Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04535/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04535-1/pdf.json

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Arsape S.A., 

Plaintiff,

 v.

JDS Uniphase Corporation,

Defendant.

 /

NO. C 03-4535 JW

ORDER DENYING ARSAPE'S

MOTION TO STRIKE JDSU'S

JUNE 15, 2005 OBJECTIONS TO

EVIDENCE

On May 16, 2005, Plaintiff Arsape S.A. ("Arsape"), Defendant JDS Uniphase Corp. ("JDSU"),

and Donovan Micro-Tek Inc. ("DMT"), a third-party in this suit, filed cross-motions for summary

judgment. (JDSU's Opposition, Docket Item No. 104, at 2:9; Arsape's Motion, Docket Item No. 103,

at 2:5-6.) A hearing on the motions is scheduled for August 22, 2005. On June 6, 2005, Arsape and

DMT filed their reply, along with additional supporting declarations and documents (hereinafter, "the

June 6 evidence"), which comprise the evidence at issue in this motion. (JDSU's Opposition at 2:15;

Arsape's Motion at 2:8-9.) On June 15, 2005, JDSU filed its objections to the June 6 evidence. 

(JDSU's Opposition at 2:17-19; Arsape's Motion at 2:10-12.) Subsequently, Arsape filed this Motion

to Strike JDSU's June 15, 2005 Objections to Evidence (hereinafter, "Motion to Strike"). A hearing

on the Motion to Strike was scheduled for August 1, 2005. However, the Court deems it appropriate

to take this motion under submission for decision on the papers. 

Civil L.R. 7-3(d) states that "once a reply is filed, no additional memoranda, papers or letters

may be filed without prior Court approval," except for new judicial opinions. However, the "local

rules supplement the applicable Federal Rules. They shall be construed so as to be consistent with the

Federal Rules." Civil L.R. 1-2(b). Those Federal Rules require that, for summary judgment,

Case 5:03-cv-04535-JW Document 107 Filed 08/04/05 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

"[s]upporting and opposing affidavits shall . . . set forth such facts as would be admissible in

evidence." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e). Since the Court will need to consider the admissibility of the June

6 evidence submitted in support of Arsape's motion for summary judgment, the Court declines to strike

JDSU's objections to the June 6 evidence. 

The Court will permit Arsape to submit its own reply to JDSU's objections to the June 6

evidence. However, only arguments as to the admissibility of the June 6 evidence shall be raised. No

new legal arguments may be tendered. If Arsape elects to file a reply to JDSU's objections, it shall

file it on or before August 9, 2005.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Arsape's Motion to Strike. 

Dated: August 4, 2005 

03cv4535mts-obj-evid

/s/James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-04535-JW Document 107 Filed 08/04/05 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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Gaylord A. Virden gavyls62@msn.com

Jeffrey J. Lederman jlederman@winston.com

Nicole P. Dogwill ndogwill@winston.com

Dated: August 4, 2005 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By:/s/JWchambers 

Ronald L. Davis

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:03-cv-04535-JW Document 107 Filed 08/04/05 Page 3 of 3