Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03157/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03157-8/pdf.json

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

---

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

CHEVRON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY

SERVICES COMPANY (formerly known as

CHEVRONTEXACO GLOBAL

TECHNOLOGY SERVICES COMPANY) et

al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

MICHAEL S. LITTLE,

Defendant.

 /

No. C-06-3157 MMC

ORDER STRIKING MOTION TO

WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

(Docket No. 29)

On March 1, 2007, defendant’s counsel electronically filed a motion to withdraw as

counsel. Counsel 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 March 8, 2007, the Court ordered defendant’s counsel to

immediately submit a chambers copy of the above-referenced motion, and warned

defendant’s counsel that if he failed in the future to comply with the Court’s order to submit

Case 3:06-cv-03157-MMC Document 33 Filed 03/21/07 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

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.

Defendant’s counsel again has violated the Court’s order by failing to lodge a

chambers copy of the motion to withdraw. The Court expects the parties to comply with the

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

STRIKES the motion to withdraw from the record, without prejudice to counsel’s filing a

new copy of the document in compliance with General Order 45 and accompanied by a

declaration explaining the reasons for his failure to date to abide by the Court’s orders.

This order terminates Docket No. 29.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2007 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03157-MMC Document 33 Filed 03/21/07 Page 2 of 2