Taylor et al v. United States Office of Personnel Management et al

Filing 90

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' "MOTION--OBJECTION TO COURT'S DENIAL DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 2015" re 89 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on October 5, 2015. (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEPartici pants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Scarlett A. Taylor and Chanel E. Taylor served by first class mail at the address of record on October 5, 2015.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
SCARLETT A. TAYLOR, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES OFFICE OF
)
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 14-00107 SOM-BMK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS'
“MOTION--OBJECTION TO COURT'S
DENIAL DATED SEPTEMBER 9,
2015"

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' “MOTION-OBJECTION TO COURT'S DENIAL DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 2015"
On September 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed yet another
"Motion--Objection," this latest one contesting the minute order
this court filed on September 9, 2015.

The September 23

"Motion--Objection" is denied for reasons set forth in this
court's prior rulings and in the present order.
Once again, Plaintiffs claim that this court's order of
August 4 is really Plaintiffs' own filing,

The August 4 order

bears this court's "denied" stamp accompanied by the assigned
district judge's signature on the front page of a copy of a
document that Plaintiffs originally filed on July 31, 2015.

In

their latest filing, Plaintiffs ask whether the original July 31
file stamp was "whited out," as the July 31 file stamp has been
replaced by an August 4 file stamp on the copy of the document
bearing the "denied" stamp.

The mechanics are as follows:

Because this court

determined that, having already addressed Plaintiffs' points in
prior rulings, no further explanation for its denial of
Plaintiffs' July 31 "motion" was needed, the court directed court
staff to make a copy of Plaintiffs' July 31 filing, cover the
July 31 file stamp, stamp the "motion" as "denied," and then,
after obtaining the judge's signature, affix to the document
bearing the "denied" stamp a new file stamp with the date of the
denial, which happened to be August 4.

The reason the July 31

file stamp was covered was to avoid any confusion that might
arise from having two different file stamps (July 31 and August
4) on the cover page of a single document.

The case file

already contained (and continues to contain) Plaintiffs' July 31
filing, bearing the original July 31 file stamp.

That is, the

covering of the July 31 file stamp on what was only a copy of the
July 31 document has in no way affected the court's record of
Plaintiffs' July 31 filing.

Anyone studying the case file can

quickly see Plaintiffs' "motion" with its original July 31 file
stamp (which is document 83 in the case file), as well as the
"denial" with the August 4 file stamp (which is document 84 in
the case file).
The August 4 file stamp was intended to make it clear
that August 4 was the date of this court's "denial" order.
the court not covered the original July 31 file stamp, people

Had

2

might not have known whether the "denied" stamp had been affixed
on July 31 or August 4.

This court has previously explained the

matter to Plaintiffs.
Clearly, this court's goal of avoiding confusion was
not initially achieved in this instance, but by now it must be
evident to Plaintiffs what occurred.
further repetition.

Nothing is gained by

In fact, the court cannot tell why

Plaintiffs continue their debate about the August 4 file stamp, a
matter immaterial to the merits of their claims.

August 4

remains the date of an earlier order by this court, no matter how
many times Plaintiffs may claim that August 4 is the date they
themselves filed something with this court.
The present order leaves nothing before this court
requiring any ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, October 5, 2015.

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
Chief United States District Judge

Taylor, et al. v. United States Office of Personnel Management,
et al., Civil No. 14-00107 SOM-BMK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' “MOTION--OBJECTION TO COURT'S DENIAL
DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 2015"
3