+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #90534 +++ (We'll probably close this issue as NOTOURBUG, but I wanted to split this discussion out of #90534 to keep that bug a little cleaner, while still having all of the pieces linked together) Stephanie explains: --- Finally, the court requires us to email Word versions of all proposed orders, so even if you could create a beautiful pleading in LibreOffice, you would have to be able to convert it to Word seamlessly. --- I'm confused by this requirement. Why would the court need an editable copy of a proposed order? Do they ever edit these documents? Wouldn't a PDF version suffice? If a Word document (DOC or DOCX) is in fact required by State and/or Federal law, we should investigate this dependency further, perhaps in the Marketing Team.
(In reply to Robinson Tryon (qubit) from comment #0) > Finally, the court requires us to email Word versions of all proposed > orders I found this for the Eastern District of CA court: http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/attorney-info/word-format/ "Effective October 1, 2013, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California is a Microsoft Word only court. All documents required to be submitted to the court in word processing format pursuant to Local Rules 137, 163 and 281 (proposed orders, jury instructions and pretrial statements) must be submitted in Word format." I wish that I were surprised. Status -> NEW Here's what I could find for the Northern District of CA Court (the setting of the test documents mentioned in bug 90534): This page <http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening> has the link "Download the Guide to E-Filing New Civil Cases (PDF)" <http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/filelibrary/1243/Atty_Case_Opening_Guide_2014.pdf>, which contains "II. ATTORNEY CHECKLIST ... * Initiating Documents (i.e. Complaint, Notice of Removal) ... o Must be in PDF format." So perhaps it's just a crapshoot as to which courts require which formats? Uggh.
(In reply to Robinson Tryon (qubit) from comment #0) > (We'll probably close this issue as NOTOURBUG, but I wanted to split this > discussion out of #90534 to keep that bug a little cleaner, while still > having all of the pieces linked together) Makes sense yes.