Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03838/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03838-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

In re:

CROWN VANTAGE, INC.,

Debtor

 

CROWN PAPER COMPANY, et al.,

Plaintiffs

v.

FORT JAMES CORPORATION, f/k/a

JAMES RIVER CORPORATION OF

VIRGINIA, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-02-3838 MMC

ORDER STRIKING FORT JAMES’

SUPPLEMENTAL FILING ANSWERING

COURT’S QUESTION AT HEARING ON

MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

STRIKING PLAINTIFFS’

CALCULATIONS LIST AND

DECLARATION OF HARRY POTTER;

AFFORDING PARTIES LEAVE TO FILE

SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT NOT TO

EXCEED TWO PAGES

At the hearing conducted on December 15, 2006 on defendants’ motions for

summary judgment, the Court directed each party to file, no later than January 5, 2007, a

sheet of paper setting forth that party’s calculation of the price paid in August 1995 to Fort

James Corporation by Crown Paper Co. and/or Crown Vantage Inc. (collectively, “Crown”),

and to include therein a citation to the record for each figure comprising the total payment. 

The Court did not direct the parties, nor afford them leave, to submit new evidence or to

make additional argument.

Case 3:02-cv-03838-MMC Document 243 Filed 01/09/07 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

On January 5, 2007, defendants filed “Fort James’ Supplemental Filing Answering

Court’s Question at Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment”; plaintiffs filed a document

titled “Plaintiff’s Calculations List,” along with an expert declaration, to which voluminous

exhibits are attached. Although, in such filings, each party appears to have set forth the

figure asserted to be the price paid by Crown, both parties also offered new evidence and

included additional legal argument. Given the additional evidence and argument, it is

difficult to determine whether either party’s calculation is based on evidence already in the

record, or on some new theory based on information that party now seeks to submit in the

first instance. In any event, the deadline to file and to oppose dispositive motions has long

passed, and no party has shown any cause, let alone good cause, to submit new argument

and/or new evidence at this late stage of the proceedings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)

(providing pretrial order “shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause and by

leave of the district court”).

Accordingly, the above-referenced filings are hereby STRICKEN, without prejudice

to each party’s filing, no later than January 11, 2007, a document, not to exceed two pages

in length, in which such party sets forth the total sum it asserts Crown paid to Fort James,

the components thereof, and a citation to the place(s) in the record currently on file where

such payment is reflected.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:02-cv-03838-MMC Document 243 Filed 01/09/07 Page 2 of 2