Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00450/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00450-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH LEE TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

KUERSTON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 19-cv-0450 TLN KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding through counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s third 

opposition to defendants’ summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 71.) Defendants also request 

leave to file a request for attorneys’ fees regarding the pending motion to strike. (Id.) Plaintiff 

filed an opposition. (ECF No. 72.) Defendants filed a reply to plaintiff’s opposition. (ECF No. 

73.) Defendants’ motion to strike is set for hearing before the undersigned on June 4, 2020.

For the reasons stated herein, defendants’ motion to strike is granted in part and denied in 

part, and the June 4, 2020 hearing is vacated. 

In the pending motion, defendants argue that plaintiff’s third opposition fails to comply 

with the March 30, 2020 order granting defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s second opposition. 

Defendants argue that plaintiff’s third opposition cites three new pieces of evidence that were not 

cited in the first opposition, in violation of the March 30, 2020 order. Defendants argue that 

Case 2:19-cv-00450-DJC-CSK Document 74 Filed 05/29/20 Page 1 of 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

2

plaintiff’s third opposition also fails to set forth how eighteen pieces of evidence, i.e., citations to 

deposition transcripts, responds to defendants’ statement of undisputed facts, in violation of the 

March 30, 2020 order. Defendants request that the court strike plaintiff’s third opposition in its 

entirety. If the court denies the motion to strike, defendants request that the court order plaintiff 

to file a fourth opposition that complies with the March 30, 2020 order. 

In the opposition to the motion to strike, plaintiff states that he mistakenly included the 

three new pieces of evidence cited in the third opposition. Plaintiff also states that he did not 

intend to violate the March 30, 2020 order by including evidence that he did not link to 

defendants’ statement of undisputed facts. Plaintiff indicates that, in hindsight, he should have 

filed a separate statement of undisputed facts regarding this evidence.

The undersigned finds good cause to strike the three new pieces of evidence cited in 

plaintiff’s third opposition. The undersigned also finds that plaintiff violated the March 30, 2020 

order by failing to set forth how all the evidence cited in the third opposition responded to 

defendants’ statement of undisputed facts. However, the undersigned finds that defendants can 

respond to the third opposition despite this violation. For this reason, defendants’ motion to 

strike the entire third opposition is denied. Requiring plaintiff to file a fourth opposition would 

needlessly delay resolution of defendants’ summary judgment motion. 

Finally, the undersigned finds that an award of attorneys’ fees for the pending motion to 

strike is not warranted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to strike (ECF No. 71) is granted in part and denied in part;

2. Defendants’ motion to strike the three new pieces of evidence cited in the third 

opposition is granted; defendants’ motion to strike is denied in all other respects;

3. Defendants may file a reply to the third opposition within twenty-one days of the date 

of this order;

////

////

////

Case 2:19-cv-00450-DJC-CSK Document 74 Filed 05/29/20 Page 2 of 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

3

4. The June 4, 2020 hearing before the undersigned regarding defendants’ motion to 

strike is vacated.

Dated: May 29, 2020

Tay450.str

Case 2:19-cv-00450-DJC-CSK Document 74 Filed 05/29/20 Page 3 of 3