Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02033/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02033-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

TORCO INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

GENERAL SALES & SERVICE, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C-06-2033 MMC

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S

ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM

On June 2, 2006, plaintiff electronically filed its answer to defendant’s counterclaim. 

Plaintiff violated General Order 45 and the Court’s standing orders, however, by failing to

deliver to the Clerk’s Office “no later than noon on the business day following the day that

the papers are filed electronically, one paper copy of each document that is filed

electronically . . . marked ‘Chambers Copy’ and . . . clearly marked with the judge’s name,

case number, and ‘Chambers Copy-Do Not File.’” See General Order 45 § VII.G; see also

Standing Orders For Civil Cases Assigned to The Honorable Maxine M. Chesney ¶ 2.

In an order filed June 12, 2006, the Court ordered plaintiff to immediately submit a

chambers copy of its answer to defendant’s counterclaim, and warned plaintiff that if it

failed in the future to comply with the Court’s order to submit chambers copies of

electronically-filed documents, the Court would consider imposing sanctions, including, but

not limited to, striking from the record any electronically-filed document of which a

chambers copy had not been timely provided to the Court.

Case 3:06-cv-02033-MMC Document 22 Filed 06/21/06 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

27

28

2

Plaintiff again has violated the Court’s order by failing to lodge a chambers copy of

its answer to defendant’s counterclaim. The Court expects the parties to comply with the

Court’s orders without being repeatedly reminded to do so. Accordingly, the Court hereby

STRIKES plaintiff’s answer to defendant’s counterclaim from the record, without prejudice

to plaintiff’s filing a new copy of the document in compliance with General Order 45 and

accompanied by a declaration explaining the reasons for its failure to date to abide by the

Court’s orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2006 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02033-MMC Document 22 Filed 06/21/06 Page 2 of 2