Paquet et al v. Smith

Filing 11

ORDER denying 8 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel; denying 8 Motion to Strike by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 6/17/2010.(erv, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya Civil Action No. 10­cv­00813­CMA­KMT GUY PAQUET, and ELIZABETH PAQUET, Plaintiffs, v. MARK SMITH, Defendant. ORDER This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's "Motion for Order Regarding CM/ECF Compliance" [Doc. No. 8] filed June 7, 2010. Plaintiff complains the Defendant's counsel is in violation of the Local Rules of this Court and has filed documents in violation of the procedures directing the use of the CM/ECF system. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's counsel did not affix a Colorado bar identification number to his CM/ECF signature block and that he did not file a separate entry of appearance as required, so Plaintiff alleges, by D.C.COLO.LCivR 11.1. D.C.COLO.LCivR 11.1 provides A. Appearances. An appearance by or on behalf of a party shall be made in open court or in a pleading, motion, entry of appearance, or other paper . . . .

Id. (emphasis added). Defendant's counsel appropriately entered his appearance in Doc. No. 4, Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support" filed May 20, 2010. The United States District Court - District of Colorado, Electronic Case Filing Procedures (Civil Cases), ver. 3.0, eff. 12/01/07 provides 4. Signature Block. The correct format for a signature block is as follows: s/ Pat Attorney Pat Attorney ABC Law Firm 123 South Street Denver, CO 80202-1234 Telephone: [phone] FAX: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] Attorney for (Plaintiff/Defendant) XYZ Company Id. at 9. As noted by Plaintiff, "[t]he requirements are specified in CM/ECF Rule V,C,4 (sic) and are easy to read an (sic) comprehend."1 (Mot. at 2.) The rule does not compel an attorney to set forth his or her Colorado registration number in the signature block. The signature of Mr. Vermeire on Doc. No. 4 substantially complies with the rule.2 The court cautions the plaintiff that the filing of meaningless motions wastes judicial resources and increases the costs of litigation for the parties in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. In the future such filings could result in sanctions by the court where appropriate.

The motion is replete with typographical errors such as the ones noted. In fact, the certificate of service states that service was made on Richard S. Merveire instead of Richard S. Vermeire. Even the case number is formatted improperly. The signature block lacks the email address of Mr. Vermeire; however as an attorney authorized to file in CM/ECF, Mr. Vermeire's email address is part of the court record and is contained on the court docket as [e-mail]. 2
2

1

IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff's "Motion for Order Regarding CM/ECF Compliance" [Doc. No. 8] is DENIED. Dated this 17th day of June, 2010.

3