Howell v. Centric Group, LLC et al

Filing 138

ORDER finding as moot 133 Plaintiffs Motion for Waiver of Copy Fees; granting in part and denying in part 134 Plaintiffs Motion for Court Order to Have Copies of Motions Served Electronically or Certified Mail upon both Defendants at Court Expense. By Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 10/17/2011. (cbslc1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 09-cv-02299-MSK-CBS
THOMAS HOWELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
CENTRIC GROUP, LLC, and
SCENTOILS.COM, INC.,
Defendants.

ORDER

Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer
This civil action comes before the court on Plaintiff Mr. Howell’s “Motion for Court
Order to Have Copies of Motions Served Electronically or Certified Mail upon both
Defendants at Court Expense” (filed October 13, 2011) (Doc. # 134). Pursuant to the
Order of Reference dated October 22, 2009 (Doc. # 8) and the memorandum dated
October 14, 2011 (Doc. # 137), this matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge. The
court has reviewed the matter, the entire case file, and the applicable law and is
sufficiently advised in the premises.
Mr. Howell asks the court to serve either by mail or by electronic means copies of
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. # 135) and “Plaintiff’s Response to
Defendants Scentoils.com, Inc.’s Summary Judgment Motion” (Doc. # 136) on
Defendants because he has been unable to obtain copies from the prison. On this one
occasion, the court will require Defendants to access their copies of “Plaintiff’s Motion
for Summary Judgment” (Doc. # 135) and “Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants

1

Scentoils.com, Inc.’s Summary Judgment Motion” (Doc. # 136) through the court’s filing
system. However, from this date forward, Mr. Howell is required to comply with Fed. R.
Civ. P. 5(a) and (b) by serving by mail on Defendants' counsel copies of all papers that
Mr. Howell files with the court, including an appropriate certificate of service.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s “Motion for Court Order to Have Copies of Motions Served

Electronically or Certified Mail upon both Defendants at Court Expense” (filed October
13, 2011) (Doc. # 134) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
2.

Defendants shall access their copies of “Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment” (Doc. # 135) and “Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants Scentoils.com, Inc.’s
Summary Judgment Motion” (Doc. # 136) through the court’s filing system and this
access shall be treated as adequate service for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 5(b)(3); D.C. COLO. LCivR 5.2.
3.

In light of the court’s ruling on Doc. # 134, Plaintiff’s “Motion for Waiver of

Copy Fees” (filed October 13, 2011) (Doc. # 133) is DENIED as moot.

DATED at Denver, Colorado this 17th day of October, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Craig B. Shaffer
United States Magistrate Judge

2