Opinion
Case No. 3:08-cv-466.
September 24, 2009
ORDER
This Fair Credit Reporting Act case is before the Court on Plaintiff Todd Harrison's Objections (Doc. No. 73) to the Magistrate Judge's Supplemental Report and Recommendations (Doc. No. 71) recommending for the second time that this case be dismissed without prejudice.
In his Objections to the Supplemental Report, Plaintiff now says that he actually filed disclosures and a settlement demand on July 8, 2009
4. Plaintiff herein accompanied with his Memorandum In Support and Exhibit "B-1", is plaintiff first filed disclosures, settlement, and other documents stamped on July 08, 2009.
(Objections, Doc. No. 73, at 1).
Plaintiff admits the documents he previously claimed were filed on July 31, 2009, were not in fact filed that day
5. BUT, that there were certain documents such as this and others misplaced in other paper work and recently found. There was an
honest mistake, but that Exhibit "A-I A-2", where previously prepared on a jump drive and thought to be filed on July 31st, 2009, because there were other documents filed on this date and day of.
Exhibit B-1 to Doc. No. 73 is a one-page document labeled "Plaintiff Rule 26(A) Initial Disclosures" and bears what appears to be the impression of the Clerk's hand stamp used on copies returned to filers of manually filed documents. The docket shows Plaintiff filed three documents on July 8, 2009,
1. "Plaintiff Cause to Show His Justifiable Action . . ." (Doc. No. 52); 2. Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Complaint as to Midland Credit (Doc. No. 53); and 3. Plaintiff's Notice of New Telephone Number (Doc. No. 54). The document now attached as Exhibit B-1 to the Objections was not docketed by the Clerk, although the other three documents were. For Plaintiff's Exhibit B-1 to be genuine, there would have to have been a file-stamped original received by the Clerk but then never docketed. No such document is presently in the Clerk's possession. The Magistrate Judge also notes that Exhibit B-1 contains the typed language at the very top "Page 1 of 1," and there is in fact no attached certificate of service.If Exhibit B-1 is genuine, then the Plaintiff did comply with the Court's Scheduling Order and the Reports and Recommendations should be withdrawn. In order to determine the genuineness of Exhibit B-1, the Plaintiff is ORDERED to deliver to Deputy Clerk Phil Butler the original document from which he made Exhibit B-1 not later than October 1, 2009.
Of course, the Defendants would not have seen the document because it was not disseminated to them through the CM/ECF system (until attached to the Objections) and Plaintiff did not otherwise serve it on them.
To avoid further difficulties of this sort, it is further ORDERED: that the Clerk shall, after time-stamping any documents filed by Plaintiff and scanning and docketing them, preserve the time-stamped original. Before time-stamping any copies of documents tendered by the Plaintiff, the Clerk shall satisfy himself that every copy so stamped is in fact an exact copy of the original.