George et al v. Sonoma County Sherrif's Department et al

Filing 422

ORDER Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte denying re #419 Motion to Strike Defendant Cogbills's Response to Plaintiffs' Sur-reply & denying re #420 Motion to Strike Sterling Declaration in Response to Wittels Declaration. (edllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2010)

George et al v. Sonoma County Sherrif's Department et al

Doc. 422

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On October 18, 2010, Plaintiffs filed two motions to strike documents filed by County Defendants on October 8, 2010. For the reasons stated below, the motions to strike are denied. Motion to Strike Response to Sur-Reply At the September 24, 2010 summary judgment hearing, the Court gave Plaintiffs leave to file a sur-reply addressing issues relating to the Government Code section 910 tort claims because those issues were raised by County Defendants in their reply to the summary judgment motion. Plaintiffs filed their sur-reply on October 1, 2010. On October 8, 2010, without leave of court, County Defendants filed a response to the sur-reply. Plaintiffs have filed a motion to strike the County Defendants' response to the sur-reply, arguing that the response was not authorized and that Plaintiffs have been prejudiced. The response was neither authorized by the local rules nor ordered by the Court. Nevertheless, in the interest of justice and because the Court finds little prejudice to Plaintiffs, the Court denies Plaintiffs' motion to strike. v. SONOMA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT., et al., Defendants. / VALERIE GEORGE, et al., Plaintiffs, No. C-08-02675 EDL ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT COGBILL'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' SUR-REPLY AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE STERLING DECLARATION IN RESPONSE TO WITTELS DECLARATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Motion to Strike Sterling Declaration At the September 24, 2010 summary judgment hearing, the Court gave Plaintiffs leave to file a declaration from counsel regarding the facts about when Plaintiffs discovered that other inmate witnesses, on whom Plaintiffs relied in their opposition, had relevant information. The Court also gave County Defendants leave to file a response. Plaintiffs' counsel filed his declaration on October 1, 2010, and on October 8, 2010, County Defendants filed a responsive declaration from counsel. Plaintiffs have filed a motion to strike the County Defendants' responsive declaration as unauthorized and prejudicial. Because the Court specifically authorized County Defendants to file a response, Plaintiffs' motion is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 19, 2010 ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE United States Magistrate Judge

2