Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01983/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01983-5/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Before the Court is the request of Plaintiff, Lachana Williams, to file documents electronically 

and the request of both Plaintiffs to appear at the scheduling conference telephonically. (Docs. 48, 49)

In support of the request to file documents electronically, Lachana Williams1attests that she 

has a computer with internet access, an e-mail account, a scanner, a printer, a word processing 

program and a pdf reader that will convert documents into pdf format. (Doc. 48) She offers no 

explanation that she has any training in docketing or that she is familiar with the Court’s CM/ECF 

system and she fails to provide any good cause to allow her to file documents electronically. Id. Thus, 

the request is DENIED.

In support for the request for Plaintiffs to appear via telephone at the scheduling conference, 

 

1

The document indicates the request is being made by both plaintiffs but Rupert Williams did not sign the request and Ms. 

Williams is not permitted to act on his behalf; Mr. Williams must represent himself. 

LACHANA WILLIAMS, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN/KERN COUNTY FIRE 

DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01983 AWI JLT 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

FILE ELECTRONICALLY

(Doc. 48)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ 

REQUEST TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY AT 

THE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE BUT ONLY 

VIA COURTCALL 

(Doc. 49)

Case 1:13-cv-01983-AWI-JLT Document 50 Filed 03/13/14 Page 1 of 2
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

Plaintiffs explain they live in Tallahassee, Florida and Lumberton, New Jersey and travel to court is 

unduly burdensome. (Doc. 49 at 3) They indicate that on the date and time of the upcoming hearing, 

they will await a call at their respective homes “until contacted by the Court.” Id. Plaintiffs are 

advised the Court does not act as a telephone conferencing service and will not take on the 

responsibility of ensuring parties appear at their hearings and will not accept the costs associated with 

the long-distance calls. Thus, the request for the Court to telephone Plaintiffs to facilitate their 

appearances is DENIED. However, the Court will GRANT IN PART the request and authorize 

Plaintiffs to appear via CourtCall if CourtCall will allow.2

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

1. Lachana Williams’ request to file documents electronically is DENIED;

2. Plaintiffs’ request to appear telephonically at the scheduling conference is DENIED IN 

PART and GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiffs may appear at their own expense via CourtCall if 

CourtCall will allow.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2

The Court is not certain whether CourtCall contracts their service with non-attorneys and Plaintiffs have failed to provide 

the Court this information.

Case 1:13-cv-01983-AWI-JLT Document 50 Filed 03/13/14 Page 2 of 2