Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02096/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02096-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1335 Interpleader Action

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AUGUSTAR LIFE ASSURANCE 

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

PHYLLIS TERRANA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:24-cv-02096-DC-AC

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR 

PERMISSION TO FILE ELECTRONICALLY

(Doc. Nos. 29, 31)

This matter is before the court on the motions for permission to utilize electronic case 

filing (“ECF”) filed by pro se Defendants Sherry Kunkle and Phillip Terrana respectively on 

October 30, 2024 and October 31, 2024. (Doc. Nos. 29, 31.)

Pursuant to Local Rule 133(b)(2), pro se parties must file and serve paper documents; pro 

se parties “may not utilize electronic filing except with the permission of the assigned Judge or 

Magistrate Judge” as provided by Local Rule 133(b)(3). A pro se litigant seeking permission to 

use ECF shall submit such a request as a stipulation “or, if a stipulation cannot be had, as written 

motions setting out an explanation of reasons for the exception.” L.R. 133(b)(3).

Here, both pending motions consist of a check-box form application indicating that 

Defendants Sherry Kunkle and Phillip Terrana each affirm that they “have regular access to the 

technical requirements necessary to e-file successfully,” but neither motion includes an 

explanation of reasons as required by Local Rule 133(b)(3). For this reason, the court will deny 

Case 2:24-cv-02096-DC-AC Document 35 Filed 11/20/24 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

the pending motions for permission to utilize ECF in this action. See Yates v. Money Source, Inc., 

No. 1:23-cv-00155-JLT-EPG, 2023 WL 1786252, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2023) (denying the 

plaintiff’s request for permission to file documents electronically because the plaintiff had “not 

provided a sufficient explanation to deviate from the rule that pro se parties must file documents 

conventionally and may not utilize electronic filing’); Driver v. Gibson, No. 2:20-cv-0642-KJMDMC, 2020 WL 4882403, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2020) (denying the plaintiff’s motions for 

permission to use the court’s ECF system because “plaintiff’s motions do not set forth any 

reasons why he requires access to electronic filing or why paper filing is inadequate”).

Accordingly,

1. Defendant Sherry Kunkle’s motion for permission to file electronically in this case 

(Doc. No. 29) is denied, without prejudice; and

2. Defendant Phillip Terrana’s motion for permission to file electronically in this case 

(Doc. No. 31) is denied, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2024 ___________________________

Dena Coggins

United States District Judge

Case 2:24-cv-02096-DC-AC Document 35 Filed 11/20/24 Page 2 of 2