Marsh et al v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation

Filing 40

ORDER Denying Motion to E-File Documents signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on January 8, 2025. (Deputy Clerk FMN)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TERRANCE MARSH, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

Case No. 1:23-cv-01451-JLT-EPG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO E-FILE
DOCUMENTS

v.
(ECF No. 36)

14

FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Plaintiffs Terrance Marsh and Gesele Marsh proceed pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil action. (ECF Nos. 1, 7, 9). They move for permission to electronically file (e-file)
documents in this case, stating that e-filing is easier, faster, and less expensive than filing
documents via in-person and the mail. (ECF No. 36).
Under the Court’s Local Rules, pro se parties are required to “file and serve paper
documents” and “may not utilize electronic filing except with the permission of the assigned
Judge or Magistrate Judge.” Local Rule 133(b)(2) (emphasis omitted). Any request for an
exception to this rule must be submitted as a stipulation between the parties or a “written motion[
] setting out an explanation of reasons for the exception.” Local Rule 133(b)(3). It is within the

26

Court’s discretion to grant or deny such a request. Reddy v. Precyse Solutions LLC, 2013 WL

27

2603413, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 11, 2013).

28
1

1

On December 16, 2024, the Court issued an order noting that Plaintiffs’ motion did not

2

make clear whether Plaintiffs are familiar with the requirements applicable to e-filing in this

3

Court or whether they have the necessary hardware and software needed for e-filing. (ECF No.

4

38). The Court gave Plaintiffs ten days from the date of entry of the order to each file a separate

5

declaration in support of their request for permission to use the Court’s e-filing system, noting

6
7
8
9
10
11

that the declaration should address whether they aware of the requirements for e-filing and
whether they have access to the necessary hardware and software.
The deadline for Plaintiffs to file a declaration has expired, and they have not filed one or
any other response to the Court’s order.
Based on Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Court’s order and failure to properly
support their motion, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to e-file documents (ECF No. 36)
is denied.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
Dated:
15

January 8, 2025

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2