Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03345/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03345-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FINISAR CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

NISTICA, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-03345-BLF 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF 

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[Re: ECF 331]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to strike portions of Defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment. ECF 331. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment 

violates the Court’s Standing Order by incorporating by reference arguments contained in the 

Goossen Declaration. Pl.’s Mot. at 2, 4-5, ECF 331-3. Plaintiff also claims that Defendant 

violated Civil L.R. 7-4(a)(5) by failing to cite legal authority regarding the legal standard to 

support several of its grounds for summary judgment. Id. at 5. Defendant counters that it did not 

incorporate by reference any legal arguments into its brief and that it complied with Civil L.R. 7-

4(a)(5).1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) allows a party to move for summary judgment or partial summary 

judgment and to identify each claim on which summary judgment is sought. Under Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 56(c)(1)(A), a party may supports its factual positions by “citing to particular parts of materials 

in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or 

declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, 

 

1

Plaintiff also argued that Defendant’s separate statement of facts violated the Court’s standing 

order. On November 23, 2015, Defendant submitted an amended separate statement of facts. 

ECF 334. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff’s argument with respect to Defendant’s separate 

statement of facts MOOT.

Case 5:13-cv-03345-BLF Document 336 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

interrogatory answers, or other materials.” Civil L.R. 7-5(a) further provides that “[f]actual 

contentions made in support of or in opposition to any motion must be supported by an affidavit or 

declaration and by appropriate references to the record.”

Plaintiff has not shown Defendant improperly incorporated by reference legal arguments 

into its motion for summary judgment. While Plaintiff notes that Defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment included citations to the record that span sixty nine pages, Plaintiff has not 

explained how the cited material contains legal arguments as opposed to evidence in support of 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(a). When moving for 

summary judgment, a party is allowed to support its position by citing to declarations and other 

evidence in the record and accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to strike portions of

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment for allegedly incorporating by reference legal 

arguments.

Although the Court is not striking Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the Court 

notes that the purpose of a summary judgment motion is to identify and argue issues that have a 

real potential to streamline litigation. Parties should not take a “kitchen sink” approach to 

summary judgment motions where every conceivable ground for summary judgment is included in 

the motion. To the extent parties do not strategically plan their summary judgment motions and 

instead make sparse arguments, fail to explain their position, or cite to voluminous portions of the 

record, this may be reason to deny the summary judgment motion. See Albrechtsen v. Bd. Of 

Regents of Univ. of Wisconsin Sys., 309 F.3d 433, 436 (7th Cir. 2002) (“Courts are entitled to 

assistance from counsel, and an invitation to search without guidance is no more useful than a 

litigant’s request to a district court at the summary judgment stage to paw through the assembled 

discovery material. Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in the record.”).

With respect to Defendant’s alleged violation of Civil L.R. 7-4(a)(5), the rule provides 

that a party must cite “pertinent authorities” in support of arguments made in briefing. Plaintiff, 

relying on Martinez v. County of Sonoma, 15-CV-01953-JST, 2015 WL 5354071, at *7 (N.D. Cal. 

Sept. 14, 2015), contends that Defendant failed to set forth its legal position in its motion for 

summary judgment. In Martinez, the Court denied one ground of a motion to dismiss because 

Case 5:13-cv-03345-BLF Document 336 Filed 11/24/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

“[d]efendants neither provide[d] legal authority nor advance[d] any argument for this request.” As 

in Martinez, the Court finds that to the extent Defendant’s legal authority is insufficient, that may 

be grounds for denying, not striking, the summary judgment motion. Accordingly, the Court 

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to strike portions of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment for 

allegedly violating Civil L.R. 7-4(a)(5).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 24, 2015

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-03345-BLF Document 336 Filed 11/24/15 Page 3 of 3