Opinion
Civil No. 06-1346 (JAF).
March 27, 2007
ORDER
This court's orders at Docket Document Nos. 78 and 79, granting the relief requested at Docket Document Nos. 76 and 77, are VACATED AND SET ASIDE. Upon further reflection, Docket Document Nos. 76 and 77 are DENIED for the following reasons:
1. The court's revised Manual for Civil and Criminal Cases, Administrative Procedure for Filing, Signing and Verifying Pleadings and Papers by Electronic Means, published on July 26, 2006, has shifted the responsibility of e-mail verification to the attorneys: "Once the Electronic Case Filing System sends the `Notice of Electronic Filing,' it is presumed that it reached the attorney's e-mail address, unless the e-mail bounces back to the Electronic Case Filing System." Section II(B)(b). That was not the case here.
"The attorney is responsible for verifying his/her notifications through e-mail, docket activity report, and/or ECF Notifications." Section II(B)(c). Attorneys have two tools to verify that they are receiving notifications for all their cases:
(1) "The Docket Activity Report is available through the Report menu option. It shows all the activity in the cases where an attorney appears as attorney of record for any period of time."
(2) "The ECF Notifications feature is available through the Utilities menu option. It displays daily notifications sent to the attorney."
Footnote 11, Manual for Civil and Criminal Cases.
Id.
Therefore, in this sense, it does not matter if counsel did or did not receive the e-mail, they can still verify the notifications they are supposed to receive and then access PACER to view the entry/document.
2. We requested that the court's system be checked to investigate and correct any problem that may have existed in this particular instance. It seems that there might have been a change in counsel's e-mail or firewall system by March 5, 2007, which will not allow e-mails containing a long line of e-mail addresses to pass through. They are receiving e-mails for other cases, but not in the present case due to the restriction they may have in their system. The court's CM/ECF Project Manager will contact both attorneys and let them know of the problem. They will, in turn, contact their IT person to fix it.
Be guided accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.