Thieme v. Cobb et al

Filing 137

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James denying Motions to Amend without prejudice re: (104) Motion to Amend/Correct ; (105) Motion to Amend/Correct ; ;(106) Motion to Amend/Correct ; (107) Motion to Amend/Correct ; in case 3:13-cv-03828-MEJ; ( 134) Motion to Amend/Correct ; (135) Motion to Amend/Correct ; (136) Motion to Amend/Correct ; in case 3:13-cv-03827-MEJ; (39) Motion to Amend/Correct ; (40) Motion to Amend/Correct ; (41) Motion to Amend/Correct ; (42) Motion to Amend/Correct ; (43) Motion to Amend/Correct ; in case 3:15-cv-02455-MEJ. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

STEVE THIEME,

Case No. 13-cv-03827-MEJ

Plaintiff,
7

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

v.
8
9

DIANE M. COBB, et al.,
Defendants.

10
11

CYNTHIA CHENAULT,

Case No. 13-cv-03828-MEJ

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14

DIANE M. COBB, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

LEWIS HAYNES,

Case No. 15-cv-02455-MEJ

Plaintiff,
17
v.
18
19
20

DIANE E. COBB, et al.,
Defendants.

21
22

The Plaintiffs in these three related cases, Steve Thieme, Cynthia Chenault, and Lewis

23

Haynes, have each filed a Motion for Leave to Amend. However, the motions do not comply with

24

Civil Local Rule 7 in that Plaintiffs did not notice the motions for a hearing date (Civ. L.R. 7-2(a))

25

and the motions are filed as multiple docket entries rather than as one filed document (Civ. L.R. 7-

26

2(b)). Plaintiffs’ counsel in this case has repeatedly e-filed documents in a format that is not

27

readily accessible by the Court and other parties. For instance, instead of electronically converting

28

documents from the original computer file and uploading to ECF as one document, counsel scans

1

documents and uploads them as multiple entries in ECF or as one ECF entry with multiple

2

attachments. Scanned documents can be problematic since scanning creates a much larger file

3

size for the same number of pages and the ECF system rejects any individual file 5.0 MB or

4

larger, thus requiring multiple filings for what should normally be one entry in ECF.

5

Counsel is advised that only documents which exist in paper-only must be scanned; all

6

others can (and should) be electronically converted from the original computer file. If the

7

document exists anywhere electronically (Word, WordPerfect, Excel, website, digital photo, etc.),

8

the Court encourages counsel to convert the document to .pdf format rather than printing it out and

9

scanning it. Remember, you almost never need to scan to prove the existence of signatures.
Counsel is encouraged to utilize the Court’s e-filing tutorials, including instructions on how to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

create a pdf file, available at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/tutor/current/. Counsel may also

12

contact the ECF Help Desk by phone or email. Contact information for the help desk is at

13

http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecfhelpdesk.

14

Plaintiffs’ Motions are hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs shall re-

15

file their Motions by May 12, 2016, and in full compliance with Civil Local Rule 7 and the

16

Court’s instructions above.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20
21

Dated: May 6, 2016
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2