Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-02506/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-02506-56/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY BOWOTO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CHEVRON CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 99-02506 SI

ORDER RE: SCHEDULING

The parties have filed a series of letter briefs regarding the propriety of evidence submitted by

defendants in connection with their reply in support of their motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’

claim for crimes against humanity. Plaintiffs request that the Court strike the reply evidence, or allow

them the opportunity to respond to it. Plaintiffs also request that the hearing on the motion, currently

scheduled for February 2, 2007, be continued to allow for complete resolution of this issue. 

Defendants filed their reply on January 19, 2007. In connection with their reply, defendants

submitted a banker’s box full of evidence. Plaintiffs contend that defendants’ introduction of this new

evidence at the reply stage is improper. Defendants respond that they submitted the evidence merely to

rebut facts and issues raised in plaintiffs’ opposition, and that they have not raised any new issues or

otherwise improperly “sandbagged” plaintiffs. 

The Ninth Circuit has explicitly held that “where new evidence is presented in a reply to a motion

for summary judgment, the district court should not consider the new evidence without giving the

non-movant an opportunity to respond.” Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1996)

(quoting case). Defendants suggest that the evidence they have presented is not “new” evidence, but

rather is merely “rebuttal” evidence. However defendants characterize the evidence, it was not filed

Case 3:99-cv-02506-SI Document 1534 Filed 02/01/07 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

2

along with their initial motion. It therefore appears to fit the most straightforward interpretation of what

the Ninth Circuit referred to as “new” evidence. Neither the Ninth Circuit, nor any district court that

followed Provenz, has made any distinction between “new” evidence and “rebuttal” evidence. See id.;

see, e.g., Green v. Baca, 306 F. Supp. 2d 903 (C.D. Cal. 2004); Nautilus Group, Inc. v. Icon Health &

Fitness, Inc., 308 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (W.D. Wash. 2003); ACLU v. City of Las Vegas, 13 F. Supp. 2d

1064 (D. Nev. 1998). The Court does not disagree with defendants that the purpose of a reply is to allow

the moving party to rebut the arguments and evidence presented in the opposition, and that reply briefs,

and affidavits and declarations in support thereof, are explicitly permitted by the Local Rules. See Civ.

L.R. 7-3(c). Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit has made clear that if a moving party chooses to present new

evidence in support of a reply brief, it does so at the risk of giving the non-moving party a chance to

respond. The Court will therefore allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to respond to the evidence

submitted in connection with defendants’ reply. 

 On January 19, 2007, defendants also filed a 223 page, single-spaced list of objections to

plaintiffs’ evidence. Because resolution of this summary judgment motion may turn on the admissibility

of the parties’ evidence, and in light of the massive amounts of evidence submitted by the parties on this

motion, the Court must also allow plaintiffs the opportunity to respond to defendants’ evidentiary

objections. A meaningful hearing on this motion cannot be held until the parties have had time to

address, and the Court has had adequate time to consider, the admissibility and relative importance of

all of the evidence. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court continues the hearing currently scheduled for February 2,

2007, to March 9, 2007. Plaintiffs must submit their response to defendants’ reply evidence and

evidentiary objections, by February 9, 2007. Plaintiffs’ response should not include any legal argument

on the merits of the crimes against humanity claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/1/07 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cv-02506-SI Document 1534 Filed 02/01/07 Page 2 of 2