Rouviere v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:18-cv-04814
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rouviere v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Judge Woods waived in-person electronic-filing training because of disability and denied appeal fee-free status.
Jodi Rouviere, who received a waiver of the in-person ECF training requirement; any appeal from the order would not receive fee-free status.
What happened
In Rouviere v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Jodi Rouviere asked the court to waive the required in-person training for people who use the court’s electronic filing system because a disability prevented her from attending.
The court granted her request. It ordered the Clerk of Court to accept her certification that she reviewed specified online training modules, without requiring her to review several listed modules. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal and directed the Clerk to mail her the order without closing the pending application.
Judge Gregory H. Woods issued the order on December 23, 2024. The opinion does not state whether Rouviere was represented by a lawyer.
The detailed version
- Rouviere v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-04814
- Gregory Woods
- Dec. 23, 2024
Background
On December 11, 2024, the Clerk of Court docketed Jodi Rouviere’s December 3 application. She asked the court to waive one requirement for becoming an electronic case filing (ECF) user: participation in an in-person training course. Rouviere stated that a disability prevented her from attending the course.
Ruling
The court granted the relief requested. It directed the Clerk of Court to waive the in-person training requirement and instead accept Rouviere’s certification that she had reviewed the “Online Learning” modules on the Southern District of New York’s ECF-training webpage. The court excluded five modules from the required review: “Miscellaneous Case Opening,” “Attorney Civil Case Opening,” “Requesting a Civil Summons,” “Filing An Amended Initiating Pleading,” and “Fling a Motion to Appear Pro Hac.”
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied fee-free status for an appeal. It directed the Clerk to mail Rouviere a copy of the order and not to terminate the pending application at Dkt. No. 384.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.