Prewitt v. Mississippi State University

Filing 291

ORDER denying (288) Motion for permission to conventionally file documents; denying (290) Motion to Hold in Abeyance in case 1:06-cv-00338-LG-DAS; denying (46) Motion for permission to conventionally file documents; denying (48) Motion to Hold in Abeyance in case 1:10-cv-00225-LG-DAS. Signed by Louis Guirola, Jr., on 4/3/2012. Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00338-LG-DAS, 1:10-cv-00225-LG-DAS (br)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION

MYRTLE LYNN PREWITT
v.

PLAINTIFF
CAUSE NO. 1:06CV338-LG-DAS
CAUSE NO. 1:10CV225-LG-DAS

MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY

DEFENDANT

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PERMISSION
TO CONVENTIONALLY FILE EXHIBITS
BEFORE THE COURT are the Motion [288] for Permission to
Conventionally File Exhibits and Motion [290] to Hold in Abeyance filed by Myrtle
Lynn Prewitt. She asks for permission to conventionally file exhibits supporting
her response to the defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Prewitt
states that the exhibits total ninety megabytes, while the Court’s maximum upload
capacity is thirty-two megabytes. In her Motion to Hold in Abeyance, Prewitt asks
the Court to abstain from ruling on the Motion requesting permission to
conventionally file exhibits, because the exhibits have been submitted to the Clerk
of Court for conventional filing pursuant to Section 8 of the ECF Administrative
Procedures.
Section 8 of the Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing permits
attorneys to file documents conventionally by attaching a Declaration of Technical
Difficulties in circumstances where technical failures in either the Court’s system or
the attorney’s system prevent the attorney from electronically filing the document.
However, Section 3(A)(8) provides that each exhibit should be filed as a separate

attachment to the original pleading (in this case the plaintiff’s response), and each
attachment should be labeled with either a letter or number and a meaningful
description. If the PDF document exceeds thirty-two megabytes, attorneys are
instructed to file any remaining exhibits using the event “Exhibit to Other
Document” until all of the exhibits have been electronically filed. See also Unif.
Local R. 7(b)(2).
Since Prewitt was unable to electronically file the exhibits due to the size of
the PDF, this does not constitute a technical difficulty caused by either the Court’s
system or the attorney’s system. The difficulty was caused by the failure to divide
the exhibits pursuant to the instructions provided in Section 3(A)(8) Administrative
Procedures for Electronic Case Filing. As a result, Prewitt’s request for permission
to conventionally file the exhibits is denied. Furthermore, her request to hold that
Motion in abeyance is also denied.
The Clerk of Court and the information technology staff are available to
answer questions, or they can provide Plaintiff’s counsel with assistance and
training in the use of the Court’s electronic filing system (CM/ECF) in the event
Plaintiff’s counsel should encounter difficulties. Plaintiff’s counsel is encouraged to
ask for help when needed.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Motion [288] for
Permission to Conventionally File Exhibits filed by Myrtle Lynn Prewitt is
DENIED.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion [290] to
-2-

Hold in Abeyance filed by Myrtle Lynn Prewitt is DENIED.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 3rd day of April, 2012.
s/

Louis Guirola, Jr.

LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-