ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT HARVEY SCHOLL'S MOTION FOR PERMISSION FOR ELECTRONIC CASE FILING

(ECF No. 56)

JANIS L. SAMMARTINO, District Judge.

Presently before the Court is Defendant Harvey Scholl's Motion for Permission for Electronic Case Filing ("Mot.," ECF No. 56). After considering Defendant's arguments and the law, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant's Motion.

Generally, "[e]xcept as prescribed by local rule, order, or other procedure, the Court has designated all cases to be assigned to the Electronic Filing System." Civ. L.R. 5.4(a). With respect to pro se litigants, however, "[u]nless otherwise authorized by the court, all documents submitted for filing to the Clerk's Office . . . must be in legible, paper form." Office of the Clerk, United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, § 2(b) (2018). "A pro se party seeking leave to electronically file documents must file a motion and demonstrate the means to do so properly by stating their equipment and software capabilities in addition to agreeing to follow all rules and policies in the CM/ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual." Id. The manual refers to the Court's official web site for CM/ECF technical specifications, id. at § 1(i), which include a "[c]omputer running Windows or Macintosh"; "[s]oftware to convert documents from a word processor format to [PDF]," such as "Adobe Acrobat 7.0 and higher"; "PDF compatible word processor like WordPerfect or Word"; "Internet access supporting a transfer rate of 56kb or higher"; a compatible browser, such as Firefox 15.x, Internet Explorer 9.x, or Safari 5.1/6.x; and a "[s]canner to image non-computerized documents 400 pixels per inch (ppi)." United States District Court, Southern District of California, CM/ECF: General Info, https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/CMECF/SitePages/Home.aspx (last visited Oct. 9, 2018).

Although Mr. Scholl has provided some information concerning his computer equipment and software,1 see Mot. at 1-2, he has not provided sufficient information for the Court to assess whether they meet the required technical specifications. Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant's Motion (ECF No. 56). See, e.g., Hucul v. Mathew-Burwell, No. 16-CV-1244 JLS (DHB), 2016 WL 3917366, at *1 (S.D. Cal. July 20, 2016) (denying without prejudice plaintiff's CM/ECF motion where plaintiff demonstrated that his equipment and software met most of the technical specifications, but where it was unclear whether his internet browser was compatible and whether his computer had a "PDF compatible word processor like WordPerfect or Word"); Procopio v. Conrad Prebys Trust, No. 14CV1651 AJB KSC, 2015 WL 4662407, at *8 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2015) (denying motion for electronic filing access where plaintiff "does not provide sufficient information [as required in the CM/ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual] for the Court to grant his request"); Rojas-Vega v. U.S. Citizenship Immigration Serv., No. 13-CV-172-LAB, 2013 WL 2417937, at *3 (S.D. Cal. May 31, 2013) ("It is incumbent on [movant] to show he is able to file documents electronically, and reliably receive electronic notices, and his motion fails to do that.").

IT IS SO ORDERED.