Vashisht-Rota v. Ottawa University

Filing 47

ORDER granting 46 Motion for Leave to Electronically File Documents. Signed by Judge Todd W. Robinson on 1/7/2021. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jmr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

APARNA VASHISHT-ROTA, an
individual,

15
16

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO ELECTRONICALLY
FILE DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No.: 20-CV-959 TWR (KSC)

v.
OTTAWA UNIVERSITY,

(ECF No. 46)
Defendant.

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

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Aparna Vashisht-Rota’s Motion for Leave to
Electronically File Documents (“Mot.,” ECF No. 46). “Except as prescribed by local rule,
order, or other procedure, the Court has designated all cases to be assigned to the Electronic
Filing System.” S.D. Cal. CivLR 5.4(a). With respect to pro se litigants, however,
“[u]nless otherwise authorized by the court, all documents submitted for filing to the
Clerk’s Office . . . must be in legible, paper form.” Office of the Clerk, United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, Electronic Case Filing Administrative
Policies and Procedures Manual, § 2(b) (Sept. 15, 2020). “A pro se party seeking leave
to electronically file documents must file a motion and demonstrate the means to do so
properly by stating their equipment and software capabilities in addition to agreeing to
follow all rules and policies in the CM/ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures

1
20-CV-959 TWR (KSC)

1

Manual.” Id. The manual refers to the Court’s official web site for CM/ECF technical

2

specifications, id. at § 1(i), which include a “[c]omputer running Windows or Macintosh”;

3

“[s]oftware to convert documents from a word processor format to portable document

4

format (PDF),” such as “Adobe Acrobat 7.0 and higher”; “[i]nternet access supporting a

5

transfer rate of 56kb or higher”; a compatible browser, such as “Firefox 15, Internet

6

Explorer 9, and Safari 5.1/6 or later version”; a “[s]canner to image non-computerized

7

documents 400 pixels per inch (ppi)”; and a PACER account. United States District Court,

8

Southern

9

https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/cmecf.aspx#undefined1 (last visited November 23, 2020).

10

Plaintiff’s declaration specifies that Plaintiff has access to all of the hardware and

11

software specified on the Court’s website. (See Motion at 2.) The Court therefore

12

GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Electronically File Documents and ORDERS

13

Plaintiff to register as a user with the Clerk’s Office and as a subscriber per U.S. District

14

Court for the Southern District of California Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies

15

and Procedures Manual Section 2(b). The Court reminds Plaintiff that electronic filing is

16

privilege and that any abuse of the CM/ECF system may result in termination of her

17

electronic filing privileges.

18
19

District

of

California,

CM/ECF

Information:

General

Information,

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2021

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
20-CV-959 TWR (KSC)