United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ABBY BEREKET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF CLARIFICATION
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff's request
for clarification. Dkt. #49. Plaintiff seeks clarification of
recent Minute Orders issued by the Court after several
duplicative filings were made by Plaintiff. Id.
Having reviewed the record before it, the Court now CLARIFIES
its prior Orders.
initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff's counsel
has consistently failed to properly file documents through
the Court's CM/ECF filing system. Indeed, the Court
previously advised Plaintiff's counsel to familiarize
themselves with the Court's Local Rules and warned
Plaintiff's counsel that the failure to adhere to the
Court's Local Rules with future filings may result in
those filings being stricken from the record. Dkt. #23 at 1,
fn.2. Despite this warning, Plaintiff's counsel has
continued to file documents under the incorrect CM/ECF
events, and has admittedly filed duplicative documents due to
filing errors on their end. See Dkt. #49. As a
result, the docket is clogged with multiple documents, making
it very difficult for anyone, including the Court, to follow
the current procedural posture of the pending motions.
the Court can discern, the following documents have been
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class (Dkt. #33, Noted
for Consideration on 2/16/18);
a. Defendant's Response and Supporting Declaration (Dkts.
#36 and #37);
b. Plaintiff's Reply and Supporting Declaration (Dkts.
#38 and #39).
is complete on this motion and the Court will consider it in
due course. No further briefing shall be filed
pertaining to this motion.
Defendant's Motion to Compel and Declaration in support
thereof (Dkts. #34 and #35; Noted for Consideration on
a. Plaintiff's Response and Supporting Declarations (Dkt.
#40;filed on 2/20/18 and which were incorrectly filed as a
“Reply to Response to Motion and Supplements”);
b. Plaintiff's Response to Motion to Compel (Dkt. #42;
filed on 2/21/18; duplicative and without supplements);
c. Declaration of Counsel in Opposition to Motion to Compel
(Dkt. #43; filed on 2/21/18; duplicative, with exhibits);
d. Opposition to Motion to Compel filed by Non-Parties (Dkt.
#44-2; filed on 2/21/18 with exhibits; filed as an attachment
to a duplicative motion to quash);
e. Third Party Declaration in Opposition to Motion to Compel
(Dkt. #44-3; filed on 2/21/18 as supplement to ...