Bereket v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC et al

Filing 50

ORDER OF CLARIFICATION re: Plaintiff's request for clarification 49 . Briefing is complete on Plaintiff's 33 Motion to Certify Class and on Defendant's 34 Motion to Compel. The Court will consider these motions in due course. P laintiff shall not file any further documents related to the pending motions. The Clerk is directed to change the description of Plaintiff's 40 "Reply to Response to Motion" to "Response to Motion to Compel". The Clerk sha ll STRIKE Dkts. # 42 , # 43 , # 44 -2, # 44 -3 and # 44 -4 as UNTIMELY. The Clerk shall STRIKE the Third Party Motion to Quash at Dkts. 41 , # 44 , # 44 -1, # 44 -2, # 44 -3 and # 44 -4. Mr. Rodriguez has failed to appear in this matter either p ro se or through counsel. Prior to making any additional filings in this matter, PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL SHALL review the Court's Local Civil Rules, and the Court's Electronic Filing Procedures, all of which are available on the Court's website. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7
8

ABBY BEREKET, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12

ORDER OF CLARIFICATION

v.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES,
LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

Case No. C17-0812RSM

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s request for clarification. Dkt. #49.

15

Plaintiff seeks clarification of recent Minute Orders issued by the Court after several duplicative
16
17

filings were made by Plaintiff. Id. Having reviewed the record before it, the Court now

18

CLARIFIES its prior Orders.

19
20

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s counsel has consistently failed to
properly file documents through the Court’s CM/ECF filing system. Indeed, the Court previously

21
22

advised Plaintiff’s counsel to familiarize themselves with the Court’s Local Rules and warned

23

Plaintiff’s counsel that the failure to adhere to the Court’s Local Rules with future filings may

24

result in those filings being stricken from the record. Dkt. #23 at 1, fn.2. Despite this warning,

25

Plaintiff’s counsel has continued to file documents under the incorrect CM/ECF events, and has

26

admittedly filed duplicative documents due to filing errors on their end. See Dkt. #49. As a
27
28

ORDER
PAGE - 1

1
2

result, the docket is clogged with multiple documents, making it very difficult for anyone,
including the Court, to follow the current procedural posture of the pending motions.

3

As best the Court can discern, the following documents have been filed:

4

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Certify Class (Dkt. #33, Noted for Consideration on 2/16/18);

5

a. Defendant’s Response and Supporting Declaration (Dkts. #36 and #37);
6

b. Plaintiff’s Reply and Supporting Declaration (Dkts. #38 and #39).

7
8
9
10

Briefing is complete on this motion and the Court will consider it in due course. No
further briefing shall be filed pertaining to this motion.
2. Defendant’s Motion to Compel and Declaration in support thereof (Dkts. #34 and

11

#35; Noted for Consideration on 2/23/18);
12
13

a. Plaintiff’s Response and Supporting Declarations (Dkt. #40;filed on 2/20/18

14

and which were incorrectly filed as a “Reply to Response to Motion and

15

Supplements”);

16

b. Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Compel (Dkt. #42; filed on 2/21/18;

17

duplicative and without supplements);

18

c. Declaration of Counsel in Opposition to Motion to Compel (Dkt. #43; filed

19

on 2/21/18; duplicative, with exhibits);

20
21

d. Opposition to Motion to Compel filed by Non-Parties (Dkt. #44-2; filed on

22

2/21/18 with exhibits; filed as an attachment to a duplicative motion to quash);

23

e. Third Party Declaration in Opposition to Motion to Compel (Dkt. #44-3; filed

24

on 2/21/18 as supplement to duplicative motion to quash);

25

f. Declaration of Counsel in opposition to Motion to Compel (Dkt. #44-4; filed

26
27

on 2/21/18 as “summons declaration”) to duplicative motion to quash)

28

ORDER
PAGE - 2

g. Defendant’s Reply In Support of Motion to Compel (Dkt. #47).

1
2
3
4

Briefing is complete on this motion and the Court will consider it in due course. No
further briefing shall be filed pertaining to this motion.
3. Third-Party Rodriguez’s Motion to Quash Subpoena filed by Plaintiff (Dkt. #41; filed

5

on 2/21/18 and improperly Noted for Consideration on 2/23/18)
6

a. Duplicate Motion to Quash (Dkt. #44);

7

b. Plaintiff’s Notice of Cross-Motion (Dkt. #44-1 improperly filed as separate

8

supplement);

9
10

c. Third Party Memorandum of Law In Support of Motion to Quash (Dkt. #44-

11

2)
12

d. Declaration of Counsel in support of Cross-Motion to Quash (Dkt. #44-4; filed

13

on 2/21/18 as “summons declaration” to duplicative motion to quash).

14
15
16

Having reviewed these documents, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS:
1. Plaintiff shall not file any further documents related to the pending motions.

17
18

2. The Clerk SHALL CORRECT the description of Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s

19

Motion to Compel (Dkt. #40), which was filed on 2/20/18 and which was incorrectly

20

filed as a “Reply to Response to Motion” The Clerk SHALL change the description

21

of this document to “Response to Motion to Compel.”

22

3. The Clerk SHALL STRIKE Dkts. #42, #43, #44-2, #44-3 and #44-4 as UNTIMELY.

23

Any responses to the Motion to Compel were due no later than 2/20/18. LCR 7(d)(3).

24
25

Thus, the Court will consider only those documents filed in response at Dkt. #40.

26

4. The Clerk SHALL STRIKE the Third Party Motion to Quash at Dkts. #41, #44, #44-

27

1, #44-2, #44-3 and #44-4). Mr. Rodriguez has failed to appear in this matter either

28

ORDER
PAGE - 3

pro se or through counsel. The motion itself does not qualify as a Notice of

1
2

Appearance, as set forth in the Court’s Local Rules. LCR 83.2(a). The Court further

3

notes that it was improperly noted on the Court’s calendar for two days after it was

4

filed in violation of the Court’s Local Civil Rules. See LCR 7.

5

5. Prior to making any additional filings in this matter, PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL
6

SHALL review the Court’s Local Civil Rules, and the Court’s Electronic Filing

7
8

Procedures, all of which are available on the Court’s website. Plaintiff is hereby

9

warned that the continued filing of duplicative document and/or documents filed

10

under the incorrect CM/ECF filing events will result in those documents being

11

stricken from the record.
12
13

DATED this 28 day of February, 2018.

14
15

A

16

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER
PAGE - 4