Utah District Court
CMECF Updates
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
  Request or Motion?
An attorney submitted a proposed order in August, intending to prod the judge who had not acted on a motion in the case. Apparently, the judge had overlooked the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) received on the motion. And since the attorney filed his motion as a request,

the motion did not show on any motions reports. The motions reports are used in chambers to find motions that are pending and ready for decision. If a motion is filed as a request or application it will not appear on motions reports.

In this case, the email to chambers rescued the motion from oblivion.
Friday, August 11, 2006
  Attorney Auto Response to E-mail: Return to Sender!
This auto-response recently arrived at the court, from an attorney who had been sent the court's August CM/ECF Newsletter.

I am unavailable and due to the volume of emails that I receive, do not assume that I will actually read and/or respond to your email. Accordingly, I am not accepting service by email. If you have time sensitive materials, please forward them both to [name and email address redacted] and to [name and email address redacted] and/or telephone them at [phone number redacted]. Thank you for
your cooperation.

The attorney has no active cases, which seems like a good thing.
  Attachment Complications
In a submission for attorneys' fees, a party split its attached billing statement records in three segments to stay within the size limits of the Administrative Procedures. But "[s]omehow one part was filed twice and the third part was not filed." Instead of supporting 133.9 hours the attachments supported 3.9 hours. The submitting party did not pick up on this until the opposing party noted it. The submitting party later explained: "[A]s a result of the electronic filing, and the inability to file one lengthy exhibit as one document, [the exhibit] as filed electronically only contained the first 30 pages of the 51 pages of the total billings . . . ."
The event illustrates the need for careful review of each attachment as it is uploaded. The training classes suggest that as attachment proceeds, the user should right-click the attachment to verify that it is the correct file. See page three of Civil Memoranda training materials. Caution would also suggest that each filing be reviewed when the NEF is received.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
  Another Version 3.1 Feature
An announcement today stated that another feature expected in CM/ECF version 3.1 will be that judgments, opinions and orders in Social Security cases will be available to PACER users. Now, the entire Social Security case is not available on PACER due to the personal information contained in such case files.
Unofficial information regarding Utah District Court CM/ECF Electronic Filing.

Official Information 
Log in to CM/ECF

Send any corrections to mj.nuffer@utd.uscourts.gov
Get a feed at http://utd-cmecf.blogspot.com/atom.xml

Location: Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
December 2004 / January 2005 / February 2005 / March 2005 / April 2005 / May 2005 / June 2005 / July 2005 / September 2005 / October 2005 / November 2005 / December 2005 / January 2006 / February 2006 / March 2006 / April 2006 / May 2006 / June 2006 / July 2006 / August 2006 / September 2006 / October 2006 / November 2006 / December 2006 / February 2007 / March 2007 / June 2007 / July 2007 / August 2007 / October 2007 / November 2007 / January 2008 / February 2008 / March 2008 / April 2008 / May 2008 / July 2008 / September 2008 / October 2008 / November 2008 / December 2008 / January 2009 / March 2009 / April 2009 / July 2009 / September 2009 / October 2009 / January 2010 /

Powered by Blogger