Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00276/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00276-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

AZ Holding, L.L.C., a North Dakota

limited liability company, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Thomas C. Frederick and Christine J.

Cobb, husband and wife; RBW

Consultants, Inc., an Arizona corporation;

and Bumaro, L.L.C., an Arizona limited

liability company,

Defendants. _________________________________

Thomas C. Frederick and Christine J.

Cobb, husband and wife; RBW

Consultants, Inc., an Arizona corporation;

Bumaro, L.L.C., an Arizona limited

liability company,

Counterclaimants,

vs.

AZ Holding, L.L.C., a North Dakota

limited liability company,

Counterdefendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-0276-PHX-LOA

ORDER

On November 23, 2009, Defendants filed their Controverting and Supplemental

Statement of Facts etc. and Response to Motion of Plaintiff for Partial Summary Judgment.

(docket ## 156-157) Upon review of these filings, the Court concludes they were not

properly filed electronically in text-searchable .pdf format and, therefore, they do not comply

Case 2:08-cv-00276-LOA Document 158 Filed 11/25/09 Page 1 of 3
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

 Local Rule 5.5(b) provides:

Filing of Documents Electronically. The Court will accept for filing documents

submitted, signed or verified by electronic means consistent with these rules

and the Administrative Manual. Filing of documents electronically in

compliance with these rules and the Administrative Manual will constitute

filing with the Court for purposes of Rule 5(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

LRCiv 5.5(b). Local rules are “laws of the United States,” United States v. Hvass, 355 U.S.

570, 575 (1958), “have the force of law[,] are binding upon the parties and upon the court.”

Professional Programs Group v. Department of Commerce, 29 F.3d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir.

1994) (internal quotation marks omitted).

- 2 -

with this District Court’s Local Rules and its ECF Manual. See, LRCiv 5.5(b) and definition

of “.pdf,” ECF Manual, at I(A), p. 2. In the Court’s March 17, 2009, the Court entered a

specific order that “[a]ll pleadings, motions, memorandum or other filings in this case shall

be created via personal computer with a word processing application, e.g., Microsoft Word®

or Corel WordPerfect®, then converted to portable document format (.pdf) . . . .” (docket #

81 at 5) In fact, the Court even ordered Defendants’ new counsel to comply with this

specific ECF requirement when it authorized the substitution of counsel less than three weeks

ago. (docket # 154 at 2)

Compliance with the District Court’s LRCiv 5.5(b)1

 and the ECF Manual in

this regard is not a petty requirement. Improperly filing briefs in non-text searchable format

precludes judges, law clerks and adverse counsel from highlighting a portion of a brief and

copying it onto another document or order. Thus, improper formatting forces judges, law

clerks and adverse counsel to unnecessarily retype the portion of the brief to be quoted or

referenced and creates unnecessary delay in the creation of orders and responsive briefs.

Compliance is not optional.

On the Court’s own motion,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Controverting and Supplemental Statement

of Facts etc. and Response to Motion of Plaintiff for Partial Summary Judgment, docket ##

156-157, are STRICKEN without prejudice.

Case 2:08-cv-00276-LOA Document 158 Filed 11/25/09 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall refile their

Controverting and Supplemental Statement of Facts etc. and Response to Motion of Plaintiff

for Partial Summary Judgment, on or before Tuesday, December 1, 2009 which shall be

substantively identical to its November 23, 2009 filings but it shall comply in all respects

with this Order, the Local Rules, the ECF Manual or Defendants’ Controverting and

Supplemental Statement of Facts etc. and Response to Motion of Plaintiff for Partial

Summary Judgment may not be considered vis a vis Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, except as set forth herein, all Defendants’

pleadings, motions, memoranda, or other filings in this case shall be created via personal

computer with a word processing application, e.g., Microsoft Word® or Corel

WordPerfect®, then converted to portable document format (.pdf). See, definition of “.pdf,”

ECF Manual, at I(A), p. 2. (“[E]lectronic documents must be converted to .pdf directly from

a word processing program (e.g., Microsoft Word® or Corel WordPerfect®) and must be text

searchable.”). Such filings shall not be printed to paper and then scanned and saved as

portable document format (.pdf). Documents which exist only in paper form, like exhibits

or certain attachments to pleadings may, however, be scanned from a paper copy and saved

in a portable document format (.pdf).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Reply, if any, shall be filed on

or before Friday, December 18, 2009.

Dated this 24th day of November, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00276-LOA Document 158 Filed 11/25/09 Page 3 of 3