IBM Japan update: PACER pitfalls and watch points!

I haven’t talked about the case for a while, because mostly what is going on are the routine things. We had another pre-motion conference back in February, and since that time there has been the off-docket exchange of a motion to dismiss and an opposition.

For some reason that isn’t all that clear to me, Judge Seibel wanted the motion, the opposition, and the reply all to be filed at once–on July 17. Supposedly, this is going to save the court time, but it isn’t really clear to me how it’s going to save any time.

One thing it’s got me doing, though, is wondering why I can’t access any upload function in PACER. On the docket, the case has been designated “CM/ECF”, but I don’t see where I have the ability to do an ECF upload. What this probably means is I’m going to have to do a manual workaround if I can’t get it resolved by July 17. (I’m hoping it doesn’t mean I have to go and get some bureaucratic special permission, which I’m going to interpret as yet one more delay—valid or not—in a near-five year pursuit of simple justice. Five years come October 8! Can you believe it?) The Court has its rules, and, so, of course, I am going to figure out what I need to do. It’s just that, why can’t things be the way you would think that they would be, in this high-techonology era of ours . . .

[Update: Ah! Here is what the glitch was. There is a PACER log-on, and there is an ECF log-on. They are different. I need an ECF one.]

[Update 7/5/13: Wonderful – I got the set up by the end of Wednesday! Southern District of New York moves with the pace of life up in the city.]

[Update 6/30/13: And the ball got moved downfield really fast. I had to move the Court for permission, as pro se, to participate in CM/ECF, which I got in a day.]