(Possible) discrepancies between bulk data tables and website

[ledwindra]

Hi,

It looks like I have found two seemingly similar docket cases but have different information. Or perhaps I misunderstood the data. I use two tables, dockets-2025-04-30.csv and fjc-integrated-database-2025-04-30.csv. I have two examples of two docket IDs from the dockets table: 14511105 and 6491877.

These docket IDs have the same case_name, docket_number, court_id, assigned_to_id, date_filed, date_terminated, nature_of_suit, and docket_number_core. However, the information from the FJC database contains different values from the judgment field. However, Docket ID 14511105 has judgment == 0, while docket ID 6491877 has judgment == 1.

Here's how the table looks like:

docket_id	case_name	docket_number	court_id	assigned_to_id	cause	date_filed	date_terminated	nature_of_suit	assigned_to_str	docket_number_core	fjc_id	fjc_docket_number	fjc_date_filed	title	plaintiff	defendant	judgment
14511105	Financial Information Technologies, LLC v. iControl Systems, USA, LLC	8:17-cv-00190	flmd	2227	28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract	2017-01-24	2020-03-05	790 Labor: Other	Steven D. Merryday	1700190	25073756	1700190	2017-02-21	42	BRANCH, ET AL	COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURIT	0
6491877	Financial Information Technologies, LLC v. iControl Systems, USA, LLC	8:17-cv-00190	flmd	2227	28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract	2017-01-24	2020-03-05	790 Labor: Other	Steven D. Merryday	1700190	25081791	1700190	2017-01-24	28	FINANCIAL INFORMATION T, ET AL	ICONTROL SYSTEMS, USA, LLC	1

Additionally, in docket ID 14511105, there is a discrepancy between values in these table and information being presented on the website. In the table, the plaintiff is BRANCH, ET AL and the defendant is COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURIT. However, the on Court Listener website, the plaintiff is Financial Information Technologies, LLC, and the defendant is iControl Systems, USA, LLC. These are similar to information in docket ID 6491877 (both in the table and the Court Listener's website).

My questions:

1. Why the difference for docket ID 14511105?
2. Are docket IDs 14511105 and 6491877 actually two different dockets?

Thank you.

Best,
Lukman

[mlissner]

It looks like the FJC data associated with 14511105 was mismatched. I just removed it.

[ledwindra]

Thank you! There are some similar cases that I have found, but I think I could also infer which one is correct by matching the plaintiff and defendant columns with the case_name column.