United States of America v. Anderson

Filing 28

ORDER VACATING HEARING AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE BRIEFS IN COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULES; DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO STRIKE 25 AND MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME 26 ; TERMINATING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL [23 ]Motions terminated: 23 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal UNITED STATES MOTION TO MAINTAIN SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF REVENUE AGENT SARAH HO IN SUPPORT OF VERIFIED PETITION TO ENFORCE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE SUMMONS UNDER SEAL filed by United States of America, 25 MOTION to Strike 21 Brief, and the attached Supplemental Declaration of Agent Ho with exhibits filed by Sigurd Anderson, 26 MOTION to Shorten Time to hear and decide Anderson's Motion to Strike filed by Sigurd Anderson Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on August 26, 2014. (jstlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. 14-cv-01932-JST

Petitioner,
8
v.
9
10

SIGURD ANDERSON,
Respondent.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

ORDER VACATING HEARING AND
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE;
DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE
BRIEFS IN COMPLIANCE WITH
LOCAL RULES; DENYING AS MOOT
MOTION TO STRIKE [25] AND
MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME [26];
TERMINATING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL [23]

Civil Local Rule 7-4(b) provides clearly that, “[u]nless the Court expressly orders
otherwise pursuant to a party’s request made prior to the due date, briefs or memoranda filed with

16
opposition papers may not exceed 25 pages of text and the reply brief or memorandum may not
17
exceed 15 pages of text.”
18
In contravention of this rule, and without obtaining leave of court, Respondent has filed a
19
47-page memorandum (not counting six introductory pages) in opposition to the Order to Show
20
Cause. ECF No. 17-1. Moreover, the memorandum is printed in 11.5-point font, in violation of
21
Civil Local Rule 3-4(c)(2); had Respondent printed the brief in 12-point type, it would have been
22
even longer.
23
Petitioner has filed a 26-page reply brief, also without leave of court. ECF No. 21.
24
Accordingly, and good cause appearing, the Court now orders as follows:
25
1.

The hearing on the Order to Show Cause and the initial case management

26
conference, currently scheduled for August 28, 2014, are hereby VACATED.
27
2.
28

The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding a procedure which results in a

1

complete, rule-compliant set of briefs being filed within 30 days of the date of this order. 1 On the

2

date that all such briefs are filed, Petitioner may re-notice the hearing on the Order to Show Cause

3

for an available date on the undersigned’s calendar which is not less than 21 days from the date the

4

briefs are filed (or, if the revised briefs are not filed simultaneously, from the date the last brief is

5

filed).
3.

6
7

to shorten the time to hear the motion to strike, ECF No. 26, are both DENIED AS MOOT.

8
9

Respondent’s motion to strike Petitioner’s reply brief, ECF No. 25, and his motion

4.

Finally, the Court TERMINATES Petitioner’s Administrative Motion to File Under

Seal, ECF No. 23. The motion does not comply with the undersigned’s Standing Order Regarding
Administrative Motions to File Under Seal. This termination does not operate as a denial for

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

purposes of Civil Local Rule 79-5(f).
The parties are directed to carefully review the Local Rules and the undersigned’s Standing

12
13

Orders, available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/jstorders.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 26, 2014
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1

26
27
28

In the hopefully unlikely event that the parties cannot reach agreement, the parties shall, within
seven days of the date of this order, file a joint motion for administrative relief pursuant to Civil
Local Rule 7-11, which describes each party’s competing proposal for complying with this order.
In addition to describing the proposals, each party may include not more than one page of text
explaining the reasons for its proposal. The Court will choose the single proposal that it considers
to be most reasonable and accomodating of the other party’s interests.
2