some examples so we can add this support. Do you think there's anything more to it than tweaking our parser in Juriscraper?

[albertisfu]

Sure, I've looked for examples on juriscraper that contain re-generated but no results, seems we don't have examples for it yet.

I also checked into the emails we store on S3 and I found a couple of examples:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18453503/32/sgaggio-v-de-young/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63020994/1/doe-v-regents-of-the-university-of-colorado-the/

In both cases seems that the docket entry was added/updated properly on the date we received the email, as you can see in the first case there is a PDF available but the second didn't get a PDF. So maybe the magic link for re-generated documents sometimes doesn't work? I'll do some processing tests for these examples to be sure there is no problem when trying to download a document for a re-generated case.

About this:

We should properly handle this, making sure that when there's a regenerated NEF, we properly send this to the person with a note that it's an update.

I think we are not doing it, so It might be necessary to add a boolean field to the Docket entry or Recap document to set it to true when it's added or updated via re-generated notification and then add the note to the Docket Alert? Does this note would apply to everybody or just to the @recap.email user?

[mlissner]

Nice research.

Does this note would apply to everybody or just to the @recap.email user?

No, it's just important for the @recap.email recipient. I assume that means it's straightforward to add this to the email pipeline?

[albertisfu]

Great, yes it seems straightforward to add to the email pipeline and only show the note for @recap.email users. Thanks.

[mlissner]

This is related to:

• https://github.com/freelawproject/juriscraper/pull/648
• https://github.com/freelawproject/juriscraper/issues/644
• https://github.com/freelawproject/juriscraper/issues/610