Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02194/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02194-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

MAHMOUD MOHAMED,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JOHN POTTER,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-02194 CRB

ORDER

The Court has received Plaintiff’s request to strike Defendant’s pending motion for

summary judgment. Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s motion contains “egregious errors,”

portrays the case in a “confusing” manner, and “distorts . . . the facts to its own advantage

and offers many mistruths and outright falsehoods.” Request at 1-2. The Court makes no

decision here about the truth of the representations in Defendant’s motion. If indeed it does

contain inaccurate statements or mischaracterizations, then Plaintiff has an opportunity to

correct such errors and submit his view of the case in an opposition to the motion. To the

extent that Defendant’s motion neglects to attach relevant information or to cite to significant

portions of the record, Plaintiff can remedy these defects in his opposition, too.

A motion for summary judgment is, by its nature, only one party’s view of the case. It

is an argument by one party about the legal implications of the record. The fact that an

adversary considers a summary judgment motion inaccurate, or even false, is not a sufficient

Case 3:05-cv-02194-CRB Document 102 Filed 07/12/07 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

G:\CRBALL\2005\2194\order4.wpd 2

reason to strike it. If the law were otherwise, the Court would need to strike every summary

judgment motion – adversaries rarely agree about the legal implications of the record, and if

they do, then motions for summary judgment are unnecessary. For this reason, Plaintiff’s

request to strike the summary judgment motion is DENIED. Plaintiff shall file his opposition

to the motion, as scheduled, not later than August 24, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02194-CRB Document 102 Filed 07/12/07 Page 2 of 2