Now that e-filing is no longer the exception, but the norm, and lawyers routinely conduct business via email, the speed and efficiency offered by technological advancements is not a luxury but a necessity. Courts and clients demand it. There is danger, however, in practicing law by the click of a mouse.
A federal judge recently denied a motion to extend the time to appeal a $40 million patent infringement judgment because attorneys failed to read the court's order, relying instead on an electronic notification that mentioned multiple motions but did not mention denial of post–trial motions. Two-Way Media, LLC. v. AT&T Operations, Inc., etal., No. SA-09-CA-00476-OLG (W.D. Tex. Feb. 6, 2014) (order denying extension of time).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(a)(5) allows an extension of time for "excusable neglect or good cause" while Rule 4(a)(6) grants a reprieve when a party does not receive notice of the appealable order as required by Rule 77(d). The court denied AT&T's request for additional time under both provisions concluding that: (1) AT&T could not claim lack of notice where its counsels' legal assistants actually downloaded the orders but the attorneys did not read them; and (2) AT&T's counsels' reliance on the notifications, failure to review the orders in question and failure to check the docket for 52 days were all readily avoidable errors solely within the attorneys' control.
Judge Garcia found it "very troublesome" that for more than 52 days, none of AT&T's 18 attorneys at two law firms "bothered to read the orders issued by the court, check the docket for activity or check on the status of the case."
Bottom line, the district court concluded that "it is every attorney's responsibility to read the substance of each order issued by the Court, and to read the order in its entirety. . . it is not sufficient for attorneys to rely on the electronic e-mail notifications received from the ECF system, as the docket entries and notifications do not always convey the Court's disposition in its entirety. The substance of the orders carries validity under the law, not the electronic NEFs."
AT&T has appealed Judge Garcia's order to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Whether that court will reverse the district court's ruling and allow an appeal of the underlying matter remains to be seen. Either way, however, Judge Garcia's admonitions are an important reminder to all practitioners that glancing at an electronic summary is no substitute for careful review of the document itself. To truly serve their clients' interests, lawyers must resist shortcuts and err on the side of thoroughness. Advances in technology offer attorneys unprecedented 24/7 access to court files, but do not lessen their responsibility to be vigilant to monitor the status of their cases.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
