Three decades ago, Siegelman and Donohue aptly characterized research about courts and litigation that relied only on published opinions as “studying the iceberg from its tip.” They implored researchers to view published district court opinions “with greater sensitivity to the ways in which such cases are unrepresentative of all cases”. The dynamic, multistage nature of trial court litigation makes a focus solely on published opinions particularly ill‐suited to the study of federal district courts. Expanded electronic access to court documents now allows more precise analysis of the ways in which published cases are unrepresentative and what differences that makes for conclusions about the work of district courts. Heeding Siegelman and Donohue's admonition, this study seeks to map the iceberg, exploring the extent to which the visible part misrepresents what lies below the surface. Using a supplemented version of the Kim, Schlanger, and Martin EEOC Litigation Project data, this article examines the varying extent to which cases and judicial activity are visible in the several data sources commonly used by district court researchers. More specifically, we analyze how the work of federal district courts looks different depending on whether research relies on published opinions, on opinions available on Westlaw or Lexis (both “published” and “unpublished”), or on more comprehensive data available on PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Documents). Our results reveal vast variation in visibility of cases and motions, depending on the data source used. We also demonstrate that these differences in case and motion visibility can affect the results of empirical analyses relating to, for example, the success rates of litigants and whether the party of the appointing president affects judicial behavior. Our findings mean that utilizing docket sheets, now available electronically, to gather data will often be required to draw accurate conclusions about the nature of district court litigation and the behavior of district court judges.

中文翻译：

---

绘制冰山图：数据源对地方法院研究的影响

三年前，西格尔曼（Siegelman）和多诺休（Donohue）恰当地将有关法院和诉讼的研究定性为“仅从冰山一角研究冰山”。他们恳请研究人员查看已发表的地区法院意见，“对此类案件不能代表所有案件的方式更加敏感”。审判法院诉讼的动态，多阶段性质使其仅关注已发表的意见，而这些意见尤其不适用于联邦地方法院的研究。现在，扩大了对法院文件的电子访问方式，可以更精确地分析已发布案件的代表性以及代表地区法院工作的哪些差异。留意希格曼和多诺休的劝告，这项研究旨在绘制冰山图，探索可见部分在多大程度上歪曲了表面之下的东西。使用Kim，Schlanger和Martin的补充版本EEOC诉讼项目数据，本文考察了地区法院研究人员通常使用的几种数据源在不同程度上可见案件和司法活动。更具体地说，我们根据研究是否依赖于已发布的意见，Westlaw或Lexis上可用的意见（“已发布”和“未发表”）还是PACER上可获得的更全面的数据来分析联邦地方法院的工作方式如何不同（公开获取法院电子文件）。我们的结果表明，案件和动议的可见性差异很大，这取决于所使用的数据源。我们还证明，案件和动议能见度的这些差异可能会影响实证分析的结果，这些实证分析涉及例如诉讼人的成功率以及任命总统的政党是否影响司法行为。