Opinion
2:24-cv-02096-DC-AC
11-20-2024
AUGUSTAR LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. PHYLLIS TERRANA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ELECTRONICALLY
(DOC. NOS. 29, 31)
DENA COGGINS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the court on the motions for permission to utilize electronic case filing (“ECF”) filed by pro se Defendants Sherry Kunkle and Phillip Terrana respectively on October 30, 2024 and October 31, 2024. (Doc. Nos. 29, 31.)
Pursuant to Local Rule 133(b)(2), pro se parties must file and serve paper documents; pro se parties “may not utilize electronic filing except with the permission of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge” as provided by Local Rule 133(b)(3). A pro se litigant seeking permission to use ECF shall submit such a request as a stipulation “or, if a stipulation cannot be had, as written motions setting out an explanation of reasons for the exception.” L.R. 133(b)(3).
Here, both pending motions consist of a check-box form application indicating that Defendants Sherry Kunkle and Phillip Terrana each affirm that they “have regular access to the technical requirements necessary to e-file successfully,” but neither motion includes an explanation of reasons as required by Local Rule 133(b)(3). For this reason, the court will deny the pending motions for permission to utilize ECF in this action. See Yates v. Money Source, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00155-JLT-EPG, 2023 WL 1786252, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2023) (denying the plaintiff's request for permission to file documents electronically because the plaintiff had “not provided a sufficient explanation to deviate from the rule that pro se parties must file documents conventionally and may not utilize electronic filing'); Driver v. Gibson, No. 2:20-cv-0642-KJM-DMC, 2020 WL 4882403, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2020) (denying the plaintiff's motions for permission to use the court's ECF system because “plaintiff's motions do not set forth any reasons why he requires access to electronic filing or why paper filing is inadequate”).
Accordingly, 1. Defendant Sherry Kunkle's motion for permission to file electronically in this case (Doc. No. 29) is denied, without prejudice; and
2. Defendant Phillip Terrana's motion for permission to file electronically in this case (Doc. No. 31) is denied, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.