Kabir v. WebMD (Feb. 3, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
Azad Alamgir Kabir v. WebMD
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
New Jersey (NJ)
Court
New Jersey Supreme Court
Decided
Feb. 3, 2026
AZAD ALAMGIR KABIR, Plaintiff, v. WEBMD LLC, THOUGHTi..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 280554Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.NOT FOR PUBLICATIONUnited States District Court, D. New Jersey.AZAD ALAMGIR KABIR, Plaintiff,v.WEBMD LLC, THOUGHTi LLC,and JOHN DOE 1, Defendants.No. 25cv15207 (EP) (JSA)|Filed 02/03/2026Editor's Note: This decision contains discussion of citationreferences that are incorrect or do not actually exist. Theseinvalid citations appeared in the original court opinion andhave been preserved as written since they are part of theofficial record. Any links to these invalid citations have beenremoved.MEMORANDUM ORDEREvelyn Padin, U.S.D.J.*1 This matter comes before the Court upon pro se PlaintiffAzad Alamgir Kabir's attempt to directly communicate withthe Undersigned in violation of the Federal Rules of CivilProcedure, this District's Local Rules, the Undersigned'sJudicial Preferences, the Procedural Guide for Pro SeLitigants,1 this District's E-Filing Policies and Procedures,2and this District's Alternate Document Submission (“ADS”)Filing Guidance,3 all of which require communications withthis Court to be served and filed on the docket. Plaintiff hasalso submitted two motions seeking to vacate prior ordersissued by this Court, obtain direct CM/ECF filing access,schedule for a telephonic conference to discuss his technicaldifficulties, and compel the docketing of his submissions.D.Es. 158 & 165.4Because Plaintiff has repeatedly attempted to circumventvarious applicable rules, this Court will REVOKE Plaintiff'sprivileges of submitting documents through ADS. This Courtwill also DENY Plaintiff's pending Motion with prejudice.In addition, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's multiple andvoluminous filings and cautions Plaintiff that as the Courtdecides the pending motions to dismiss, D.Es. 104 & 105,further misconduct may result in the imposition of a pre-filinginjunction or another sanction.I. BACKGROUNDPlaintiff filed this action against Defendants WebMD, LLC,THOUGHTi LLC, and John Doe for patent infringement,copyright infringement, and trade secret misappropriation.D.E. 95 (“Third Amended Complaint”) ¶¶ 22-23. Plaintiffalleges he is the creator and owner of proprietary databasescontaining features that Defendants are using withoutPlaintiff's authorization. Id. In support of his case, Plaintiffhas filed several motions seeking emergent relief, see, e.g.,D.Es. 16, 17, 28, and numerous other lengthy motions andexhibits, see, e.g., D.Es. 60, 64, 67-70, 72-75, 78, 101, 112,115, 119; see also D.Es. 82 & 110, see generally Dkt.In submitting his filings, Plaintiff has repeatedly attempted tofile documents that do not comply with either this District'sLocal Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, theUndersigned's Judicial Preferences, the E-Filing Policies andProcedures, or the ADS Technical Rules. See, e.g., Dkt. atNovember 21, 2025, November 24, 2025, November 25,2025, December 1, 2025, December 4, 2025, December 9,2025; see also D.Es. 110 & 157. As a result of Plaintiff's non-compliance, some of his filings cannot be docketed. See D.Es.153 & 163.*2 On January 6, 2026, Plaintiff contacted the Chief Judge ofthe District Court, the Hon. Renée Marie Bumb, for assistancefiling documents that do not comply with the ADS system.See D.E. 170. On January 15, 2026, at 1:21 AM, Plaintiffdirectly emailed the Undersigned notice that he was seekingto petition the Third Circuit for a writ of mandamus seekingto compel this Court to permit Plaintiff to file submissionsthat have otherwise been undocketed by the Clerk of Courtfor failure to comply with the ADS Technical Rules.In his Motion, Plaintiff requests (1) a teleconference with theCourt to address his CM/ECF issues; (2) that this Court's priororder be altered or amended to reflect the submission datesof Plaintiff's filings (as opposed to their docketing dates)5;(3) that this Court's prior orders at D.Es. 155 and 157, whichinstructed Plaintiff to comply with the rules and provided himextensions to do so, be vacated; and (4) that his request, atD.E. 75, to directly file his submissions on the docket begranted. Motion at 11-12.
AZAD ALAMGIR KABIR, Plaintiff, v. WEBMD LLC, THOUGHTi..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2II. RELEVANT RULES APPLICABLE TO PRO SEPLAINTIFFSA. The Undersigned's Judicial PreferencesSection I.C (Preliminary General Matters: Pro Se Litigants)of the Undersigned's Judicial Preferences explicitly contains,in relevant part, the following guidelines:Pro se (unrepresented) litigants areadvised that ex parte (one-sided)and/or personal communications andsubmissions are not advised andwill generally not be accepted. Allsubstantive correspondence with theCourt should be filed on the CM/ECFdocket. Any writings sent to the Courtwill generally be posted on the publicCM/ECF docket.Section I.D (Preliminary General Matters: Correspondencewith the Court) of the Undersigned's Judicial Preferencesfurther explains:Before corresponding with the Court,litigants must consult the relevant rulesfor the Third Circuit, the Districtof New Jersey, this document, andthe docket on the CM/ECF system.In general, communications with theCourt should be made through the CM/ECF, not by fax, email, or phone callto chambers. Every communicationrequesting the Court's input mustindicate the requesting party's effortsto first confer with the other party(ies)to resolve the matter.B. This District's Local RulesLocal Civil Rule 5.2.4 explains that “[a] party who is notrepresented by counsel must file documents with the Clerk asa Paper Filing.”C. E-Filing Policies and ProceduresThis District's E-Filing Policies and Procedures also requirethat “[a] party who is not represented by counsel must filedocuments with the Clerk as a Paper Filing.” E-Filing Policiesand Procedures at 2.D. The Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d)(3)(B) explains that:“A person not represented by an attorney:(i) may file electronically only if allowed by court order orby local rule; and(ii) may be required to file electronically only bycourt order, or by a local rule that includes reasonableexceptions.”E. Using the Alternative Document SubmissionSystemThe Technical Rules for using the ADS system specifythat “[a]s with any document submitted in federal court,documents submitted through ADS must comply with allrelevant local and federal rules.... For additional guidanceplease refer to the Procedural Guide for Pro Se Litigants.”ADS Technical Rules.The ADS Technical Rules for using the ADS system furtherinstructs: “If you are submitting documents using ADS, donot mail additional copies of those documents to the Clerk'sOffice.” Id. (emphasis in original). It continues on to warnthat “[t]he ADS system is provided for your convenience.The privilege of submitted a document through ADS may berevoked due to continuous non-compliance of the ADS filingguidelines.” Id.F. Procedural Guide for Pro Se Litigants*3 The Procedural Guide for Pro Se Litigants statesthat “[a]ll original papers submitted for consideration forconsideration to the Court are to be filed with the Clerk ofthis Court.... Any request for court action shall be set forthin a motion, properly filed and served.” Procedural Guide forPro Se Litigants at 24.The Procedural Guide for Pro Se Litigants further states that“[n]o direct communication is to take place with the DistrictJudge or United States Magistrate Judge with regards to
AZAD ALAMGIR KABIR, Plaintiff, v. WEBMD LLC, THOUGHTi..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3this case. All relevant information and papers are to bedirected to the Clerk.” Id. (italics added).III. DISCUSSIONThe aforementioned rules make clear that unrepresentedparties may file their submissions only through the Clerkof Court. See, e.g., L. Civ. R. 5.2.4; E-Filing Policies andProcedures at 2; Procedural Guide for Pro Se Litigants at24. There are no exceptions. Nor is there any requirementthat unrepresented parties be granted electronic access forfiling. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(3)(B); Procedural Guide for ProSe Litigants at 24. The Court will therefore DENY Plaintiff'srequest to file directly through CM/ECF with prejudice. TheCourt will also DENY Plaintiff's request that this Court filehis submissions itself with prejudice as Plaintiff must gothrough the Clerk of Court.Moreover, use of the ADS system to submit filingselectronically is a privilege. ADS Technical Rules. Plaintiff,however, has abused the ADS system and burdened the Clerkof Court with numerous filings that are not capable of beingdocketed. See, e.g., Dkt. at November 21, 2025, November24, 2025, November 25, 2025, December 1, 2025, December4, 2025, December 9, 2025; see also D.Es. 110 & 157. Inattempts to circumvent the limitations required by the ADSsystem, Plaintiff has filed some of his submissions throughboth the ADS system and via paper in direct violation of theADS Technical Rules, which prohibits unrepresented partiesfrom mailing additional copies of filings that have alreadybeen submitted via ADS. ADS Technical Rules. See, e.g.,Motion; D.E. 170 (acknowledging the “receipt of multiple,redundant communications to the Clerk's Office assertingyour complaints about ADS”).This Court has repeatedly warned Plaintiff that it will notconsider undocketed submissions. See D.Es. 138, 155, 157.Yet, in another attempt to communicate with this Courtwithout complying with the submission rules for docketing,Plaintiff has even gone as far as directly contacting boththe Chief Judge of this District and the Undersigned indirect contravention of the Undersigned's Judicial Preferencesand the Procedural Guide for Pro Se Plaintiffs. See SectionI.C. of the Undersigned's Judicial Preferences; ProceduralGuide for Pro Se Plaintiffs at 24. The Court will thereforeREVOKE Plaintiff's ADS privileges and will instruct theClerk of Court not to docket any ADS submissions made byPlaintiff. Plaintiff must submit his filings through paper copyor must otherwise seek representation who can file documentselectronically on his behalf. The Court will also DENY withprejudice Plaintiff's repeated requests for a teleconferencewith this Court to discuss his issues with the ADS system. IfPlaintiff has questions about paper filing, he may contact theClerk of Court.Next, Plaintiff also requests that the Court vacate prior ordersinstructing Plaintiff that he must comply with the variousrules. Those orders not only made clear that Plaintiff mustcomply with the aforementioned rules, they provided himwith extensions to file oppositions to Defendants’ pendingmotions to dismiss that comply with the applicable rules. See,e.g., D.E. 157. Plaintiff has since filed one opposition thatappears to comply with this District's Local Rules. See D.Es.159. The Court will not vacate the extensions it has grantedPlaintiff or its instruction that he must comply with applicablerules. Accordingly, the Court will DENY Plaintiff's request tovacate its prior orders with prejudice.6*4 Plaintiff's latest opposition to THOUGHTi's Motion toDismiss, however, does not comply with the aforementionedrules or with this Court's prior orders because it relies onhallucinated quotations. See, e.g., D.E. 159 at 24-25 (citingnon-existent Fairfield Indus. v. EP Energy E&P Co., No.20-2753, 2021 WL 5495573 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 22, 2021));D.Es. 117 & 138. This Court has already warned Plaintiffthat “[h]allucinated citations will not be excused, and theCourt may sanction Plaintiff for further uses of hallucinatedcitations.” D.E. 117; see D.E. 138 (“The Court reiteratesits previous warning that hallucinated citations will not bepermitted under any circumstances.”).7 If Plaintiff continuesto inappropriately subject this Court to a barrage of filings,directly contact the Undersigned, and/or rely on hallucinatedcitations or on the undisclosed use of generative artificialintelligence, Plaintiff may be subject to a pre-filing injunctionor another sanction that this Court deems appropriate.IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERFor the reasons previously set forth,IT IS on this 3rd day of February 2026,ORDERED that Plaintiff's Alternate Document Submsisionprivileges are REVOKED; and it is furtherORDERED that the Clerk of Court will not docket anyfiling submitted by Plaintiff through the Alternate DocumentSubmission system; and it is further
AZAD ALAMGIR KABIR, Plaintiff, v. WEBMD LLC, THOUGHTi..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4ORDERED that all of Plaintiff's requests in his Motion, D.E.158 & D.E. 165, are DENIED with prejudice.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 280554Footnotes1UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY, THE PROCEDURAL GUIDE FOR PROSE LITIGANTS, https://www.njd.uscourts.gov/sites/njd/files/ProSePacket_1.pdf (last accessed January 16,2026) (hereinafter the “Procedural Guide for Pro Se Litigants”) at 24 (emphasis in original).2UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY, E-FILING POLICIES ANDPROCEDURES, https://www.njd.uscourts.gov/sites/njd/files/PoliciesandProcedures2014.pdf (last visitedJanuary 16, 2026) (hereinafter “E-Filing Policies and Procedures”).3UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY, ADS – PRO SE SUBMISSIONSYSTEM, https://www.njd.uscourts.gov/ads-%E2%80%93-pro-se-submission-system (last visited January16, 2026) (hereinafter “ADS Technical Rules”).4It appears that Plaintiff has filed his motion twice: once through the ADS system and once through physicaldrop off. The Court will therefore refer to both D.E. 158 and D.E. 165 as a single “Motion.”5Plaintiff's submission dates are already reflected by the docket.6If Plaintiff seeks to file a motion for relief from a judgment or a motion for reconsideration, he must file amotion consistent with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60.7The Undersigned therefore struck Plaintiffs’ filing. See Dkt.End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access