Xie v. Turner Designs Hydro Carbon Instruments, Inc. et al

Filing 40

ORDER DENYING requests for permission to use electronic filing system. The Court DENIES the Request, (Docs. 28 & 37), and the Motion (Doc. 33). Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/3/2017. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:17-cv-00284-LJO-SKO

AGNES XIE,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING REQUESTS FOR
PERMISSION TO USE ELECTRONIC
FILING SYSTEM
(Doc. 28)

TURNER DESIGNS HYDRO CARBON
INSTRUMENTS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

16
17

Before the Court are (1) the parties’ Stipulation (the “Request”), in which the parties

18 “stipulate and agree [to] allow Plaintiff” to utilize the “ECF filing” system, (Docs. 28 & 37), and
19 (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Permission for Electronic Case Filing (the “Motion”), (Doc. 33).
20

Local Rule 133(b)(2) provides that “[a]ny person appearing pro se may not utilize

21 electronic filing except with the permission of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge.” Instead,
22 “[a]ll parties shall file and serve paper documents as required by applicable Federal Rules of Civil
23 . . . Procedure or by these [Local] Rules.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 133(b)(2). Nonetheless, a pro se
24 party may “[r]equest to use paper or electronic filing as exceptions from these Rules” if (1) they
25 submit a stipulation between the parties “as provided in [Local Rule] 143;” or (2) “if a stipulation
26 cannot be had,” by a “written motion[] setting out an explanation of reasons for the exception.”
27 E.D. Cal. Local Rule 133(b)(3).
28

In this case, the parties filed a stipulation indicating that they agree to Plaintiff’s use of the

1

2 electronic filing system and Plaintiff filed the Motion requesting use of this system. (See Docs.
3 28, 33, 37.) However, the Court finds that it is inappropriate in this matter to deviate from the
4 Local Rule that “[a]ny person appearing pro se may not utilize electronic filing.” E.D. Cal. Local
5 Rule 133(b)(2).
6

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Request, (Docs. 28 & 37), and the Motion (Doc. 33).

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated:
10

August 3, 2017

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

.