Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00384/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00384-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT BOOKER II,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY, a Delaware

corporation, HARLAN GRAFF, LUTHER

NOLAN, and TOM MILLER;

Defendants.

 /

No. C 07-384-CW

ORDER RE:

DEFENDANTS'

MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

On March 13, 2008, Plaintiff Robert Booker filed an opposition

to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Two declarations were

filed in support of that motion, one by Plaintiff and one by

Plaintiff's counsel. In their reply brief, Defendants have

identified several problems with these declarations.

(1) Plaintiff's declaration is neither signed under penalty

of perjury nor is there a statement that the contents of the

declaration are true. Therefore, Plaintiff's current declaration

shall be stricken from the record (Docket No. 41). Within one day

of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall e-file a declaration

that complies with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1746. If

Plaintiff does not do so, the Court will not consider the evidence

contained in the declaration or the supporting exhibit when

Case 4:07-cv-00384-CW Document 55 Filed 03/28/08 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

deciding Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

(2) Plaintiff has not e-filed exhibits seventeen through

twenty-one to the declaration of Waukeen Q. McCoy. Defendants

present evidence that they informed Plaintiff's counsel of the

missing documents on March 14, 2008, but counsel has not remedied

the deficiency. The Court notes that all of the exhibits missing

from the declaration were documents in Defendants' control or

transcripts of depositions, which Defendants presumably have. 

Therefore, Defendants have not been prejudiced by the omission. 

Nonetheless, it is Plaintiff's duty to ensure that the electronic

record is complete. His failure to do so, in light of the fact

that he has been notified of the deficiency, is troubling. Within

one day of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall e-file exhibits

seventeen through twenty-one to the declaration of Waukeen Q.

McCoy. If Plaintiff does not do so, the Court will not consider

any argument by Plaintiff based on the evidence contained in those

exhibits in deciding Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/28/08 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-00384-CW Document 55 Filed 03/28/08 Page 2 of 2