recognizing that the district court has “the power to strike items 7|| from the docket as a sanction for litigation conduct”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that the district court has “the power to strike items 7|| from the docket as a sanction for litigation conduct”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
OAKLAND DIVISION
5
6 SCOTT GRIFFITH COLLABORATIVE Case No: C 19-6104 SBA
SOLUTIONS, LLC d/b/a SG Collaborative
7 Solutions, LLC, ORDER STRIKING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
8 Plaintiff, OPPOSITION
9 vs. Dkt. 11, 22, 23
10 FALCK NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CORP.,
CARE AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC., and
11 FALCK USA, INC.,
12 Defendants.
13
14 This matter was originally assigned to Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi.
15 Defendants declined to consent to her jurisdiction, resulting in the reassignment of the
16 action to this Court. Dkt. 21, 26. Under this Court’s Standing Orders, no motion or other
17 request may be filed unless the movant certifies in writing that it has met and conferred
18 with the opposing party in a good faith effort to avoid judicial intervention. In addition,
19 except for motions for summary judgment, noticed motions and oppositions thereto filed
20 before this Court are limited to 15 pages in length; replies are limited to 10 pages.
21 The docket indicates that Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction, which is
22 noticed for November 12, 2019. The motion as well as the opposition exceeds this Court’s
23 15-page limit for said briefs. Dkt. 11. In addition, Defendants filed two separate objections
24 to certain evidence presented by Plaintiff in support of its motion. Dkt. 22-3, 22-4. The
25 filing of separate objections is in clear violation of Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), which provides
26 that “[a]ny evidentiary and procedural objections to the motion must be contained within
27 the brief or memorandum.” Civ. L.R. 7-3(a) (emphasis added).
1 Based on the parties’ violations of this Court’s Standing Orders and the Local Rules,
2|| the Court declines to consider their non-compliant papers. Swanson v. U.S. Forest Serv..,
3|| 87 F.3d 339, 345 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that district court has discretion to disregard
briefs filed in circumvention of page limits). The motion and opposition papers shall
therefore be stricken from the record. See Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg.., Inc., 627 F.3d
402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) (recognizing that the district court has “the power to strike items
7|| from the docket as a sanction for litigation conduct”). Accordingly,
8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction and
9|| Defendants’ opposition papers (Dkt. 11, 22, 23) are STRICKEN from the record. After
satisfying the meet and confer requirement, Plaintiff may refile its motion in accordance
with the Local Rules and Standing Orders of the Court. Plaintiff and Defendants shall
lodge courtesy copies of their respective motion papers and supporting exhibits in the form
of indexed and tabbed binders.
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
15|| Dated: 10/16/19 Aeuwtin I Ganatiing
16 AUNDRA BROWN ARMSTR
Senior United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9.