GoPro, Inc. v. 360Heros, Inc.

Filing 197

ORDER DDENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE denying 171 Motion to Strike. (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 3/13/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GOPRO, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO STRIKE

9

v.

10

360HEROS, INC.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-01944-SI

Re: Dkt. No. 171

Defendant.

12
13

Defendant 360Heros’ motion to strike plaintiff GoPro’s second motion for summary

14

judgment (Dkt. No. 173) is scheduled for hearing on March 23, 2018. Dkt. No. 171. Pursuant to

15

Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines the matter suitable for resolution without oral

16

argument and VACATES the hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES

17

defendant’s motion to strike.

18

Defendant requests the Court strike plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No.

19

173) on the grounds that plaintiff did not obtain leave of Court to file a second motion for

20

summary judgment. Dkt. No. 171. Defendant contends plaintiff’s motion is in violation of this

21

Court’s Standing Order.

22

unnecessary, successive attempt at summary adjudication that will prejudice defendant if

23

defendant is forced to oppose the motion. Dkt. No. 171 at 1. Plaintiff counters that GoPro

24

discussed filing a second motion for summary judgment before the Court, and that defendant will

25

not be prejudiced because the March 23, 2018, deadline to file dispositive motions set forth in the

26

Court’s Pretrial Order (Dkt. No. 74) has not yet expired. Dkt. No. 177 at 1-3.

27
28

Dkt. No. 19-1.

Defendant also contends plaintiff’s motion is an

1

“Failure by counsel or a party to comply with any duly promulgated local rule 1 or any

2

Federal Rule may be a ground for imposition of any authorized sanction.” Civil Local Rule 1-4.

3

“District courts have the inherent power to strike items from their docket for litigation conduct.”

4

Ibrahim v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 835 F.3d 1048, 1065 (9th Cir. 2016). “Because

5

of their very potency, inherent powers must be exercised with restraint and discretion.” Chambers

6

v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991).
The Court finds striking plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment unwarranted. An order

8

to impose sanctions in the form of striking a dispositive motion is a discretionary power of the

9

Court. Id. The record shows no cause to strike plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff’s first motion for

10

summary judgment was substantively distinct from this motion. Additionally, the deadline for

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

dispositive motions has not yet expired. Accordingly, both parties should be prepared to answer

12

any such motion at this time. Therefore, the Court DENIES defendant’s motion to strike.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: March 13, 2018
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

This includes the Court’s Standing Orders.
2