.jpg)
Judge's Copy Procedure
Some day the judges will accept service by NEF like the rest of us.
Hopefully that day will come sooner than later.
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 6:33 PM, vicki temkin wrote:
> **
>
>
> Mark,
> Killing trees seems to be a byproduct of being a lawyer. Years ago when
> in the Encino Law Center, it took me whole lot of work to get the bldg. to
> agree to even have a recycle bin,
> let alone use it. It's a shame..
> Vicki
>
>
> Law Office of Vicki L. Temkin
> mailing address:
> 15021 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 753
> Sherman Oaks, Ca 91403
> Ph: (818) 501-4658 / Fx: (818) 501-0903
> www.vtemkinlaw.com
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Mark Jessee
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Friday, July 19, 2013 6:26 PM
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Judge's Copy Procedure
>
>
> I am quite well aware of the requirement to provide a judge's copy of
> electronically filed motions under the local rules and diligently forward a
> copy after filing. I file the Motion and then I file the Notice of Hearing
> with a copy of the motion attached as is set forth in the Notice of Hearing
> which on its face says the motion is attached. I then provide the Judge a
> copy of the Notice of Hearing which contains a full and complete copy of
> the Motion fully tabbed. Today I received a call from VZ's judicial
> assistant requesting that I provide a judge's copy of the Motion in
> addition to the already provided Notice of Hearing that had a fully tabbed
> copy of the Motion attached to it. She wants another 100 pages with
> exhibits of the identical motion because if they are filed as separate
> documents, they must be provided separately. Obviously I complied with the
> request as the path of least resistance by printing out another 100 pages,
> tabbing the exhibits again and paying anther $6 to mail it.
>
> Are the rest of you killing trees like this? Each judge has their own
> particular prefences and internal procedures on these things, but I thought
> the purpose of the judge's copy was merely to alleviate Court staff's need
> to print out the motion. To me it was common sense that the first four
> pages are the Notice of Hearing with proof of service and then everything
> after that is the Motion itself, especially when it is tabbed. This request
> strikes me as the ultimate in form over substance and just leaves me
> scratching my head.
>
> Mark Jessee
>
>
>
>
>
Kirk Brennan
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
letters containing the signature of a director.
Some day the judges will accept service by NEF like the rest of us. Hopefully that day will come sooner than later.On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 6:33 PM, vicki temkin <Vtemkin@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mark,
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Mark,
Killing trees seems to be a byproduct of being a lawyer. Years ago when in the Encino Law Center, it took me whole lot of work to get the bldg. to agree to even have a recycle bin,
let alone use it. It's a shame..
Vicki
Law Office of Vicki L. Temkin
mailing address:
15021 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 753
Sherman Oaks, Ca 91403
Ph:(818) 501-4658 /Fx:(818) 501-0903
www.vtemkinlaw.com
>________________________________
>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 6:26 PM
>Subject: [cdcbaa] Judge's Copy Procedure
>
>
>
>
>I am quite well aware of the requirement to provide a judge's copy of electronically filed motions under the local rules and diligently forward a copy after filing. I file the Motion and then I file the Notice of Hearing with a copy of the motion attached as is set forth in the Notice of Hearing which on its face says the motion is attached. I then provide the Judge a copy of the Notice of Hearing which contains a full and complete copy of the Motion fully tabbed. Today I received a call from VZ's judicial assistant requesting that I provide a judge's copy of the Motion in addition to the already provided Notice of Hearing that had a fully tabbed copy of the Motion attached to it. She wants another 100 pages with exhibits of the identical motion because if they are filed as separate documents, they must be provided separately. Obviously I complied with the request as the path of least resistance by printing out another 100 pages, tabbing the
exhibits again and paying anther $6 to mail it.
>
>Are the rest of you killing trees like this? Each judge has their own particular prefences and internal procedures on these things, but I thought the purpose of the judge's copy was merely to alleviate Court staff's need to print out the motion. To me it was common sense that the first four pages are the Notice of Hearing with proof of service and then everything after that is the Motion itself, especially when it is tabbed. This request strikes me as the ultimate in form over substance and just leaves me scratching my head.
>
>Mark Jessee
>
>
>
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I am quite well aware of the requirement to provide a judge's copy of electronically filed motions under the local rules and diligently forward a copy after filing. I file the Motion and then I file the Notice of Hearing with a copy of the motion attached as is set forth in the Notice of Hearing which on its face says the motion is attached. I then provide the Judge a copy of the Notice of Hearing which contains a full and complete copy of the Motion fully tabbed. Today I received a call from VZ's judicial assistant requesting that I provide a judge's copy of the Motion in addition to the already provided Notice of Hearing that had a fully tabbed copy of the Motion attached to it. She wants another 100 pages with exhibits of the identical motion because if they are filed as separate documents, they must be provided separately. Obviously I complied with the request as the path of least resistance by printing out another 100 pages, tabbing the exhibits again and paying anther $6 to mail it.
Are the rest of you killing trees like this? Each judge has their own particular prefences and internal procedures on these things, but I thought the purpose of the judge's copy was merely to alleviate Court staff's need to print out the motion. To me it was common sense that the first four pages are the Notice of Hearing with proof of service and then everything after that is the Motion itself, especially when it is tabbed. This request strikes me as the ultimate in form over substance and just leaves me scratching my head.
Mark Jessee
The post was migrated from Yahoo.