Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07067/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07067-96/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

MMCA GROUP, LTD.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-06-7067 MMC

SECOND ORDER DIRECTING

PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT CHAMBERS

COPY IN COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL

ORDER 45 AND THE COURT’S

STANDING ORDERS

On February 5, 2010, plaintiff, on behalf of all parties, electronically filed the parties’

Joint Pretrial Statement. Plaintiff has violated General Order 45 and the Court’s Standing

Orders, however, by failing to deliver to the Clerk’s Office “no later than noon on the

business day following the day that the papers are filed electronically, one paper copy of

each document that is filed electronically . . . marked ‘Chambers Copy’ and . . . clearly

marked with the judge’s name, case number, and ‘Chambers Copy-Do Not File.’” See

General Order 45 § VI.G; see also Standing Orders for Civil Cases Assigned to the

Honorable Maxine M. Chesney ¶ 2.

Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to comply with General Order 45 and the Court’s

Standing Orders by immediately submitting a chambers copy of the Joint Pretrial

Statement.

The Court has previously advised plaintiff of its failure to comply with General Order

Case 3:06-cv-07067-MMC Document 840 Filed 02/10/10 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

2

45 and the Court’s Standing Order in connection with earlier-filed documents. (See Order,

filed September 25, 2007.) Additionally, the Clerk of the Court, at the direction of the Court,

advised plaintiff telephonically of its failure to provide chambers copies of certain

documents plaintiff had filed on February 1, 2010. Such reminders appear to have had little

to no effect on compelling compliance therewith.

Parties are expected to comply with court rules without repeated reminders. 

Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby advised that the Court will impose sanctions, including, but

not limited to, striking from the record any electronically-filed document of which a

chambers copy has not been timely provided to the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07067-MMC Document 840 Filed 02/10/10 Page 2 of 2