Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03836/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03836-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 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 1

Although not denominated as such, it appears that the opposition plaintiff

electronically filed on April 29, 2005 is an amended opposition.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NSIGHT, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PEOPLESOFT, INC,

Defendant /

No. C-04-3836 MMC

ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO

COMPLY WITH STANDING ORDERS;

NOTICE TO PARTIES

The Court’s review of the docket indicates the following: (1) on April 8, 2005, plaintiff

electronically filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”); (2) on April 25, 2005, defendant

electronically filed a motion to dismiss the FAC, and a memorandum in support thereof;

(3) on April 28, 2005, plaintiff electronically filed an opposition to defendant’s motion to

dismiss; (4) on April 29, 2005, plaintiff electronically filed a second opposition to

defendant’s motion to dismiss;1

 and (5) on April 29, 2005, plaintiff electronically filed a

“Motion to Terminate the ENE Program.”

Both the Court’s Standing Orders and General Order No. 45, Section VI.G., require

that in all cases subject to ECF, the parties, in addition to filing documents electronically,

are required to provide for use in chambers a paper copy of each document that is

Case 3:04-cv-03836-MMC Document 38 Filed 05/04/05 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

electronically filed, and to provide such paper copy no later than noon on the business day

following the day the document is filed electronically. As of today’s date, the Court has not

received a chambers copy of any of the above-described filings, the most recent of which

was electronically filed last week. Accordingly, both plaintiff and defendant are in violation

of both the Court’s Standing Orders and General Order No. 45.

The parties are hereby ORDERED to provide chambers copies of each of the

above-cited documents no later than May 6, 2005. Each of said copies shall be clearly

stamped “Chambers Copy.”

The parties are hereby advised that, in the future, the Court will impose sanctions for

further violations of the Court’s Standing Orders and General Order No. 45, including the

striking of documents that are electronically filed and for which the filing party has failed to

provide a chambers copy.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2005 /s/ Maxine M. Chesney 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03836-MMC Document 38 Filed 05/04/05 Page 2 of 2