Williams et al v. County of Kern

Filing 50

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 48 Motion to File Electronically; ORDER GRANTING IN PART Plaintiffs' 49 Request to Appear Telephonically at the Scheduling Conference But Only Via CourtCall, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/13/2014. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
COUNTY OF KERN/KERN COUNTY FIRE )
)
DEPARTMENT,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
)
LACHANA WILLIAMS, et al.,

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01983 AWI JLT
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
FILE ELECTRONICALLY
(Doc. 48)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’
REQUEST TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY AT
THE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE BUT ONLY
VIA COURTCALL
(Doc. 49)

18

Before the Court is the request of Plaintiff, Lachana Williams, to file documents electronically

19

and the request of both Plaintiffs to appear at the scheduling conference telephonically. (Docs. 48, 49)
In support of the request to file documents electronically, Lachana Williams1 attests that she

20
21

has a computer with internet access, an e-mail account, a scanner, a printer, a word processing

22

program and a pdf reader that will convert documents into pdf format. (Doc. 48) She offers no

23

explanation that she has any training in docketing or that she is familiar with the Court’s CM/ECF

24

system and she fails to provide any good cause to allow her to file documents electronically. Id. Thus,

25

the request is DENIED.
In support for the request for Plaintiffs to appear via telephone at the scheduling conference,

26
27
28

1

The document indicates the request is being made by both plaintiffs but Rupert Williams did not sign the request and Ms.
Williams is not permitted to act on his behalf; Mr. Williams must represent himself.

1

1

Plaintiffs explain they live in Tallahassee, Florida and Lumberton, New Jersey and travel to court is

2

unduly burdensome. (Doc. 49 at 3) They indicate that on the date and time of the upcoming hearing,

3

they will await a call at their respective homes “until contacted by the Court.” Id. Plaintiffs are

4

advised the Court does not act as a telephone conferencing service and will not take on the

5

responsibility of ensuring parties appear at their hearings and will not accept the costs associated with

6

the long-distance calls. Thus, the request for the Court to telephone Plaintiffs to facilitate their

7

appearances is DENIED. However, the Court will GRANT IN PART the request and authorize

8

Plaintiffs to appear via CourtCall if CourtCall will allow.2

9

ORDER

10

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

11

1.

Lachana Williams’ request to file documents electronically is DENIED;

12

2.

Plaintiffs’ request to appear telephonically at the scheduling conference is DENIED IN

13

PART and GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiffs may appear at their own expense via CourtCall if

14

CourtCall will allow.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated:

March 13, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The Court is not certain whether CourtCall contracts their service with non-attorneys and Plaintiffs have failed to provide
the Court this information.

2