Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02266/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02266-80/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:15 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ADVANCED MICROTHERM, INC., et al.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NORMAN WRIGHT MECHANICAL

EQUIP. CORP., et al.,

Defendant.

__________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C 04-2266 JW (PVT)

INTERIM ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO COMPEL REQUEST FOR

ADMISSION, SET 1, DEEMED ADMITTED

FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE RESPONSES

On December 28, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Request For Admission, Set 1,

Deemed Admitted for Failure to Timely File Responses. Defendant F.W. Spencer & Son, Inc.

(“F.W. Spencer”) opposed the motion. Having reviewed the papers submitted by the parties, the

court finds it appropriate to issue this interim order. Based on the moving, opposition and reply

papers submitted,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than April 6, 2010, Defendant F.W. Spencer shall

file a supplemental declaration establishing, if it can, whether it its Responses to Requests for

Admissions was deposited with the U.S. Postal Service, with proper postage affixed thereon, or

before May 11, 2009. In their moving papers, Plaintiffs claim the Responses to Requests for

Admissions were backdated. Even aside from Plaintiffs’ claim, there appears to be a lack of proof as

to what day the document was actually mailed. From the copy of Defendant F.W. Spencer’s

Responses to Requests for Admissions that Plaintiffs filed with their moving papers, it appears the

Case 5:04-cv-02266-JW Document 1386 Filed 03/26/10 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

ORDER, page 2

“proof of service” was signed before the document was mailed. As such, it does not constitute proof

of when the document was actually put in the mail. At most it attests to the signatory’s intent to put

the document in the mail that day. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing on this motion is continued to 10:00 a.m. on

April 13, 2010.

Dated: 3/26/2010

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 5:04-cv-02266-JW Document 1386 Filed 03/26/10 Page 2 of 2