Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03272/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03272-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

United States District Court

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMPSON ET AL,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 GENENTECH INC,

Defendant. /

No. C04-03272 MJJ

ORDER RE JOINT STATEMENTS OF

UNDISPUTED FACTS

Pending before the Court are Defendant Genentech, Inc.’s Motions for Summary Judgment re

Plaintiffs Arlene Thompson and Donna Jerez’s Claims. Pursuant to this Court’s Standing Order ¶3, the

parties are required to submit a joint statement of undisputed facts ten court days prior to the date of the

hearing on the summary judgment motions. On May 9, 2006, Genentech filed Separate Statements of

Undisputed Facts in support of its Motions (Docs. #162, #163). Additionally, defense counsel, Patricia

Gillette, filed a Supplemental Declaration indicating that the parties were unable to produce a joint

statement, as required by the Local Rules and this Court’s Standing Order. Thereafter, each of the

Plaintiffs submitted a Statement of Undisputed Facts in Opposition to Genentech’s Motions (Docs.

#169, #170.) As part of their Statements, Plaintiffs included sections entitled “Defendant’s Proposals,”

wherein Plaintiffs set forth “modifications and replacements Plaintiffs proposed to a Statement of

Undisputed Facts prepared by Defendants, prior to 4:00 p.m. on May 9, 2006.” On May 24, 2006,

Plaintiff then filed an Application to File Responses to Defendant’s Separate Statements of Undisputed

Facts (Doc. #172). 

Case 3:04-cv-03272-MJJ Document 176 Filed 05/31/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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

As indicated above, this Court’s Standing Order requires the parties to file a joint statement of

undisputed facts ten days prior to the hearing date on a motion for summary judgment. Additionally,

Local Rule 56-2(b) provides:

(b) Procedure if Joint Statement Ordered. If the assigned Judge

orders the submission of a joint statement of undisputed facts, the parties

shall confer and submit, on or before a date set by the assigned Judge, a

joint statement of undisputed facts. If the nonmoving party refuses to

join in the statement, the moving party will nevertheless be permitted to

file the motion, accompanied by a separate declaration of counsel

explaining why a joint statement was not filed. Whether or not sanctions

should be imposed for failure to file a joint statement of undisputed facts

is a matter within the discretion of the assigned Judge.

Rather than comply with either of these provisions, the parties, without authorization, have filed separate

statements of undisputed facts. Moreover, Plaintiffs contest certain portions of Genentech’s Separate

Statements of Undisputed Facts, thereby undermining the entire purpose of submitting statements of

undisputed facts to assist the Court in evaluating Genentech’s pending Motions. 

Consequently, the Court hereby orders the parties to file a joint statement of undisputed facts

for each of the pending Motions, by 5:00 p.m, on June 5, 2006. Failure to comply with this Order shall

result in the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/30/2006 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-03272-MJJ Document 176 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 2