Mitchell v. Oracle Racing, Inc.

Filing 48

ORDER SHORTENING TIME RE 44 MOTION for Sanctions Against Plaintiff and His Counsel; Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Responses due by 4/18/2016. Replies due by 4/20/2016. Motion Hearing set for 4/21/2016 02:00 PM in Courtroom 4, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Vince Chhabria. Show Cause Response due by 4/18/2016. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 4/21/2016 02:00 PM. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 4/14/2016. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2016)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW CHARLES MITCHELL,

Case No. 15-cv-03455-VC

Plaintiff,
ORDER SHORTENING TIME

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 44
ORACLE RACING, INC.,
Defendant.

The Court sua sponte shortens the time for hearing Oracle Racing's motion for sanctions.
The motion will be heard at the same time as the motion to dismiss, on Thursday, April 21, 2016.
The hearing on both motions will take place at 2:00 pm. A response to the motion is due
Monday, April 18. If Oracle Racing wishes to file a reply, it may do so on or before Wednesday,
April 20.
In addition to responding to the issues raised in Oracle Racing's motion, Patricia Barlow
is also ordered to show cause, in the same response, why she should not be sanctioned personally
– under Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and/or under this Court's inherent authority – for her repeated
violations of this district's Local Rules and the Court's orders. Specifically:
1. When Barlow filed Mitchell's Second Amended Complaint, she purported to file it
with "certain paragraphs filed under seal." Dkt. No. 35 at 1. Indeed, paragraphs 71 and 72 of
that complaint were redacted. Id. at 28. This Court's Local Rules require a party who seeks to
file material under seal to file an administrative motion, to include a declaration establishing that
the relevant material should be sealed, and to file both redacted and unredacted versions of the
relevant document with the Court. Civ. Local R. 79-5(d). Barlow did not do any of this.

When court staff alerted Barlow to her failure to comply with Local Rule 79-5(d), Barlow
responded that she did not seek to seal any portion of the Second Amended Complaint. Court
staff instructed Barlow that, if this was so, she should file a "corrected" Second Amended
Complaint that either deleted the redacted paragraphs or left them unredacted. Yet when Barlow
filed Mitchell's "corrected" Second Amended Complaint on March 17, it still purported to file
certain paragraphs under seal, and it still redacted paragraph 72. See Dkt. No. 39 at 1, 28.
2. This Court's order dismissing Mitchell's Second Amended Complaint was filed on
February 10. See Dkt. No. 34. That order gave Mitchell 14 days to file any amended complaint.
See id. at 3. Mitchell therefore had through February 24 to file his Second Amended Complaint.
But Barlow did not file Mitchell's Second Amended Complaint (even in its uncorrected form)
until February 25. See Dkt. No. 35.
3. Similarly, this Court's Standing Order for Civil Cases before Judge Vince Chhabria
provides that, "[u]nless expressly permitted by the Court, briefs in support of and in opposition to
all substantive motions (except for summary judgment motions, class certification motions, and
motions in patent cases, as discussed below) may not exceed 15 pages." But Barlow's opposition
to the defendants' first motion to dismiss was 20 pages long, excluding front matter. Barlow's
opposition to the defendants' second motion to dismiss was 24 pages long, excluding front
matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 14, 2016
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

2