Dowling v. Mountain States Line Constructors Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee

Filing 70

ORDER denying 65 Plaintiff's Motion to (Partially) Cancel CM/ECF Due to Continual Unresoved [sic]Problems (Doc. No. 65 ). By Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 5/30/12.(mjgsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 11–cv–02697–REB–KMT

THERESA L. DOWLING,
Plaintiff,
v.
MOUNTAIN STATES LINE CONSTRUCTORS JOINT APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING
COMMITTEE,
Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s “Motion to (Partially) Cancel CM/ECF Due
to Continual Unresoved [sic] Problems.” (Doc. No. 65, filed May 24, 2012.) Plaintiff’s Motion
is ostensibly responsive to the court’s May 9, 2012 Minute Order, which directed Plaintiff to file
a motion no later than May 23, 20121 demonstrating good cause to support the revocation of her
Electronic Case Filing (ECF) privileges. (Doc. No. 37.) Plaintiff’s Motion, however, seeks only
a partial revocation of her ECF registration and access—specifically, Plaintiff proposes that she
retain her ECF access to file documents electronically, but be served via United States mail.

1

Plaintiff’s Motion was filed a day after this deadline and therefore violates the court’s
Minute Order. Plaintiff’s prior failures to comply with court-ordered deadlines resulted in the
court entering an Order to Show Cause in this matter. (See Doc. No. 20.) Nevertheless, the court
proceeds to the substance of Plaintiff’s Motion.

The court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion is properly denied. Registration as an ECF
participant “shall constitute consent to electronic service of all documents . . . .” See ECF
Procedures for the District of Colorado (Civil Cases) 3.2C (emphasis added). Thus, a registered
party’s consent to receiving electronic service is part and parcel of their privilege to file
documents electronically. Accordingly, the court is not at liberty, nor is it otherwise inclined, to
grant Plaintiff’s proposed partial revocation of her ECF registration and access.
Additionally, because Plaintiff has not sought to fully revoke her ECF privileges, the
court finds that Plaintiff’s ECF registration and access shall remain in effect. Hereafter, Plaintiff
shall file all documents electronically using the ECF System consistent with ECF Procedure
1.1—unless electronic service is excepted under ECF Procedure 1.2—and shall be served
electronically will be served electronically consistent with ECF Procedure 3.2C. In other words,
Defendant is no longer required to serve Plaintiff with any filings via U.S. Mail, nor will the
court be serving Plaintiff via U.S. Mail with paper copies of court-initiated filings.
It is ORDERED
Plaintiff’s “Motion to (Partially) Cancel CM/ECF Due to Continual Unresoved [sic]
Problems” (Doc. No. 65) is DENIED.
Dated this 30th day of May, 2012.

2