Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02727/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02727-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

UNIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

For the Northern District of CaliforniaUNIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

For the Northern District of CaliforniaUNIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HEALTHTRAC CORPORATION, a Nevada

Corporation

Plaintiff,

v.

CATERPILLAR INC., a Delaware Corporation

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-2727 MHP

ORDER

Re: Defendant’s Objections to

Plaintiff’s Declarations Filed in

Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to

Transfer Venue

On July 5, 2005, plaintiff Healthtrac Corp. filed a complaint and request for injunctive relief

in this court, alleging generally that defendant Caterpillar Inc. has made improper use of plaintiff’s

proprietary business information. Defendant timely answered plaintiff’s complaint, and on August

24, 2005 moved to transfer venue to the Central District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section

1404(a). The motion to transfer is noticed for a hearing before this court on October 17, 2005.

On September 26, 2005, plaintiff timely filed a brief in opposition to defendant’s motion to

transfer venue. The two declarations accompanying the brief, however, were filed late. The

declaration of C. Curtis Staropoli was filed on September 27, 2005, and the declaration of Edward

W. Sharpless was filed on October 3, 2005. Defendant’s reply to plaintiff’s opposition was filed on

October 3, 2005, along with its objections to and motion to strike the declarations as being untimely

filed under Local Rule 7-3(a). Local Rule 7-3(a) specifies that a brief in opposition and any

accompanying declarations must be served and filed not less than twenty-one days before the

hearing date. Local Rule 7-3(a). The Staropoli declaration was filed one day late, and the Sharpless

declaration was filed seven days late.

Case 3:05-cv-02727-MHP Document 28 Filed 10/12/05 Page 1 of 2
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

 Having considered the parties’ submissions, the court finds and orders the following.

1. The parties are reminded that “[f]ailure by counsel or a party to comply with any duly

promulgated local rule or any Federal Rule may be a ground for imposition of any authorized

sanction.” Local Rule 1-4. The court, however, declines to impose sanctions on plaintiff at

this time, and further declines to strike the declarations from the record. Although the

declarations were not timely filed, the bulk of their content echoes plaintiff’s opposition

brief, and their inclusion in the record is not prejudicial to defendant. 

2. Defendant may submit, on or before October 12, 2005, a supplemental reply to plaintiff’s

opposition. This supplemental reply shall be limited to any new issues, arguments, or

statements of fact contained in the Staropoli and Sharpless declarations, and shall be no

longer than five pages in length.

3. The parties shall submit no further memoranda or declarations in connection with the

currently pending motions until further notice by the court. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 7, 2005 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

District Judge

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Case 3:05-cv-02727-MHP Document 28 Filed 10/12/05 Page 2 of 2