Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06903/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06903-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

For ease and convenience, defendant Gordon R. England, Secretary of the Navy, will be referred to as the 1

“Navy.”

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRYAN HILL, CASE NO. CV F 03-6903 LJO TAG

Plaintiff, ORDER TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S PAPERS

TO OPPOSE SUMMARY

vs. JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION MOTION

(Docs. 107-111.)

GORDON R. ENGLAND, Secretary

of the Navy, 

Defendant.

 /

INTRODUCTION

In this age discrimination and related action, defendant Gordon R. England, Secretary of Navy,1

seeks to strike plaintiff Bryan Hill’s (“Mr. Hill’s”) untimely and impermissible papers to oppose the

Navy’s summary judgment/adjudication motion. After consideration of the Navy’s papers and the

record, this Court GRANTS the Navy’s request and STRIKES Documents 107-110 filed in this action.

DISCUSSION

On October 1, 2007, the Navy filed and served its summary judgment/adjudication papers and

set a November 1, 2007 hearing. Under this Court’s Local Rule 78-230(c), October 18, 2007 was the

deadline to file and serve opposition papers. After this Court received no timely opposition, this Court

issued its October 22, 2007 decision to grant the Navy summary judgment and to vacate the November

Case 1:03-cv-06903-LJO -TAG Document 113 Filed 11/01/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 When a document is stricken, it becomes a nullity and is not considered by the Court for any purposes. 

2

2

1, 2007 hearing, pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(c), (h). The clerk entered judgment in favor of the Navy

and against Mr. Hill. After the decision and judgment were filed and served, Mr. Hill filed on October

22, 2007 his ex parte request to extend the summary judgment/adjudication deadline to October 31,

2007. This Court’s October 23, 2007 order denied Mr. Hill’s request on grounds that Mr. Hill: (1)

violated F.R.Civ.P. 6(b) and this Court’s Local Rule 6-144(e) and improperly sought ex parte a

postdeadline extension without a noticed hearing; and (2) failed to establish excusable neglect or good

cause for an extension. 

Without this Court’s permission and contrary to this Court’s order, Mr. Hill filed on October 29,

2007 papers ostensibly to oppose summary judgment/adjudication. Mr. Hill’s papers are improperly

before this Court to oppose summary judgment/adjudication. Mr. Hill’s papers are insufficient to seek

and fail to substantiate F.R.Civ.P. 59(e) or reconsideration relief. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, this Court GRANTS the Navy’s request and DIRECTS the

Court’s clerk to strike Docs. 107-110 from the Court’s docket.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06903-LJO -TAG Document 113 Filed 11/01/07 Page 2 of 2