Standing Order

=== Standing Order === , vs. , UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiff, Defendant.

CASE NO. JUDGE CHARLES E. FLEMING STANDING ORDER 1.

Governing Rules This case is governed by both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Counsel and pro se parties are ORDERED to familiarize themselves with those rules and this Standing Order. 2. Document Formatting.

All documents filed in this action, whether electronically or by other means, shall comply with the formatting requirements of Loc.

R. 10.1.

Electronically-filed documents (including exhibits, if possible) must be text-searchable. Non-conforming documents may be stricken at the Court’s discretion. 3. Motions.

All motions and responsive briefs must comply with the requirements set forth in Loc.

R. 7.1, unless otherwise ordered by this Court.

In responding to or supporting a motion, the Court will not accept, without granting prior leave, any supplemental motion, document, sur-reply, or exhibit in support of, or in opposition to, a dispositive motion, which has not been specifically addressed in the case management order. The Court will strictly enforce provisions regarding length of memoranda filed in support of 1 motions. See Loc.

R. 7.1(f).

Motions for relief from the length restrictions must show good cause for such relief and must be made NO LESS THAN seven (7) days before the filing deadline at issue. Motions for relief from length restrictions which are filed contemporaneously with the memorandum exceeding the page limits WILL BE DENIED. 4. Continuances and Extensions The Court will not continue a hearing or extend a deadline without a written motion stating the reason for the request.

The motion SHALL be filed BEFORE the date/deadline at issue has passed. A motion for continuance or extension due to a conflict shall be filed as soon as counsel becomes aware of the conflict. All motions for continuance or extension (except motions joined by all parties) SHALL state whether the other party(s) oppose the request. If the motion is opposed, it MUST be filed NO LESS THAN seven (7) days before the date/deadline at issue; the opposing party(s) SHALL file their opposition no more than three (3) days after the filing of the motion.

FAILURE TO FOLLOW THESE REQUIREMENTS MAY RESULT IN DENIAL OF THE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OR CONTINUANCE. 5. Filing Under Seal. Absent statutory authorization or an order of the Court, documents may not be filed under seal.

See Loc. R. 5.2; Electronic Filing Policies and Procedures Manual § 16. If a party wishes to file a document under seal, the party must first seek leave to do so, explaining the basis for the request and further stating whether the other party(s) oppose(s) the request. If the document at issue is subject to a date/deadline, any motion for leave MUST be filed NO LESS THAN seven (7) days before the applicable date/deadline.

Only in rare circumstances will the Court permit filing an entire document or exhibit under 2 seal. The Court expects the parties to justify any request for redactions or sealing a document in its entirety under Shane Group, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2016), and its progeny. Consistent with Sixth Circuit precedent, the party requesting sealing must analyze, in detail, document by document, the propriety of sealing or redactions, providing both reasons and legal citations in support.

6. Disclosure Statements – Parties and Intervenors. A nongovernmental corporate party, or any nongovernmental corporation that seeks to intervene, MUST file a disclosure statement that: (1) identifies any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of its stock; or (2) states that there is no such corporation. Any party or intervenor in an action where the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (including an action removed from a State court) MUST file a disclosure statement that names and establishes the citizenship of every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that party or intervenor at the time the action is filed in or removed to federal court, or at such time as may be relevant to determining the Court’s jurisdiction.

Where a party or an intervenor is a limited liability company (“LLC”), that party or intervenor must identify the name(s) and citizenship(s) of each member and every sub−member of the LLC at the time of filing or intervention. The Court notes that allegations/assertions of residence, as opposed to domicile or citizenship, are insufficient for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. See Prime Rate Premium Fin. Corp., Inc. v. Larson, 930 F.3d 759, 765 (6th Cir.

2019). 3 7. Artificial Intelligence Pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority and the authority of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no attorney for a party, or a pro se party, may use Artificial Intelligence (“AI” in the preparation of any filing submitted to the Court. Parties and their counsel who violate this AI ban may face sanctions including, inter alia, striking the filing from the record, the imposition of economic sanctions or contempt, and dismissal of the lawsuit.

The Court does not intend this AI ban to apply to information gathered from legal search engines, such as Westlaw or LexisNexis, or internet search engines, such as Google. All parties and their counsel have a duty to immediately inform the Court if they discover the use of AI in any document filed in their case. 8. Communication with the Court Subject to the following paragraph, any questions about the case should be directed to Courtroom Deputy Clerk Stephanie Siner at (216) 357-7180.

Counsel are NOT to contact the Court’s law clerks to discuss the case. The Court strongly discourages ex parte communications. The Court will not accept ex parte telephone calls to Chambers regarding substantive issues in pending cases. The Court speaks through its docket.

While it may be appropriate to call Chambers regarding routine, non-substantive matters (such as requests for dial-in information for an upcoming status conference, etc.), it is not appropriate under any circumstances for counsel to call Chambers ex parte for guidance or clarification regarding substantive matters, including existing case management deadlines, requests to file briefing, and/or inquiries regarding the status of pending motions. All questions regarding substantive matters in pending cases MUST be filed as a motion (or other appropriate document) on the public docket. If a dispute arises during a deposition that requires the Court’s immediate assistance, the parties may JOINTLY call Chambers for assistance. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. __________________________________ CHARLES E. FLEMING UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5