When the Court Changes the Rules Mid-Game: A Due Process Problem - by Lisa Weingarten Richards (with AI Assistance)

 

                                                                             Artwork by Tommy Richards

October 15, 2025

Today we experienced something that highlights a serious problem in how federal courts handle administrative errors—and why transparency in the judicial process matters. This was in Tommy Richards case, Richards v Google in the Western District of Virginia. Richards v. Google LLC, 5:25-cv-00082 – CourtListener.com

What Happened

On October 3, 2025, Google filed a Motion to Dismiss our case. The same day, the Western District of Virginia Court issued an official notice (docketed as ECF No. 25) giving us 28 days to respond—until October 31, 2025.

We relied on that deadline. We structured our litigation strategy around it. We filed a discovery motion on October 7, calculating we'd have time for briefing and a ruling before the October 31 response deadline.

Then, twelve days later—on October 15—I happened to check the docket and discovered the Court had silently removed that notice. I had no particular reason to check that day; something just prompted me to look. Good thing I did.

There was no email notification. No corrective order. No explanation. The notice was just... gone. (note- the ECF entry 25 for the Roseboro Notice still shows up on Courtlistener, but it has been deleted from the official docket on ECF)

I don't even know when they removed it. It was still there on October 9 when I filed our reply brief. But sometime between October 9 and October 15, it disappeared. It could have been removed on Monday, Tuesday, or even today, Wednesday—I have no way of knowing because the court's electronic filing system sends automatic notifications when documents are added to the docket, but apparently not when they're removed.

If the standard 14-day deadline now applies retroactively, our response would be due this Friday, October 17—giving us only two days' notice that our deadline had changed by two weeks and our response is due almost immediately.

Why This Matters

This is just about basic fairness in how courts operate.

The Problem With Silent Changes

Federal courts have established procedures for correcting docket errors. The Western District of Virginia's Administrative Procedures address how to handle corrections—including issuing Notices of Correction with electronic notification to all parties. While those specific procedures address corrections to filing by the parties, not specifically the court, the underlying principle applies even more strongly to court-generated notices that establish deadlines.

That principle wasn't followed here.

Federal Rule 77(d) requires courts to serve notice when entering orders that affect parties. Federal Rule 79(a) requires maintaining a chronological docket record—not deleting entries as if they never existed. Federal Rule 83(b) prohibits imposing disadvantages without actual notice.

All of these were violated.

Why Courts Issue These Notices

The notice we received is called a "Roseboro Notice," typically issued to self-represented parties to explain their rights when facing a motion to dismiss. We're not self-represented—I'm a licensed attorney representing my husband Thomas Richards.

Now it seems the Court may have issued it by mistake, possibly confused by our shared last name. That's understandable. Courts process thousands of filings. Errors happen.

But when courts make errors, they should fix them transparently—not secretly. Something is wrong here.

The Broader Issue: Transparency in Justice

Our legal system depends on predictability and notice. Parties need to know:

• What deadlines apply
• When those deadlines change
• Why they changed
• That they have time to adjust

When courts make silent changes to the official record, it undermines these basic principles.

The Luck Factor

Here's what's particularly troubling: I discovered this removal because I felt a sudden urge to check the docket, not because of anything the court did.

The court's CM/ECF electronic filing system automatically sends email notifications when documents are filed. Everyone relies on these notifications—it's how modern federal litigation works. You don't constantly refresh the docket; you wait for the email alerts.

But apparently, the system doesn't send notifications when entries are removed.

I had no particular reason to check the docket on October 15. Everything gets sent via ECF. But something made me look anyway. If I hadn't checked today, I probably would not have discovered the change until it was too late.

What if I hadn't checked?

I may have shown up on October 30 with my response, thinking I was a day early for the October 31 deadline—only to discover I was two weeks late for an October 17 deadline I never knew existed.

That's the problem with silent changes.

The docket is supposed to be the official, permanent record. When entries disappear without notice, it creates:

• Confusion about what actually happened
• Impossible deadlines sprung on parties without warning
• A record that doesn't reflect reality
• Potential prejudice to parties who relied on official court communications

What We're Asking For

We filed an emergency motion today requesting that the Court:

1. Restore transparency - Either restore the notice to the docket with a corrective order, or issue a Notice of Correction explaining what happened
2. Provide proper notice - Give us adequate notice of whatever response deadline applies, following the Court's own procedures
3. Rule on our pending discovery motion first - We filed a motion asking for discovery due to the Roseboro Notice (it suggested filing one and provided that extra long deadline) before responding to Google's Motion to Dismiss. That motion remains pending before the Magistrate Judge. We should know whether discovery will be permitted before being forced to respond.
4. Follow proper procedures going forward - Use the Court's established Administrative Procedures for docket corrections

The Principle at Stake

This case is about whether Google operates as an illegal monopoly that suppresses religious expression while favoring institutional partnerships. Those are important questions about power, fairness, and the First Amendment.

But today's emergency motion is about an equally important principle: Whatever the Court's reason for removing that notice, it should have been done openly, not secretly.

Courts are human institutions. Whether the original notice was issued intentionally or in error, transparency in correcting the record is essential.

The problem isn't what was changed. The problem is how it was changed.

What Proper Procedure Looks Like

Whether correcting an error or making any other change to the docket, the proper approach is:

1. Issue a Notice of Correction or corrective order explaining the change
2. Send electronic notification to all parties
3. Give parties adequate notice before any deadlines are affected
4. Make the change visible in the permanent record—not erase the original entry as if it never existed

This protects everyone:

• The court - Creates a clear record of what happened and why
• The parties - Know what deadlines and procedures apply, and when they changed
• The public - Can see how justice is administered
• Appellate courts - Have an accurate record if the case is appealed

Why This Matters Beyond Our Case

The federal judiciary handles hundreds of thousands of cases. Most involve parties with far fewer resources than Google's Williams & Connolly legal team or even our small firm.

If docket entries can be deleted without notice in a case where both sides have legal counsel, what happens in cases involving:

• Immigration proceedings where deportation is at stake?
• Criminal cases where liberty is on the line?
• Civil rights cases where vulnerable parties face government power?

Silent changes to the official record aren't a minor procedural issue. They're a due process problem.

Moving Forward

We don't know yet how the Court will respond to our emergency motion. We hope they'll:

• Acknowledge what occurred
• Establish a clear deadline with proper notice
• Rule on our discovery motion before requiring a response to Google's Motion to Dismiss
• Follow proper procedures for any future corrections

Whatever happens in our case, this experience highlights why judicial transparency matters.

Courts wield enormous power. That power must be exercised according to clear rules, with due process, proper notice, and with respect for the principle that parties have a right to know what's happening in their own cases.

When courts change the rules mid-game, everyone loses—even if you eventually win your case.

---

We'll update this post when the Court responds to our emergency motion. The motion itself is available on the public docket at Case No. 5:25-cv-00082-MFU-JCH in the Western District of Virginia.