Baranski v. United States of America

Filing 45

ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that non-party movant Rosenblum, Schwartz, Rogers & Glass, P.C. shall file a certificate of service no later than March 6, 2012, stating that Document 43 has been served on petitioner by means other than CM/ECF. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioners Motion to Unseal Response Docket No. 43 and for Attorneys Fees is DENIED as to the motion to unseal Document 43. [Doc. 44]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioners Motion to Unseal Response Docket No. 43 and for Attorneys Fees remains pending as to the issue of attorneys fees. [Doc. 44]. Response to Court due by 3/6/2012. Signed by Honorable Charles A. Shaw on 3/5/2012. (KSM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

KEITH BYRON BARANSKI,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:11-CV-123 CAS

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner Keith Baranski’s Motion to Unseal Response
Docket No. 43 and for Attorney’s Fees.
The sealed document filed by non-party movant Rosenblum, Schwartz, Rogers and Glass,
P.C. lacks an adequate certificate of service, as it states, “I hereby certify that on February 23, 2012,
the foregoing was electronically filed under seal with the Clerk of the Court.” Section VI.B. of this
Court’s CM/ECF Administrative Procedures states,
Upon filing a sealed motion or document, electronic notice goes ONLY to the
attorneys of record and indicates the document number; however, the document IS
NOT accessible from the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). The docket entry
appears for court users and all attorneys of record active in the case. ONLY Court
users CAN ACCESS OR VIEW the document from the system. the docket text will
read “SEALED MOTION” or “SEALED DOCUMENT.”
PLEASE NOTE: The attorney filing the sealed motion or sealed document
will have to serve opposing counsel by other means as service will not occur via the
CM/ECF System.
See www.moed.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/CMECF_AdminProcedures.pdf at 20-21.
RSRG will be ordered to promptly comply with applicable electronic filing procedures by
filing a certificate of service stating that Document 43 has been served on petitioner’s counsel by

means other than CM/ECF. RSRG shall include such a certificate of service on any sealed motions
or documents it files in the future. Petitioner’s motion will be denied to the extent it seeks to unseal
Document 43, and remains pending with respect to his request for attorney’s fees. RSRG may
respond to that aspect of petitioner’s motion within the time allowed under the Local Rules and Rule
6(d), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that non-party movant Rosenblum, Schwartz, Rogers & Glass,
P.C. shall file a certificate of service no later than March 6, 2012, stating that Document 43 has
been served on petitioner by means other than CM/ECF.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s Motion to Unseal Response Docket No. 43
and for Attorney’s Fees is DENIED as to the motion to unseal Document 43. [Doc. 44]

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s Motion to Unseal Response Docket No. 43
and for Attorney’s Fees remains pending as to the issue of attorney’s fees. [Doc. 44]

CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 5th day of March, 2012.

3