Rhodes v. ADT LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BRENT LEE RHODES,
Plaintiff,
v.
ADT, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-25-1464-SLP
O R D E R
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Permission to File Electronically Via
CM/ECF [Doc. No. 28].1 Plaintiff appears pro se in this matter and requests permission to
file documents electronically and receive service of filings via the Court’s electronic case
filing (ECF) system. In support, Plaintiff states that: (1) “ [he] maintains an active PACER
account and has previously used PACER in other federal matters”; (2) “[e]lectronic filing
w[ould] promote efficiency, ensure timely receipt of filings, and reduce delay[s] associated
with mail service”; and (3) “Plaintiff is capable of complying with the Court’s CM/ECF
procedures and applicable Local Rules.” Mot. [Doc. No. 28] at 1-2. He further states that
“[he has] not been getting any emails from the [C]ourt when anything is being filed.” Id.
at 2.
Pursuant to Rule 5(d)(3)(B)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a pro se
litigant “may file electronically only if allowed by court order or by local rule.” Fed. R.
1 Plaintiff has filed two previous motions requesting the same relief. See Mots. [Doc. Nos. 6 and
10]. The Court STRIKES Plaintiff’s previous motions requesting electronic access [Doc. Nos. 6
and 10] as duplicative.
Case 5:25-cv-01464-SLP Document 32 Filed 02/26/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Civ. P. 5(d)(3)(B)(i). Under this Court’s local rules, pro se litigants must file paper
documents. See ECF Policies & Procedures Manual, § I(A)(1) and § II(I). The local rules,
however, provide that “the assigned judge may modify these procedures in specific cases
without prior notice, if deemed appropriate.” Id., § I(A)(3).
Although Plaintiff states that he is not receiving email notifications, he has not
demonstrated it has created any procedural disadvantages. Upon review, the record to date
does not demonstrate any procedural disadvantages relating to conventional filings.
Plaintiff’s filings indicate that he resides in Oklahoma City. See, e.g., Mot. [Doc. No. 28]
at 2. Defendants are also represented by counsel who maintain a law office in Oklahoma
City. See, e.g., Entries of Appearance [Doc. Nos. 22 and 23]. The Court finds it significant
that both Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants are located in the same city where the Court
is located.
In addition, other means of electronic access to case records exist. As Plaintiff
acknowledges, he has an account with the Public Access to Court Electronic Records
(PACER) system, https://pacer.uscourts.gov. Moreover, as an unrepresented party,
Plaintiff may agree with other parties to accept service electronically and serve and be
served with documents via email. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E). Under these
circumstances, the Court finds no reason to exempt Plaintiff from the usual restrictions
that prohibit electronic filings by pro se litigants. At this time, therefore, the Court
DENIES Plaintiff’s request. As this litigation continues, should Plaintiff face
particularized and compelling circumstances that warrant relief, Plaintiff may resubmit
his request.
Case 5:25-cv-01464-SLP Document 32 Filed 02/26/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of February, 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-01464-SLP Document 32 Filed 02/26/26 Page 3 of 3