John Hawkinson

Not just to be contrarian, but I have long been convinced the StackOverflow post does not offer the right solution. Is there a test case available?

Note that there are restricted documents (e.g. documents limited to case participants and public terminal users, such as immigration and social-security filings under FRCP 5.2) and sealed documents and although...

Devil's advocate: Practically speaking, why is this important? Most of the information there is in the docket report already, is it not? What's the case for this?

@mlissner: I remain skeptical at the merits of having CL autoscrape anything in response to a RECAP upload. Certainly we need to have a privacy conversation about that, it's another...

> I created http://23.238.17.229/recap.html in about 10 minutes. In Chrome with RECAP enabled, it tells me `RECAP not detected` so...? What are you attmpeting? > We get content from a...

> Works in Chrome, not Firefox. Boy, I wonder if there's a way to prevent this and still have web resources in the extension. Seems difficult. Well, we only use...

**footnote**: it's also possible to run "combined docket reports" for multiple cases. I have not tried, but I assume these do the wrong thing in RECAP (I cannot imagine them...

This is a better description of the "doppelganger cases" issue described in freelawproject/recap#36 and freelawproject/recap#146 [*Editor's note: both now closed as dups*].

For the record, subcases need not have consecutive caseids. See US v. Murgio in SDNY: ```xml ```

> I think @johnhawkinson hit on probably the best solution I thought that was undisputed `:)`. > Correlating the cases could be accomplished in multiple ways - some more accurate/reliable...