1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK FIDELMAN; and C.F., a minor, Case No.: 23-CV-417 TWR (NLS)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER (1) REQUIRING 13 v. COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL ORDER NO. 514-E, (2) SETTING 14 KEVIN POLIS, KELLY FIDELMAN, BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON PATRICIA CLEARY, RICHARD 15 PENDING AND FUTURE MOTIONS LAYON, MATT ALBEE, JEFFREY B. TO DISMISS, AND (3) DENYING 16 BARTON, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WITHOUT PREJUDICE and DOES 1–10, 17 PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR Defendants. ELECTRONIC FILING STATUS 18

19 (ECF Nos. 1–3, 5–8, 11) 20

21 Presently before the Court are the Motions to Dismiss and/or Motions to Strike filed 22 by Defendants Kevin Polis (ECF No. 5), Richard Layon (ECF No. 6), and Patricia Cleary 23 (ECF No. 7) (together, the “MTDs”), as well as Plaintiff Mark Fidelman’s “Request for 24 Electronic Filing Status PACER CM/ECF Approval” (“E-filing Mot.,” ECF No. 11). 25 COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL ORDER NO. 514-E 26 As an initial matter, the Court notes that, in cases such as this one involving a minor 27 child, (see, e.g., ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 14), the Court’s policy on privacy and public access to 28 electronic case files requires that “only the initials of that child should be used,” rather than 1 the minor’s full name. See In re Adopting a Policy on Privacy and Public Access to 2 Electronic Case Files, Gen. Order No. 514-E (S.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2020). Unfortunately, 3 several documents previously filed in this matter reference the full name of C.F., the minor 4 Plaintiff to this action. To restrict access to the private and confidential information that is 5 currently part of the court record, the Court has directed the Clerk of Court to seal all 6 previous noncompliant filings on the docket. (See ECF Nos. 1–3, 5–8, 11.) 7 In the interests of maintaining a publicly accessible court record, see Kamakana v. 8 City & Cnty. of Honolulu,

, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006), within fourteen (14) 9 days of the date of this Order, the original filer of each document SHALL DELIVER a 10 redacted copy of each filing to the Clerk’s Office as follows: Plaintiff Mark Fidelman 11 SHALL DELIVER redacted copies of the documents filed at ECF Nos. 1 and 11, 12 Defendant Polis SHALL DELIVER redacted copies of the documents filed at ECF Nos. 13 5 and 8, Defendant Layon SHALL DELIVER a redacted copy of the documents filed at 14 ECF No. 6, and Defendant Cleary SHALL DELIVER redacted copy of the documents 15 filed at ECF No. 7. Counsel SHALL ATTACH a copy of this Order to their submissions 16 so that the Clerk of Court may refile these documents on the docket to serve as the public 17 redacted versions. All future filings SHALL CONTAIN appropriate redactions, and the 18 name of the minor child should be redacted to “C.F.” in the caption, as set forth above. 19 BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS 20 As for the pending Motions to Dismiss, pursuant to Section III.B.2 of the 21 undersigned’s Standing Order for Civil Cases, the Court sets the following briefing 22 schedule: Plaintiffs SHALL FILE their opposition on or before June 1, 2023; and 23 Defendants MAY FILE their optional replies, if any, on or before June 15, 2023. As noted 24 in Section III.A.2 of the undersigned’s Standing Order for Civil Cases, “[a]n opposing 25 party’s failure timely to file an opposition to any motion may be construed as consent to 26 the granting of the motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c).” 27 Any further motions to dismiss filed on or before May 18, 2023, SHALL NOTICE 28 a hearing date of June 29, 2023, at 1:30 p.m., and SHALL FOLLOW this same briefing 1 schedule. Pursuant to Section III.B.1 of the undersigned’s Standing Order for Civil Cases, 2 before filing any motion after May 18, 2023, counsel must call the undersigned’s chambers 3 to obtain a hearing date. 4 Upon closing of the briefing, this matter SHALL BE DEEMED submitted on the 5 papers without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). 6 PLAINTIFFS’ E-FILING MOTION 7 Finally, Mr. Fidelman “respectfully request[s] that this Court grant [him] access to 8 the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) [and] Case Management/ 9 Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) System[s].” (See E-Filing Mot. at 1.) The Court notes 10 that PACER and CM/ECF are distinct systems—PACER “provides electronic public 11 access to federal court records,” whereas CM/ECF “allows courts to maintain electronic 12 case files and offer electronic filing online.” See Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 13 (“AO”), Frequently Asked Questions, PACER, https://pacer.uscourts.gov/help/faqs (last 14 visited Apr. 3, 2023). 15 Anybody can register for a PACER account. See AO, Register for an Account: 16 PACER – Case Search Only, PACER, https://pacer.uscourts.gov/register-account/pacer- 17 case-search-only (last visited Apr. 3, 2023). Although registering is free, there is a fee of 18 $0.10 per page, capped at $3.00 per document, to access documents through PACER. See 19 AO, PACER Pricing: How fees work, PACER, https://pacer.uscourts.gov/pacer-pricing- 20 how-fees-work (last visited Apr. 3, 2023). Mr. Fidelman has indicated that he is “prepared 21 to pay the required fees associated with accessing the PACER . . . system.” (See E-Filing 22 Mot. at 2.) The Court therefore DENIES AS MOOT Mr. Fidelman’s E-Filing Motion to 23 the extent he seeks access to PACER. 24 With respect to CM/ECF, “[n]ot all courts accept non-attorney filers and some only 25 accept specific types of non-attorney filers.” See AO, Register for an Account: Non- 26 attorney Filers for CM/ECF, PACER, https://pacer.uscourts.gov/register-account/non- 27 attorney-filers-cmecf (last visited Apr. 3, 2023). Indeed, in this District, “[u]nless 28 otherwise authorized by the court, all documents submitted for filing to the Clerk’s Office 1 || by parties appearing without an attorney must be in legible, paper form.” Office of the 2 Clerk, United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Electronic Case 3 || Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, § 2(b) (Mar. 14, 2023). “A pro se 4 || party seeking leave to electronically file documents must file a motion and demonstrate the 5 ||means to do so properly by stating their equipment and software capabilities in addition to 6 ||agreeing to follow all rules and policies in the CM/ECF Administrative Policies and 7 ||Procedures Manual.” /d. The manual refers to the Court’s official web site for CM/ECF 8 ||technical specifications, id. at § 1(1), which include a “[c]omputer running Windows or 9 || Macintosh;” “[s]oftware to convert documents from a word processor format to portable 10 ||document format (PDF),” such as “Adobe Acrobat 7.0 and higher[;]” “[i]nternet access 11 supporting a transfer rate of 56kb or higher;” a compatible browser, such as “Firefox 15, 12 ||Internet Explorer 9, and Safari 5.1/6 or later version;” a “[s|canner to image non- 13 computerized documents 400 pixels per inch (ppi);” and a PACER account. United States 14 || District Court, Southern District of California, CM/ECF Information: General Information, 15 || https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/cmecf.aspx#undefined1 (last visited Apr. 3, 2023). 16 Mr. Fidelman has not made the requisite showing. (See generally E-Filing Mot.) 17 || The Court therefore DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Mr. Fidelman’s E-Filing Motion 18 || to the extent he seeks electronic filing privileges through CM/ECF. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: April 3, 2023 — [5 14 bre Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28