Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02825/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02825-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

TRUCK-RAIL HANDLING INC., and

QUALITY TRANSPORT, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA

FE RAILWAY COMPANY,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 02-02825 JSW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On May 10, 2005, Defendant Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company

(“BNSF”) filed a miscellaneous administrative request for an additional seven days in which to file its

reply brief, pursuant to this Court’s Order requiring briefing on Plaintiffs’ conspiracy to monopolize

claim. Plaintiffs’ opposition was due on May 6, 2005, and BNSF’s reply was due on May 13, 2005.

BNSF seeks the additional time because although Plaintiffs served their opposition brief and

two declarations in support of the opposition, BNSF claims that Plaintiffs failed to serve the exhibits

attached to those declarations on BNSF. A review of the Plaintiffs’ certificate of service indicates that

Plaintiffs served the exhibits and their brief by U.S. mail on May 6, 2005.

 BNSF also requested that Plaintiffs provide it with copies of the exhibits, and Plaintiffs replied

that the exhibits already were in BNSF’s possession. The Court has conducted a cursory review of

Plaintiffs’ opposition brief and concludes that the new exhibits referenced in that brief are not

sufficiently identified that BNSF could easily locate the documents in its own files. Moreover, it would

appear that service by mail was an inadequate method of service to insure that BNSF received the

exhibits in sufficient time to prepare its reply brief.

Case 3:02-cv-02825-JSW Document 206 Filed 05/11/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

By a separate Order issued on this date, the Court has ordered Plaintiffs’ to serve the exhibits

on BNSF by May 11, 2005. Plaintiffs are FURTHER ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing,

why sanctions should not be imposed in the form of payment of the attorneys’ fees BNSF incurred in

attempting to obtain the exhibits and seeking relief from the Court for the additional time necessary to

respond to the briefing. Plaintiffs’ response shall be due on May 20, 2005, and the Court shall

address this matter at the case management conference set for June 10, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2005 /s/ Jeffrey S. White 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-02825-JSW Document 206 Filed 05/11/05 Page 2 of 2