Torrey v. Marion County School Board et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying 22 Plaintiff's Motion regarding electronically viewing and receiving documents. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 1/15/2013. (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
CAROLYN TORREY, for herself and for
J.T., her minor child
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 5:12-CV-662-Oc-10PRL

MARION COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
JAMES A. YANCEY, WILLIAM
HALDIN, BEVERLY MORRIS, JOHN
MCCOLLUM, GEORGE DON
RAYMOND, DIANA GREENE and RON
CRAWFORD
Defendants.

ORDER
On January 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed a letter (Doc. 22), which the Court construes as a
Motion, wherein Plaintiff asks the Court to address her various concerns regarding electronically
viewing and receiving documents.
Middle District of Florida Rule 3.01(g) requires that “[b]efore filing any motion in a civil
case [with a few limited exceptions] . . . the moving party shall confer with counsel for the
opposing party . . . ,” and that the motion should reflect that such a conference has occurred and
the outcome of the conference. The Court routinely denies motions that fail to comply with this
rule. A review of Plaintiff’s Motion reflects that she has failed to comply with this rule prior to
filing her Motion; however, the Court will consider the Motion on this occasion.
In Plaintiff’s Motion, she submits that she has not been receiving copies of documents
filed with the Court, and requests that the Court e-mail her the Court’s Orders. A review of the
docket reflects that Plaintiff’s address was entered in the Court’s system with a typographical

error. Specifically, Plaintiff’s address was originally entered as 1202 SE 14th Street; however,
Plaintiff’s correct address is 1202 SE 14th Avenue.1 The Clerk has now corrected this error and
the Court does not anticipate any future problems with Plaintiff’s receipt of the Court’s Orders.
Thus, Plaintiff’s request is denied.
Plaintiff also requests that the Court require Defendants to serve Plaintiff by e-mail.
Although Rule 5(b)(E), Fed. R. Civ. P., permits service upon a party by e-mail, a party is not
required to serve another party by e-mail. Notably, however, this is something that Plaintiff may
personally request of Defendants, and a request that could have been discussed prior to filing the
Motion had Plaintiff complied with L.R. 3.01(g). At this time, Plaintiff’s request that the Court
require Defendants to e-mail her its filings is denied without prejudice.
Finally, Plaintiff appears to seek home-access to PACER for the purpose of viewing and
printing documents at her home. This Court is not responsible for a party’s personal and private
access to PACER. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for the Court to direct PACER is denied. Instead,
Plaintiff should communicate with PACER directly about setting up the at-home PACER access
she desires. Of course, Plaintiff may continue to visit the Court’s Public Viewing Room between
the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays. In addition, Plaintiff may
print the documents from the Public Viewing Room at $.10 for each page she prints. In
accordance with the Middle District of Florida Policy, effective January 2, 2013, the Court no
longer accepts personal checks; thus, Plaintiff may pay for the copies in cash (using exact
change) or any other method permitted by the Policy.2 Although, Plaintiff also requests that the

1

Defendants are directed to update their records regarding the proper address for Plaintiff.
“Effective January 2, 2013, the District Clerk of Court’s Offices for the Middle District of Florida will no longer
accept personal checks for any type of payment. Law firms may continue to remit payment using their business
checks. The [] Clerk’s Office accepts cash [exact change], money orders, certified bank checks, and cashier’s
checks . . . .”

2

-2-

Court op a pre-pa account for Plaintiff that she ma use to bi against fo copies, su a
pen
aid
f
f
ay
ill
or
uch
system is not in place thus, this request is als denied.
s
e;
r
so
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc 22) is DEN
A
M
c.
NIED as discussed herei
in.
IT IS SO OR
T
RDERED.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Flo
D
O
orida on Jan
nuary 15, 201
13.

Copies fu
urnished to:
Unrepresented Parties
U
Counsel of Record
C

-3-