MURRAY v. WAL-MART STORES INC et al

Filing 249

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO RETAIN/PRESERVECASE DOCKET AND RECORDS re: 248 Motion to Retain, Preserve (not purge) the case docket and all supporting records, Exhibits, Briefs, Emails, (to encompass all communications) submitted to the court By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (clp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
DAVID E. MURRAY,
PLAINTIFF
V.

WALMART STORES INC.,

ET AL.,

DEFENDANT

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 2:15-CV-00484-DBH

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RETAIN/PRESERVE
CASE DOCKET AND RECORDS
The plaintiff has filed a “motion to retain, preserve (not purge) the case
docket and all supporting records, exhibits, briefs, emails, (to encompass all
communications) submitted to the court.” (ECF No. 248.)
I DENY the motion for these reasons.
1.

This court has no control over the state superior court case and

docket to which the motion refers.
2.

For official court records in this court, the court applies the existing

judiciary records retention procedures. The plaintiff has shown no way in which
they are inadequate. Some things the plaintiff refers to (e.g., “telephone logs”)
do not exist.
It appears that what has prompted the plaintiff’s concern is the entry of a
purge deadline on the electronic docket. That “purge” refers to paper documents,
all of which have already been scanned and entered on the ECF (electronic case
files) docket. Thus, those paper documents are redundant of the records that

continue to exist and are available to the plaintiff electronically.

National

judiciary procedures permit disposal of paper documents once they have been
scanned in their entirety into ECF.
SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
/S/D. BROCK HORNBY
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2