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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?