Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02073/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02073-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

United States District Court

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WELLS,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-02073 CW

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF'S

REQUEST TO FILE

OBJECTIONS TO

DEFENDANTS'

EVIDENCE AND

DENYING

PLAINTIFF's

REQUEST TO FILE

RESPONSE TO

DEFENDANTS'

OBJECTIONS TO

PLAINTIFF'S

EVIDENCE

On July 28, 2006, Plaintiff David Wells filed a letter

requesting leave of the Court to file his Response to Defendants'

Objections to Plaintiff's Evidence in Support of His Opposition to

Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 66). On

August 1, 2006, Defendants objected to Plaintiff's request. That

same day, before the Court responded to Plaintiff's request for

Case 4:05-cv-02073-CW Document 70 Filed 08/02/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

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

1In addition, Plaintiff states that he submitted a letter

brief asking the court for leave to file the objections. He did

not. His letter requested leave only to file a Response to

Defendant's Objections.

2

leave to file a response, Plaintiff filed his Response to

Defendants' Objections (Docket No. 69). In addition, he filed a

request for leave to file Objections to Defendants' Evidence in

Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment and their Reply

(Docket No. 68), along with the objections. Plaintiff does not

explain why he did not object to the evidence contained in

Defendants' motion for summary judgment at the time he filed his

opposition. Instead, he cites William W Schwarzer, et al., Federal

Civil Procedure Before Trial §§ 14:109-110 ("Objections to the

moving party's evidence can be made either at the hearing or

beforehand. The opposing party may file written objections or a

motion to strike the evidence as part of its opposition

papers. . . . While objections can be made for the first time at

the hearing, it is better practice to make your objections in

writing beforehand (preferably with the opposition or reply

papers)").1

Local Rule 7-3(d) states, in part, that "once a reply is filed

no additional, memoranda, papers or letters may be filed without

prior court approval." Plaintiff, filing his Response to

Defendants' Objections prior to receiving Court approval, is in

direct violation of Local Rule 7-3(d). The Court will not consider

his response and leave to file the response is DENIED. But the

Court will GRANT Plaintiff's request for leave to file his

objections to the evidence cited in Defendants' motion for summary

Case 4:05-cv-02073-CW Document 70 Filed 08/02/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

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 3

judgment and reply; his objections to the evidence cited in

Defendants' motion for summary judgment, however, should have been

filed at the time that Plaintiff filed his opposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/2/06 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-02073-CW Document 70 Filed 08/02/06 Page 3 of 3