Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00398/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00398-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

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

ROBERT A. WOODS and LORI A.

WOODS, husband and wife as

individuals,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PROTECTION ONE ALARM

MONITORING, INC. and ASSET

RESOURCES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-CV-00398-SMS

ORDER REQUIRING FURTHER

BRIEFING RE MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

CONTINUING HEARING DATE:

From: 6/01/07, 9:30am, Ctrm. 7/SMS

To: 6/15/07, 9:30am, Ctrm. 7/SMS

In addressing Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment, the

Court finds that Exhibit C in support of Asset Resources’ (“AR”)

Motion for Summary Judgment is virtually illegible. These

documents appear to be mostly the same as those attached as

Exhibit R to the Declaration of Alexander J. Harwin in support of

Protection One’s (“POAM”) Motion for Summary Judgment which is

also quite illegible. In order to consider these documents,

legible copies are required. Because these documents are

submitted as true and correct copies originating at AR, AR is

requested to provide legible and properly authenticated copies to

the Court for its consideration.

Case 1:06-cv-00398-SMS Document 58 Filed 05/21/07 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

Plaintiff objects to all of the exhibits offered by AR in

support of their Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court notes

that many of the Exhibits offered by AR are the same as those

offered by POAM. Rather than require the Court to expend

resources determining which AR exhibits are duplicated by POAM in

their properly authenticated exhibits, AR is ORDERED to crossreference their exhibits with those exhibits offered by POAM in

their Motion.

AR is further ORDERED to address Plaintiffs’ objections to

the authentication of the exhibits offered with their Motion for

Summary Judgment. AR argues that Plaintiff failed to seek

discovery from them in a timely manner, insinuating that had

Plaintiff timely sought the documents, there would be no

objections. AR’s position, while sympathetic, is insufficient to

allow the Court to consider the documents. They must be

authenticated.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. AR shall respond hereto on or before Monday, June 4,

2007; and,

2. The hearing on the combined motions for summary judgment

is continued from June 1, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. before Judge Snyder

to June 15, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. before Judge Snyder.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00398-SMS Document 58 Filed 05/21/07 Page 2 of 2