Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01937/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01937-31/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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 1 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RICHARD LYTEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

JANET SIMPSON, 

Defendant.

___________________________________

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-1937 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SANCTIONS

On August 29, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions against Defendant and her

counsel.1 Defendant opposed the motion. Having reviewed the papers submitted by the parties, the

court finds it appropriate to issue this order without oral argument. Based on the moving, opposition

and reply papers, and the file herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is DENIED. This court has

previously denied Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions in connection with portions of Defendant’s

deposition and in connection with Defendant’s lack of cooperation at her mental examination. 

Further, Plaintiff did not properly support the amount of fees he seeks as sanctions for the

Case 5:05-cv-01937-JF Document 510 Filed 09/28/06 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

“Local rules” refers to the Local Rules of Practice in Civil Proceedings before the United

States District Court for the Northern District of California.

ORDER, page 2

misconduct of Defendant and her counsel. Rule 37-3(b)(3) of this court’s local rules2 provides: 

“If attorney fees or other costs or expenses are requested, itemize with particularity

the otherwise unnecessary expenses, including attorney fees, directly caused by the

alleged violation or breach, and set forth an appropriate justification for any

attorney-fee hourly rate claimed.”

The declarations submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel do not itemize the fees incurred. Without such an

itemization, it is not possible to determine which portion of the fees are attributable to the portion of

the complained of conduct that arguably warrants an award of sanctions.

Dated: 9/27/06

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01937-JF Document 510 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 of 2