GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
DONALD B. FORBES, SUSAN L. FORBES, JACK B. FORBES, MEE KYUNG CHOI AND NICOLAS GILLES KELLER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
GEICO sought coverage determination in a federal action against multiple defendants. Two pro se defendants filed a motion requesting e-filing access in CM/ECF, which the court denied without prejudice for failure to comply with local rules and lack of good cause showing, while discretionarily granting electronic notification services.
The court denied the motion without prejudice because the defendants failed to comply with Local Rule 3.01(a) and made no showing of good cause or extenuating circumstances required for e-filing access. However, the court discretionarily granted the defendants permission to receive electronic notifications via email.
[1] A pro se litigant seeking electronic filing access must generally demonstrate good cause or extenuating circumstances.
[2] A court may, in its discretion, grant a pro se party permission to receive electronic notifications.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“While an unrepresented individual may obtain the Court's permission to file his submissions electronically using the CM/ECF system, such authorization is typically denied unless the pro se party makes a showing of good cause or extenuating circumstances justifying such relief.”
Establishes the standard for granting e-filing access to pro se litigants in this district.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo defendants, Mee Kyung Choi and Nicolas Gilles Keller, filed a joint motion requesting permission to file submissions electronically using the CM/E…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
ORDER (And Direction to Clerk of Court)
Before the Court is Pro Se Defendants' Joint Motion Requesting E-Filing Access, filed by Defendants Mee Kyung Choi and Nicolas Gilles Keller. Doc. No. 23. On review, the motion is due to be denied without prejudice.
First, the motion fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(a). Second, "[w]hile an unrepresented individual may obtain the Court's permission to file his submissions electronically using the CM/ECF system, such authorization is typically denied unless the pro se party makes a showing of good cause or extenuating circumstances justifying such relief.” Hooker v. Wilkie, No. 8:20-cv- 1248-T-02CPT, 2020 WL 6947482, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 4, 2020) (citations omitted). Here, Defendants make no such showing. Doc. No. 23.
Accordingly, the motion (Doc. No. 23) is DENIED without prejudice. That said, "the Court in its discretion may grant a pro se party permission to receive electronic notifications." See Moore v. Adventist Health Sys. Sunbelt Healthcare Corp., No. 6:23-cv-1163-PGB-DCI, 2023 WL 4947933, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2023). The Court finds it appropriate to exercise such discretion here. See id.; see also Cromity v. City of Orlando, No. 6:24-cv-1688-CEM-DCI, 2025 WL 435901, at *1 (allowing service of court documents on pro se party by email); Wilkins v. RCI, LLC, No. 6:23- cv-849-PGB-EJK, 2023 WL 3453560, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 15, 2023) (same).
Therefore, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to add Defendants' email address to CM/ECF, [email protected] (for both Defendants Choi and Keller, see Doc. No. 23, at 2), and ensure that Defendants receive Notices of Electronic Filings.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on October 23, 2025.
LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nathansen v. City of Ocala (M.D. Fla. 2026)
- Crockett v. Orange Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 2025 WL 2 (M.D. Fla. 2025)