Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00038/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00038-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 423
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Withdrawal 28 USC 157
Cause of Action: 28:0157 Motion for Withdrawal of Reference

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

MICHAEL D. BURCH and THE

BANKRUPTCY ESTATE OF MICHAEL

D. BURCH,

NO. CIV. S-04-0038 WBS GGH

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER RE: EVIDENTIARY

OBJECTIONS

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA, LARRY VANDERHOEF,

GREG WARZECKA, PAM GILLFISHER, ROBERT FRANKS, and

LAWRENCE SWANSON,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Before the court is defendants’ motions for summary

judgment. On April 24, 2006, defendants filed approximately 120

objections to statements in the declarations of Michael Burch,

Richard Seyman, Michael Maben, Charlie Hong, David Amato, and

Earl Walker, Jr. (submitted in opposition to defendants’ motions)

and moved to strike the portions of these declarations to which

they objected. Defendants’ objections are made primarily on the

grounds that the statements at issue constitute hearsay,

Case 2:04-cv-00038-WBS-GGH Document 254 Filed 04/25/06 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

One of the questions which the parties might consider 1

addressing in their briefs is whether it would be a more

efficient and economical use of the court’s time simply to

proceed to trial and rule on the objections at that time rather

than to plow through all of them in the context of this motion

and then, if the motion is not granted in its entirety, face them

a second time at trial.

2

contradict the declarant’s deposition testimony, or are vague,

conclusory, lacking in foundation, argumentative, and/or

speculative. In addition and more generally, defendants move to

strike these declarations in their entirety because they are

unsworn. 

To rule on defendants’ motions for summary judgment,

the court must first decide these objections. Moreover, because

of the volume of objections and their detail, the court would

benefit from a full briefing of the issues raised. Accordingly, 1

plaintiffs are given 10 days from the date of this order to file

a response to defendants’ objections and/or amended declarations

that cure the objections. Defendants have 5 days thereafter to

file a response, if necessary. The hearing on the motions for

summary judgment is hereby rescheduled for Tuesday, May 30, 2006,

at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 25, 2006

Case 2:04-cv-00038-WBS-GGH Document 254 Filed 04/25/06 Page 2 of 2