Opinion
ORDER ACCEPTING PLAINTIFFS’ LATE-FILED OPPOSITION; VACATING HEARING; EXTENDING DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO REPLY; AND WARNING PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL ABOUT COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULES.
LAWRENCE J. O’NEILL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Court has received and reviewed the January 23, 2015 Declaration of Plaintiffs’ counsel, Joseph L. Wright, which purports to provide an explanation for the fact that Plaintiffs’ opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment, due January 21, 2015, was filed two days late. Doc. 90. Mr. Wright explains that he had problems logging into CM/ECF on January 21, 2015, followed by further problems with his scanner that extended through January 22 and part of January 23, 2015. Id. Mr. Wright failed to follow the clear requirements of Local Rule 134(c), which lays out the procedures to be followed when a technical failure occurs on the sender’s end. Moreover, Mr. Wright failed to notify opposing counsel of his difficulties. Among other things, Local Rule 230(c)(2) (specifically applicable only in case of a Court technical failure) suggests the obvious alternative method of notice to opposing counsel: service by email, overnight delivery, or other expeditious means appropriate to the circumstances. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not provide the relevant documents by email to Defendants until January 23, 2015.
The Court notes that it is simply not necessary to print and then scan most completed legal documents before uploading them to CM/ECF. Every major word processing software on the market now comes standard with an option that permits the user to “save to” or “print to” the .pdf format required for uploading to CM/ECF. This eliminates the need for a scanner in most circumstances and produces a much smaller file for uploading.
Nonetheless, the Court will not strike the Opposition from the record, as this would seriously prejudice Plaintiffs’ interests. Moreover, the delay in filing will not prejudice Defendants if Defendants are afforded additional time to file a reply. Accordingly, the deadline for filing any reply is extended to February 3, 2015. The hearing on the pending motion for summary judgment, currently set for February 4, 2015, is VACATED. The Court will notify the parties if it believes oral argument would aid resolution of the disputes. Otherwise, the matter will be decided on the papers pursuant to Local Rule 230(g).
Plaintiffs’ counsel is cautioned that this will be his only warning regarding compliance with the Local Rules. If his most recent filings are any indication of how he intends to proceed with this case, counsel is on notice that any and all forms of sanction are on the table, including the striking of filings/pleadings and/or monetary sanctions. This Court does not have time to deal with an Officer of the Court who isn’t interested in reading and following the rules expected to be followed. If this happens again, this case will be terminated, and further proceedings should be anticipated in the State Court in a subsequent case where counsel will be a party.
IT IS SO ORDERED.