Heit et al v. Livingston et al, No. 2:2023cv00507 - Document 18 (D. Idaho 2024)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' motion to file electronically (Dkt. 7 ) is GRANTED. The Plaintiffs must comply with the training requirements provided by Local Civil Rule 5.1(f). Signed by Senior Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (hs)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Heit et al v. Livingston et al Doc. 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO WARREN HEIT AND DEB HEIT, Case No. 2:23-cv-00507-BLW Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER v. SCOTT LIVINGSTON AND SHARI LIVINGSTON, Defendants. Before the Court is a Request to File Pleadings with and Receive Notices from the Court’s Electronic Case Filing (ECF) System filed by the pro se Plaintiffs, Warren Heit and Deb Heit. Dkt. 7. The Defendants, Scott Livingston and Shari Livingston, have not responded. The Plaintiffs represent that the Defendants do not oppose the motion. Id. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d)(3)(B) allows a person not represented by an attorney to file and sign documents electronically if allowed by court order or local rule. While an unrepresented individual may obtain the Court’s permission to file his or her submissions electronically using the CM/ECF system, such authorization is typically denied unless the pro se party makes a showing of good MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1 Dockets.Justia.com cause or extenuating circumstances justifying such relief. See, e.g., McMahon v. Cleveland Clinic Found. Police Dep’t, 455 F. App’x 874, 878 (11th Cir. 2011) (affirming district court’s denial of pro se plaintiff’s access to CM/ECF because plaintiff did not show good cause); Heiney v. Moore, 2021 WL 5396058, at *2–3 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 18, 2021) (denying pro se plaintiff’s access to CM/ECF for lack of extenuating circumstances). In this case, Mr. Heit and Ms. Heit request CM/ECF access because filing, and receiving notice of, court documents personally or via physical mail “is costly and causes delay.” Pl.’s Mot., Dkt. 7. They argue that they “are at a distinct disadvantage where Defendants are able to file pleadings instantly via ECF . . . .” Id. The Court finds that, consistent with the command of Rule 1, granting the motion is appropriate to reduce cost and delay. Accordingly, the Court will grant the Plaintiffs’ request, but require that they complete any training which the Court provides for registered CM/ECF users. See Dist. Idaho L. Civ. Rule 5.1(f). ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ motion to file electronically (Dkt. 7) is GRANTED. The Plaintiffs must comply with the training requirements provided by Local Civil Rule 5.1(f). MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2 DATED: March 28, 2024 _________________________ B. Lynn Winmill U.S. District Court Judge MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
