Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00113/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00113-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:9607 Real Property Tort to Land

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERIPRIDE SERVICES, INC.,

A Delaware corporation,

NO. CIV. S-00-113 LKK/JFM

Plaintiff,

v.

VALLEY INDUSTRIAL SERVICE, INC.,

a former California corporation, O R D E R

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

AND CONSOLIDATED ACTION AND

CROSS- AND COUNTER-CLAIMS.

 /

The court is in receipt of AmeriPride’s motion for leave to

supplement the record, filed on December 8, 2006, as well

AmeriPride’s application for an order shortening time. The court

has also received Huhtamaki’s opposition to AmeriPride’s motion to

supplement the record and Huhtamaki’s motion to strike the

supplemental material that was filed on December 8, 2006.

AmeriPride seeks to supplement the record with roughly two

Case 2:00-cv-00113-MCE-DB Document 605 Filed 12/12/06 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

2

hundred pages of new records and expert reports. The request to

supplement the record comes only five days prior to a hearing on

the pending motions for summary judgment. AmeriPride claims that

these records only recently became available. While that may be

true, the court is under no obligation or duty to supplement the

record. Moreover, the court is not inclined to supplement a record

that already contains literally thousands of pages of documents.

Allowing the record to be supplemented so late in the litigation

process would only further delay resolution of this case.

Accordingly, the court orders as follows:

1. AmeriPride’s motion for leave to supplement the record

is DENIED.

2. AmeriPride’s application for an order shortening time is

DENIED.

3. Huhtamaki’s motion to strike is GRANTED.

4. Huhtamaki’s application for an order shortening time is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 12, 2006.

Case 2:00-cv-00113-MCE-DB Document 605 Filed 12/12/06 Page 2 of 2