The Spam Filter Ate It
At a certain point you would think the spam-filter argument would fall by the wayside, but you would be surprised. The Plaintiff in Palma v. Dent, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75499 (D. Cal.
On the other hand, I was sitting around a bar association meeting where a number of government lawyers were present. Although none of them experienced any mishaps as a result of spam-filters, they all complained about important correspondence being misfiled. So take that for what it's worth.
In reply, plaintiff asserts that Mr. Winslow was "out of the office" from
July 12, 2007, through the end of July. He asserts that when the reply
was filed (June 27, 2007), "Benjamin Winslow's staff who receives the
e-filings was out of the country for an extended period of time," and
that "[t]he e-filings during this time were re-directed to two e-mail
addresses (one of which went to a spam
folder) but the reply triggered nothing because it was a reply which do
not get calendared." Thus, plaintiff asserts, "[a]ccording to
[p]laintiff's counsel's calendar, nothing was due in the case until the
mis-calendared due date for the opposition."
Plaintiff also disputes defendant's assertion that Ms. Pranger could have filed an appropriate response to the motion. Plaintiff contends that Ms. Pranger is not an employee of the Law Offices of Benjamin Winslow, does not directly receive e-mail filings in this case, and had no way of knowing about the reply. Plaintiff contends that the failure to file the opposition was due to an "excusable mistake in calendaring," and argues that the court should grant the motion for relief from judgment.
No luck. Result: Motion Denied, and no excusable neglect found. Access a pdf version of the Order here.Plaintiff also disputes defendant's assertion that Ms. Pranger could have filed an appropriate response to the motion. Plaintiff contends that Ms. Pranger is not an employee of the Law Offices of Benjamin Winslow, does not directly receive e-mail filings in this case, and had no way of knowing about the reply. Plaintiff contends that the failure to file the opposition was due to an "excusable mistake in calendaring," and argues that the court should grant the motion for relief from judgment.
On the other hand, I was sitting around a bar association meeting where a number of government lawyers were present. Although none of them experienced any mishaps as a result of spam-filters, they all complained about important correspondence being misfiled. So take that for what it's worth.
Comments