Gilliam v. Discover Bank
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-07513
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Gilliam v. Discover Bank, Judge Furman denied a judicial-notice motion as to both plaintiffs, with different reasons for each.
James W. Gilliam, Laura A. Gilliam, and the defendants were affected by the ruling; the motion was denied as to each plaintiff for different reasons.
What happened
In Gilliam v. Discover Bank, James W. Gilliam, who was representing himself, filed a motion for the court to take notice of certain materials on behalf of himself and Laura A. Gilliam.
The court said Mr. Gilliam could represent only himself because he was not a member of the court’s bar. It denied the motion as to Laura Gilliam as procedurally improper and denied it as to James Gilliam because it was premature, without prejudice to renewal when appropriate.
Judge Jesse M. Furman also clarified that electronic filing permission applied only to James Gilliam. The court directed the clerk to terminate the motion and mail the order to the plaintiffs.
The detailed version
- Gilliam v. Discover Bank · No. 1:22-cv-07513
- Jesse Furman
- Oct. 6, 2022
Background
James W. Gilliam, proceeding without a lawyer, moved on behalf of himself and co-plaintiff Laura A. Gilliam for judicial notice of certain materials. Judicial notice is a procedure allowing a court to accept certain facts or materials without requiring formal proof.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that Mr. Gilliam could represent only himself because he was not a member of the court’s bar. The court therefore treated his attempt to represent Ms. Gilliam as improper.
As to Ms. Gilliam, the court denied the motion as procedurally improper. As to Mr. Gilliam, the court denied the motion because it was premature, without prejudice to renewal if, or when, it became appropriate for the court to take judicial notice of the materials.
Disposition
The court stated that Mr. Gilliam’s permission to use electronic case filing applied only to him. Unless the court ordered otherwise, Ms. Gilliam was required to file papers by mailing or delivering them to the Pro Se Intake Unit, and the defendants were required to continue serving her with paper copies of filings. Judge Jesse M. Furman directed the clerk to terminate ECF No. 8 and mail a copy of the order to the plaintiffs.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.