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

Although plaintiff Oculus Innovative Sciences, Inc. (“Oculus”) has submitted what

Oculus asserts is an English translation of Mangotich’s response, the Court cannot accept

a translation submitted by an opposing party under the circumstances presented. 

Moreover, the translation submitted by Oculus is only a partial translation because it does

not include a translation of the six exhibits attached to the response.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OCULUS INNOVATIVE SCIENCES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PRODINNV, S.A. de C.V. and CESAR

MANGOTICH PACHECO,

Defendants

 /

No. C-08-4707 MMC

ORDER DIRECTING ALL PARTIES TO

FILE DOCUMENTS IN ENGLISH;

STRIKING MANGOTICH’S NOVEMBER

24, 2009 FILING; EXTENDING

DEADLINE FOR MANGOTICH TO FILE

RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT;

DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF

On February 2, 2010, the above-titled action was reassigned from Magistrate Judge

Bernard Zimmerman to the undersigned. In reviewing the file, the Court has noted several

problems, which the Court lists and addresses below.

First, as Magistrate Judge Zimmerman himself noted in his order filed November 24,

2009, the response to the complaint filed by defendant Cesar Mangotich Pacheco

(“Mangotich”) on November 24, 2009 is written in the Spanish language.1

 In said order,

Magistrate Judge Zimmerman observed that where a party has filed a document in a

language other English, courts generally require the document to be refiled in the English

language. Finding such a requirement was appropriately imposed in the instant action,

Case 3:08-cv-04707-MMC Document 33 Filed 02/11/10 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

Further, as Magistrate Judge Zimmerman advised Mangotich in the November 24,

2009 order, defendant Prodinnv, S.A. de C.V. cannot represent itself in federal court and

must retain counsel in order to appear herein, and its default may be entered if it fails to

appear. This advisement continues to be in effect.

2

Magistrate Judge Zimmerman directed Mangotich to file, no later than December 21, 2009,

an English translation of the November 24, 2009 filing. To date, however, Mangotich has

not complied with Magistrate Judge Zimmerman’s order. This Court finds the requirement

imposed by Magistrate Judge Zimmerman is appropriate, and, further, should be imposed

as to all filings in this action and made applicable to all parties. Accordingly, the Court

hereby DIRECTS all parties hereto to file all documents in English. To the extent, however,

an exhibit written in a language other than English is submitted in support of another filing,

such exhibit may be filed, provided that the party submitting such exhibit also submits

therewith an English translation of its content.

In light of the above ruling, Mangotich’s November 24, 2009 response to the

Complaint is hereby STRICKEN and the Court hereby EXTENDS to March 12, 2010 the

deadline for Mangotich to file his response in English. Mangotich is hereby ADVISED that

if he fails to file a response in the English language by March 12, 2010, a default judgment

may be entered against him.2

Second, a review of the docket indicates that although Oculus has filed several

documents after November 24, 2009, the date on which Mangotich appeared herein,

Oculus has failed to file proof that it served any such document on Mangotich. Mangotich

is apparently proceeding pro se and, consequently, does not receive service of documents

filed electronically through the district court’s Electronic Case Filing system. Accordingly,

although Oculus shall continue to electronically file its documents, Oculus must also mail a

paper copy of any filing to Mangotich and shall file with the Clerk of the Court proof of such

service. See Civil L.R. 5-6(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04707-MMC Document 33 Filed 02/11/10 Page 2 of 2