UPDATE - October 16, 2025: The Court responded quickly to our emergency motion. Today we received confirmation that our response deadline is October 31, 2025—exactly as the original Roseboro Notice stated. Even better, the Court scheduled a Rule 16 scheduling conference for October 22, earlier than originally planned. The conference will happen before the Motion to Dismiss is decided, which is unusual and beneficial—it appears the Court is treating this as a serious case requiring active judicial management rather than a quick dismissal. While we wish the Roseboro Notice hadn't been removed without notice in the first place (requiring an emergency filing and extra briefing), the swift resolution and early scheduling conference are positive developments.
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.
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:
- Restore
transparency - Either restore the notice to the docket with a
corrective order, or issue a Notice of Correction explaining what happened
- Provide
proper notice - Give us adequate notice of whatever response deadline
applies, following the Court's own procedures
- 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.
- 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:
- Issue
a Notice of Correction or corrective order explaining the change
- Send
electronic notification to all parties
- Give
parties adequate notice before any deadlines are affected
- 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.
