Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01792/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01792-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Chertoff
Defendant
Kenneth Lakes
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

KENNETH LAKES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF,

Defendant

 /

No. C-05-4874 MMC

No. C-07-1792 MMC

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT

OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AFFORDING

PLAINTIFF OPPORTUNITY TO REFILE

EVIDENCE AND DEFENDANT

OPPORTUNITY TO FILE AMENDED

REPLY; CONTINUING HEARING ON

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

VACATING TRIAL AND PRETRIAL

CONFERENCE

On February 12, 2008, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment in the

above-titled consolidated action, which motion is currently set for hearing on March 28,

2008. On March 10, 2008, the Court approved the parties’ stipulation to continue from

March 7, 2008 to March 10, 2008 the deadline for plaintiff to file his opposition, and to

continue from March 14, 2008 to March 17, 2008 the deadline for defendant to file his

reply.

Thereafter, on March 10, 2008, plaintiff filed a timely memorandum of points and

authorities in opposition to defendant’s motion. Although plaintiff’s memorandum cited to

and relied upon a number of exhibits, (see, e.g., Pl.’s Opp. at 3:16 (citing to “Exhibit ‘1’”)),

Case 3:07-cv-01792-MMC Document 37 Filed 03/24/08 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

1

As one example, the document filed by plaintiff as Docket No. 63, which is a page

numbered “163” from what is apparently a transcript of an administrative hearing, is not

included in any of the eight exhibits attached to the Ross Declaration.

2

Although the reply was timely filed, defendant has, to date, failed to provide a

chambers copy of such document. Both parties are reminded of their obligation to submit,

no later than noon on the day after electronically filing any document, a chambers copy of

such filing.

2

however, plaintiff failed to file any such exhibit, or any other evidence, at that time. The

next day, March 11, 2008, plaintiff filed, as five separate docket entries, excerpts of

testimony taken at various depositions, as well as at a hearing, and filed, as a sixth docket

entry, an affidavit apparently filed in another action. (See Docket Nos. 62-67.) On March

13, 2008, plaintiff filed, as three separate docket entries, further evidence, specifically,

copies of a document and excerpts from two depositions. (See Docket Nos. 68-70.)

On March 17, 2008, plaintiff filed the Declaration of David L. Ross, attaching thereto

eight exhibits. (See Docket No. 72.) Some of the pages included within the eight exhibits

had been filed by plaintiff on March 11, 2008 and March 13, 2008, while other pages were

filed for the first time on March 17, 2008. It does not appear, however, that plaintiff

intended the exhibits attached to the Ross Declaration to constitute the entirety of plaintiff’s

evidence, as some of the documents filed earlier by plaintiff are not included in the exhibits

attached to said declaration.1

The briefing on defendant’s motion concluded on March 17, 2008, when defendant

filed a timely reply.2 In his reply, defendant, observing that, on March 17, 2008, he was

served for the first time with some of the exhibits, including a declaration signed by plaintiff,

states he did not have time to prepare a response thereto. Further, defendant points out,

all of plaintiff’s exhibits are untimely, because none was filed, in any form, on March 10,

2008; consequently, defendant argues, none of such evidence should be considered.

The Court declines to consider plaintiff’s opposition and defendant’s reply under the

circumstances described above. First, the Court will not consider plaintiff’s evidence in the

form it has been submitted. Second, although defendant had good cause not to respond to

evidence filed for the first time on the date defendant’s reply was due, the Court finds it

Case 3:07-cv-01792-MMC Document 37 Filed 03/24/08 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

Defendant shall not file a supplemental reply, but, rather, an amended reply.

3

preferable to afford plaintiff the opportunity to present his evidence, properly identified and

in an orderly fashion, and to afford defendant an opportunity to respond to a complete set

of exhibits, before the Court determines whether any material facts are in dispute.

Accordingly, the Court hereby rules as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s evidence offered in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary

judgment, specifically, Docket Nos. 62-70 and 72, is hereby STRICKEN.

2. Plaintiff is afforded leave to file, no later than March 31, 2008, a single, complete

set of the exhibits on which he relied in his memorandum filed in opposition to defendant’s

motion.

3. Defendant shall file, no later than April 14, 2008, an amended reply, in which he

shall address such evidence, to the extent defendant finds necessary.3

4. The hearing on defendant’s motion for summary judgment is hereby

CONTINUED to May 2, 2008, at 9:00 a.m.

5. The May 6, 2008 Pretrial Conference and May 19, 2008 trial date are hereby

VACATED, and will be reset, if appropriate, upon resolution of defendant’s motion for

summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01792-MMC Document 37 Filed 03/24/08 Page 3 of 3