Filed: Oct. 07, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 07, 2014
Summary: ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' CHAMBERS COPIES AND MOTION TO SEAL PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, District Judge. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the chambers copies of plaintiffs' "reply to opposition to defendants' [sic] motion to amend the complaint" (Dkt. 77), the declaration of Tim A. Pori and attached exhibits 1 (Dkt. 77-1 through Dkt. 77-21), plaintiffs' administrative motion to file under seal (Dkt. 76) and the declaration of Tim A. Pori in support of the motion to seal and attached exhibits (Dkt. 77-2 through Dk
Summary: ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' CHAMBERS COPIES AND MOTION TO SEAL PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, District Judge. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the chambers copies of plaintiffs' "reply to opposition to defendants' [sic] motion to amend the complaint" (Dkt. 77), the declaration of Tim A. Pori and attached exhibits 1 (Dkt. 77-1 through Dkt. 77-21), plaintiffs' administrative motion to file under seal (Dkt. 76) and the declaration of Tim A. Pori in support of the motion to seal and attached exhibits (Dkt. 77-2 through Dkt..
More
ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' CHAMBERS COPIES AND MOTION TO SEAL
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, District Judge.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the chambers copies of plaintiffs' "reply to opposition to defendants' [sic] motion to amend the complaint" (Dkt. 77), the declaration of Tim A. Pori and attached exhibits1 (Dkt. 77-1 through Dkt. 77-21), plaintiffs' administrative motion to file under seal (Dkt. 76) and the declaration of Tim A. Pori in support of the motion to seal and attached exhibits (Dkt. 77-2 through Dkt. 77-6) were submitted in a format that is not usable by the court.
The chambers copies are not usable because they
[] consist of a stack of loose paper wrapped with a rubber band;
[x] consist of a stack of loose paper fastened with a binder clip or a paper clip;
[] are too thick to permit secure fastening with a staple, and are fastened with a brad-type fastener that is too short for the thickness of the document;
[x] have no tabs for the voluminous exhibits;
[] include exhibits that are illegible;
[] include exhibits that are unreadable because the print is too small;
[] include text and/or footnotes in a font smaller than 12 point;
[] include portions or exhibits that are redacted because the submitting party has requested leave to file those portions under seal;
[] include exhibits that are not attached to a declaration or request for judicial notice and are otherwise unidentified.
The paper used for the above-described chambers copy has been recycled by the court. No later than October 9, 2014, plaintiffs shall submit a chambers copy in a format that is usable by the court.
In addition, with regard to the motion to seal, plaintiffs' counsel has not complied with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), which requires the submission of a redacted version of the document to be sealed, as well as an unredacted version of the document indicating, by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version. Plaintiffs must submit chambers copies of any documents sought to be sealed, in accordance with this order, by October 9, 2014.
Finally, plaintiffs did not submit any chambers copy of their opening motion for leave to file second amended complaint (Dkt. 66), its proposed order (Dkt. 66-1), or the declaration of Tim A. Pori and attached exhibit (Dkt. 66-2 and Dkt. 66-3). Plaintiffs must submit a chambers copy of those documents by October 9, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
