Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02077/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02077-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

LILYA WALSH, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, et 

al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-2077 MCE KJN PS

ORDER

Plaintiffs Liliya Walsh and Peter Walsh are proceeding without counsel in this action.1 

Presently before the court are three requests filed by plaintiffs: (1) a renewed request to file

electronically by Liliya Walsh (ECF No. 26); (2) a renewed request to file electronically by Peter

Walsh (ECF No. 31); and (3) a request by both plaintiffs to appear telephonically at all future 

hearings in this case where the court has not specifically required plaintiffs to appear in person 

(ECF No. 32). For the reasons stated below, the court denies all three requests. In addition, due 

to the filing of defendant Sutter Roseville Medical Center’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No.33), set 

for hearing before the undersigned on May 15, 2014, at 10:00 A.M., the May 8, 2014 hearings on 

Rocklin Police Department’s, American Medical Response West’s, Placer County’s, and Telecare 

Placer Psychiatric Healthcare Facility’s motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 8, 17, 18, 21) are vacated 

 

1

This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local 

Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Case 2:13-cv-02077-MCE-KJN Document 35 Filed 04/15/14 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

2

and continued to May 15, 2014, at 10:00 A.M., before the undersigned.

I. Plaintiffs’ Renewed Requests to File Electronically

In their virtually identical renewed motions, plaintiffs request authorization to make their 

future filings in this case electronically. In support of their requests, plaintiffs allege that having 

to travel to the court to make filings in this action has placed significant burdens on their time and 

finances, and has caused them to suffer a disadvantage in this case.

Under Eastern District Local Rule 133(b)(2) “[a]ny person appearing pro se may not 

utilize electronic filing except with the permission of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge.” 

Pursuant Eastern District Local Rule 133(b)(3), a pro se party may request the court to permit that 

party to utilize electronic filing. However, “[r]equests to use paper or electronic filing as 

exceptions from these Rules shall be submitted as stipulations as provided in L.R. 143 or, if a 

stipulation cannot be had, as written motions setting out an explanation of reasons for the 

exception.” E.D. Local Rule 133(b)(3).

Here, neither plaintiff indicates that he or she has unsuccessfully attempted to obtain a 

stipulation from defendants to permit him or her to make electronic filings in this case. 

Furthermore, plaintiffs do not otherwise show that such a stipulation cannot be had, as the Local 

Rules require. See id. In its February 28, 2014 order denying plaintiffs’ initial request for 

authorization to make electronic filings in this case, the court required plaintiffs to show in any 

future requests to file electronically that “they have been able to proceed in this case in 

conformance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court’s Local Rules, and the court’s 

orders.” (ECF No. 11 at 2-3.) Plaintiffs make no such showing in either of their requests and 

their present failures to conform to Local Rule 133 indicate that they are currently unable to make 

such a showing. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ renewed requests to file electronically (ECF Nos. 26, 

31) are denied without prejudice.

II. Plaintiffs’ Request for Telephonic Appearance

Plaintiffs have also filed a joint request for both plaintiffs to appear telephonically at all 

future proceedings in this case where the court has not ordered them to appear in person. (ECF 

No. 32.) The court denies this broad request. However, the court notes that it will entertain any 

Case 2:13-cv-02077-MCE-KJN Document 35 Filed 04/15/14 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

future requests by plaintiffs requesting a telephonic appearance provided that such a request is 

with respect to a particular hearing that has already been scheduled before the undersigned.

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ renewed requests to file electronically (ECF Nos. 26, 31) are DENIED

without prejudice;

2. Plaintiffs’ request to appear telephonically (ECF No. 32) is DENIED; and

3. The May 8, 2014 hearings on Rocklin Police Department’s, American Medical 

Response West’s, Placer County’s, and Telecare Placer Psychiatric Healthcare Facility’s motions 

to dismiss (ECF Nos. 8, 17, 18, 21) are VACATED and CONTINUED to May 15, 2014, at 

10:00 A.M., in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before the undersigned.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2014

Case 2:13-cv-02077-MCE-KJN Document 35 Filed 04/15/14 Page 3 of 3