Dillman, et al. v. Tuolumne County, et al.

Filing 95

ORDER ACCEPTING Plaintiffs' Late-Filed 94 Opposition; VACATING Hearing; EXTENDING Defendants' Time to Reply; and WARNING Plaintiffs' Counsel About Compliance With Local Rules, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/26/2015. (Marrujo, C)

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2
3
4
5

MICHAEL DILLMANand, STEPHEN
DILLMAN,

1:13-CV-00404 LJO SKO
ORDER ACCEPTING PLAINTIFFS’
LATE-FILED OPPOSITION;
VACATING HEARING; EXTENDING
DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO REPLY;
AND WARNING PLAINTIFFS’
COUNSEL ABOUT COMPLIANCE
WITH LOCAL RULES.

Plaintiffs,
6
v.
7
TUOLUMNE COUNTY, et al.,
8
Defendants.
9
10

The Court has received and reviewed the January 23, 2015 Declaration of Plaintiffs’ counsel,

11 Joseph L. Wright, which purports to provide an explanation for the fact that Plaintiffs’ opposition to the
12 pending motion for summary judgment, due January 21, 2015, was filed two days late. Doc. 90. Mr.
13 Wright explains that he had problems logging into CM/ECF on January 21, 2015, followed by further
14 problems with his scanner1 that extended through January 22 and part of January 23, 2015. Id. Mr.
15 Wright failed to follow the clear requirements of Local Rule 134(c), which lays out the procedures to be
16 followed when a technical failure occurs on the sender’s end. Moreover, Mr. Wright failed to notify
17 opposing counsel of his difficulties. Among other things, Local Rule 230(c)(2) (specifically applicable
18 only in case of a Court technical failure) suggests the obvious alternative method of notice to opposing
19 counsel: service by email, overnight delivery, or other expeditious means appropriate to the
20 circumstances. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not provide the relevant documents by email to Defendants until
21 January 23, 2015.
22

Nonetheless, the Court will not strike the Opposition from the record, as this would seriously

23 prejudice Plaintiffs’ interests. Moreover, the delay in filing will not prejudice Defendants if Defendants
24
25
26

1

The Court notes that it is simply not necessary to print and then scan most completed legal documents before uploading
them to CM/ECF. Every major word processing software on the market now comes standard with an option that permits the
user to “save to” or “print to” the .pdf format required for uploading to CM/ECF. This eliminates the need for a scanner in
most circumstances and produces a much smaller file for uploading.

1

1

are afforded additional time to file a reply. Accordingly, the deadline for filing any reply is extended to

2

February 3, 2015. The hearing on the pending motion for summary judgment, currently set for

3

February 4, 2015, is VACATED. The Court will notify the parties if it believes oral argument would aid

4

resolution of the disputes. Otherwise, the matter will be decided on the papers pursuant to Local Rule

5

230(g).

6

Plaintiffs’ counsel is cautioned that this will be his only warning regarding compliance with the

7

Local Rules. If his most recent filings are any indication of how he intends to proceed with this case,

8

counsel is on notice that any and all forms of sanction are on the table, including the striking of

9

filings/pleadings and/or monetary sanctions. This Court does not have time to deal with an Officer of

10 the Court who isn’t interested in reading and following the rules expected to be followed. If this
11 happens again, this case will be terminated, and further proceedings should be anticipated in the State
12 Court in a subsequent case where counsel will be a party.
13 IT IS SO ORDERED.
14

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

January 26, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2