CLAYTON v. MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF CITY OF SAVANNAH, CV415-093. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20150903978
Visitors: 8
Filed: Sep. 01, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 01, 2015
Summary: ORDER G.R. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . The Court GRANTS the defendants' unopposed motion to stay this employment discrimination case until the district judge resolves the pending defense motions to dismiss. Doc. 12. In addition, the Court DEFERS to the district judge plaintiff's motion for leave to file her third amended complaint. 2 Doc. 13. As the defense briefs (does. 18 & 20) contending futility demonstrate, the district judge's examination of the merits of plaintiff's claims will i
Summary: ORDER G.R. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . The Court GRANTS the defendants' unopposed motion to stay this employment discrimination case until the district judge resolves the pending defense motions to dismiss. Doc. 12. In addition, the Court DEFERS to the district judge plaintiff's motion for leave to file her third amended complaint. 2 Doc. 13. As the defense briefs (does. 18 & 20) contending futility demonstrate, the district judge's examination of the merits of plaintiff's claims will im..
More
ORDER
G.R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.
The Court GRANTS the defendants' unopposed motion to stay this employment discrimination case until the district judge resolves the pending defense motions to dismiss. Doc. 12. In addition, the Court DEFERS to the district judge plaintiff's motion for leave to file her third amended complaint.2 Doc. 13. As the defense briefs (does. 18 & 20) contending futility demonstrate, the district judge's examination of the merits of plaintiff's claims will immediately inform whether the proposed amendments would be futile. Given that inextricable intertwinement, it makes sense to defer the amendment motion (doc.13).
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff named, among others, the Savannah Chatham Metropolitan Police Department as a defendant. As the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah ("the City") points out, doe. 18 at 1, the substance of plaintiffs pleadings show that she means to sue the City, so the Court is substituting it and amending the caption here. All subsequent filings shall conform. The City also reminds, however, that it is contesting whether it is proper party to this action. Id. at 3 n. 1.
2. Clayton also has been filing "bad scans" with this Court. See, e.g., does. 13 & 15. Every E-filed document should be "machine readable" because it enables users to search it using key words, and also mark and copy text from it. Producing a "machine readable" .pdf file, which is required for E-filing, is easy. Most word processors have a "publish to .pdf' or "print to .pdf' drop-down option under a "File," then "Print" command. Counsel should use that feature, which produces a machine-readable .pdf.
Parties must not print out a document and then run it through a mechanical scanner, which counsel here apparently has been doing (his E-filings have not been machine readable, thus hampering Court operations). That method fails to produce a machine-readable .pdf. Counsel should contact the Clerk's office should additional guidance be needed. The Court ORDERS Clayton's counsel to comply with this directive, which applies to all E-filers before this Court.
Source: Leagle
