Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-03518/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-03518-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN COLOR GRAPHICS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY

COMPANY OF AMERICA, 

Defendant. /

No. C 04-03518 SBA

ORDER

On February 28, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Exclude the Use of Documents Not Produced

During Discovery Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 37(c) [Docket No. 152]. Plaintiff noticed the Motion to Exclude

for hearing on April 4, 2006 – precisely 35 days after the filing date. On March 1, 2006, Plaintiff filed

an Amendment to the Motion to Exclude [Docket No. 154]. On March 9, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Second

Amendment to the Motion to Exclude [Docket No. 157]. On March 14, 2006, Defendant filed an

Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion To Exclude, and on March 21, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Reply in support

of the Motion to Exclude. On March 23, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Third Amendment to the Motion to

Exclude [Docket No. 168]. On March 28, 2006, Defendant filed Objections to Plaintiff's Third

Amendment to the Motion to Exclude. 

The Civil Local Rules require that "all motions must be filed, served and noticed in writing on

the motion calendar of the assigned Judge for hearing not less than 35 days after service of the motion."

Case 4:04-cv-03518-SBA Document 172 Filed 03/31/06 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

2

Civil L.R. 7-2(a). Plaintiff's original Motion to Exclude comported with these rules. However, Plaintiff

continued to amend its Motion to Exclude three separate times up until twelve (12) days prior the

scheduled hearing date. These three amendments were not superficial and contained additional

substantive accusations and arguments. Plaintiff did so on its own accord, without first seeking leave

of Court. Moreover, Plaintiff filed its Third Amendment to its Motion to Exclude after it had filed its

Reply, in direct violation of Civil L.R. 7-3(d) ("[O]nce a reply is filed, no additional memoranda, papers

or letters may be filed without prior Court approval."). Defendant similarly violated the Civil Local

Rules by failing to request leave of Court before filing its Objections to Plaintiff's Third Amendment

to the Motion to Exclude. It matters not that the Objections were based on Plaintiff's failure to abide

by the Civil Local Rules – leave of Court must first be requested and granted. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to properly notice its three amendments to the Motion

to Exclude. Regardless of the conduct of the opposing party and the validity of its claims, Plaintiff is

not permitted to circumnavigate the 35-day requirement for proper notice. Bombarding Defendant with

amendments to its Motion to Exclude without complying with the required notice period deprives

Defendant of its right to adequately respond to all factual and legal arguments. Therefore, the Court

finds that Plaintiff has not complied with the Civil Local Rules. Parties are reminded that a failure to

comply with any local or Federal Rule may be a ground for imposition of an authorized sanction. See

Civil L.R. 1-4; Smith v. Frank, 923 F.2d 139, 142 (9th Cir. 1991) ("For violations of the local rules,

sanctions may be imposed including, in appropriate cases, striking the offending pleading."). 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude, its three Amendments, and

its Reply, as well as Defendant's Opposition and Objections [Docket Nos. 152, 154, 157, 160, 166, 168,

and 170] shall be STRICKEN from the record. The hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude, currently

scheduled for April 4, 2006 at 1:00 p.m., is VACATED. If Plaintiff wants the Court to consider a

motion to exclude, Plaintiff shall file and serve a single, self-contained motion which comports with

all local rules. Plaintiff's motion shall be properly noticed for the first available hearing date following

the applicable notice period set forth in Civil Local Rule 7-2. Defendant shall file its opposition brief

no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date. Plaintiff shall file its reply brief, if any, no later than 14

Case 4:04-cv-03518-SBA Document 172 Filed 03/31/06 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

days prior to the hearing date. The parties are admonished that all filed motions and supplementary

material must comply with both the Civil Local Rules and the Court's Standing Orders. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/30/06 

 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-03518-SBA Document 172 Filed 03/31/06 Page 3 of 3