IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 22, 2009
AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, PLAINTIFF,
CHARLENE BRITTON, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
JUDGE'S RESPONSE TO MR. BEEDE'S LETTER
Attorney Stephen J. Beede sent me the attached letter in which he appears to inquire whether he needs to submit a "courtesy copy" of a motion to my chambers. It is not required.
Further, he indicates no notice requirement is prescribed in Local Rule 56-260, and that the Court should consider amending the rule so that it includes a notice requirement. The referenced notice requirement is prescribed in Local Rule 78-230, and that requirement is referenced in the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order filed October 21, 2008, where I stated: "Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 78-230(b)."
When the rules of practice and procedure are followed, disputes should be resolved in an orderly manner. However, an incredible amount of time could be wasted if members of the bar fail to carefully read the rules and procedures and write judges letters about matters they should understand. "The cogs of the wheel of justice move much more smoothly when attorneys who practice in this court follow the rules of practice and procedure we have carefully developed and adopted." Dela Rosa v. Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems, Inc.,136 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 1998). If an attorney has an idea about improving a rule of practice, he or she figure out the appropriate manner of contacting the Court about the suggested change. However, since Mr. Beede does not appear to know about the applicable motion notice rule, perhaps he no longer believes Local Rule 56-260 should be changed.
Any future communication should be in a filed document.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.