MEMORANDUM ORDER

MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge.

Although this District Court's LR 5.2(f) sets a one-day timetable for the delivery of a paper copy to any assigned judge who prefers to maintain chambers files rather than reviewing files on the computer screen,1 this Court has never sought to enforce that short time span literally — although it does expect lawyers to comply with the delivery requirement within a reasonably short period of time. As a result it typically waits for a period of not less than a week or ten days before calling noncompliant counsel to task.

That was indeed the case here, where this Court waited for some 2-1/2 weeks after the January 4, 2016 filing of the Complaint to issue a January 20 memorandum order ("Order") that directed the paper delivery to be made "forthwith" and required the payment of $100 to the "Clerk of the District Court" because of the existing noncompliance. Nothing has happened in the two weeks since then, so that counsel for plaintiff Rania Asfour ("Asfour") is now in violation of both LR 5.2(f) and the January 20 Order.

That is unacceptable, and so the original Order is amended by upping the ante to $300 rather than $100, with the added $200 to be paid by Asfour's counsel rather than the client and with that added cost not to be shifted to the client — but the "forthwith" requirement is renewed. This action is also set for a status hearing at 8:45 a.m. February 12, 2016, with Asfour's counsel expected to appear in court at that time.