Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00455/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00455-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

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

MAMTA PATEL-PURI,

Plaintiff,

 v.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO. et

al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-05-0455 MMC

ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANTS’

ANSWER

On April 29, 2005, defendants electronically filed their answer to plaintiff’s complaint.

Defendants 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 May 4, 2005, the Court ordered defendants to immediately submit a

chambers copy of their answer, and warned defendants that if they 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

Case 3:05-cv-00455-MMC Document 10 Filed 05/16/05 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

provided to the Court.

Defendants again have violated the Court’s order by failing to lodge a chambers

copy of their answer. The Court expects the parties to comply with the Court’s orders

without being repeatedly reminded to do so. Accordingly, the Court hereby STRIKES

defendants’ answer from the record, without prejudice to their filing a new answer in

compliance with General Order 45 and accompanied by a declaration explaining the

reasons for their failure to date to abide by the Court’s orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2005 

/s/ Maxine M. Chesney 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00455-MMC Document 10 Filed 05/16/05 Page 2 of 2