Lu v. University of Utah

Filing 40

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 33 Unopposed Motion to Permit Service and Filing by E-Mail; denying 36 Motion for Leave to File and Serve Documents online mailing service. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells on 2/27/15 (alt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
YUNG-KAI LU,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, et al.,

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM DECISION
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED
MOTION TO PERMIT SERVICE AND
FILING BY EMAIL AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE AND SERVE DOCUMENTS VIA
EMAIL

Defendants.
Case No. 2:13-cv-984 TC
District Judge Tena Campbell
Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells
Pending before the court are two motions. First an unopposed motion filed by
Defendants that seeks to allow service of pleadings, motions and similar papers under Federal
Rule 5(b)(2)(E) via e-mail. 1 Second, is a similar motion filed by Plaintiff that requests
permission for alternate service for delivery of court documents and related responses. 2 The
reason for these motions is to help facilitate the resolution of this case because Plaintiff YungKai resides in Taiwan and has difficulties delivering and receiving documents in this matter.
Defendants’ motion is unopposed and after considering it the court GRANTS the motion
as set forth below. 3
Plaintiff’s motion seeks to use an on-line mailing service, www.mailaletter.com to help
effectuate his participation in this case. Defendants oppose this motion to the extent “that

1

Docket no. 33.

2

Docket no. 36.

3

Docket no. 33.

Plaintiff is seeking to use this website to effectuate service on the unserved defendants.” 4 In
addition, Defendants argue that to the extent Plaintiff is using this website to effectuate filing and
service of papers other than service of process, such as motions and the like [with the court and
counsel for Defendants] the request is moot.” 5
The court agrees with Defendants’ arguments. By granting Defendants’ unopposed
motion much of Plaintiff’s motion is MOOT. Further, the court will not permit Plaintiff to
effectuate service via this website when there is already a pending Motion to Quash Service of
Process. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 6
ORDER
As set forth above Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED and Defendants’ unopposed motion is
GRANTED. 7
It is hereby
ORDERED that the Clerk shall accept and place on the docket documents sent by
Plaintiff Yung-Kai Lu from his e-mail address ([e-mail]) for filing in this case only.
Plaintiff shall provide all necessary information for the clerk to properly identify and docket said
documents, and provide an e-mail return receipt showing the date and time of the docketing of
the document. It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff may serve documents, other than the initial summons and
complaint, upon Counsel for Defendants, via e-mail (to [e-mail], [e-mail],

4

Response p. 2, docket no. 37.

5

Id.

6

Docket no. 36.

7

The undersigned notes that this procedure is based in large part upon that proposed by Magistrate Judge Pead prior
to his recusal. See docket text order, docket no. 27.

2

and [e-mail]). Adding Counsel for Defendants as a recipient on any documents
emailed to the Court shall comply with this Order. Counsel for Defendants may serve
documents, other than the initial summons and complaint, upon Plaintiff via e-mail. This Order
shall constitute the consent, in writing, required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(E).
Plaintiff is notified that this Order is not a substitute for proper service of process pursuant to
Rule 4, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants’ Motion to Quash remains pending, and
this Order does not constitute a judicial declaration that Plaintiffs’ attempts at service was, or
was not, sufficient. It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff is to provide electronic copies of all motions and other filings
to both the Clerk’s Office ([e-mail]) and the chambers email for the
undersigned ([e-mail]) in addition to serving any such items upon
Defendants via e-mail. 8
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 27 February 2015.

Brooke C. Wells
United States Magistrate Judge

8

Documents filed by Defendants are also to be e-filed with a corresponding certificate of mailing embedded in them
that indicates Plaintiff was served via e-mail.

3