Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03215/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03215-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Defendant
Richard J. Velazquez
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

RICHARD J. VELAZQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner,

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

 /

No. C-05-3215 MMC

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On March 20, 2006, plaintiff Richard J. Velazquez electronically filed his motion for

summary judgment. Plaintiff violated General Order 45 and the Court’s standing orders,

however, by failing to deliver to the Clerk’s Office “no later than noon on the business day

following the day that the papers are filed electronically, one paper copy of each document

that is filed electronically . . . marked ‘Chambers Copy’ and . . . clearly marked with the

judge’s name, case number, and ‘Chambers Copy-Do Not File.’” See General Order 45

§ VII.G; see also Standing Orders For Civil Cases Assigned to The Honorable Maxine M.

Chesney ¶ 2.

In an order filed March 27, 2006, the Court directed plaintiff to submit forthwith a

chambers copy of his motion, and warned him that if he failed in the future to comply with

the Court’s order to submit chambers copies of electronically-filed documents, the Court

could impose sanctions, including, but not limited to, striking from the record any

Case 3:05-cv-03215-MMC Document 15 Filed 04/11/06 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

electronically-filed document of which a chambers copy had not been timely

provided to the Court.

Plaintiff again has violated the Court’s order by failing to lodge a chambers copy of

his motion. The Court expects the parties to comply with the Court’s orders without being

repeatedly reminded to do so. Accordingly, the Court hereby STRIKES plaintiff’s motion

from the record, without prejudice to his filing, no later than April 17, 2006, a new copy of

the document in compliance with General Order 45 and accompanied by a declaration

explaining the reasons for his failure to date to abide by the Court’s orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2006 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03215-MMC Document 15 Filed 04/11/06 Page 2 of 2