Valdez et al v. City of San Jose et al

Filing 212

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE STRICKEN Show Cause Response due by 10/8/2013.. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on October 3, 2013. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2013)

1
2
3

United States District Court
Northern District of California

4
5
6
7

FRANCISCO VALDEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.
CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No.: CV 09-0176 KAW
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANTS' SECOND MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
SHOULD NOT BE STRICKEN

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

In their Opposition to Defendants' Second Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Partial
Summary Judgment ("Opposition"), Plaintiffs incorporate by reference declarations and evidence
submitted in connection with their Opposition to Defendants' First Motion for Summary
Judgment and/or Partial Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 209 at 2 & n.1). However, in the
Opposition, there seems to be no citation to any of the 3,000 pages incorporated by reference or
any explanation as to why the court should consider these additional materials.
In addition, Plaintiffs' Opposition contains citations to other docket entries. See id. at 21.
It is not immediately apparent that these docket entries are incorporated by reference as requested
by Plaintiffs', are the subjects of some request for judicial notice, or are otherwise included as an
exhibit to their Opposition.
Plaintiffs' Opposition also contains arguments on the severance issue Defendants raise in
their moving papers, which arguments, though asserted in their Opposition, Plaintiffs nonetheless
reserve for a later time. See id. at 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. The severance issue is not properly before
the court and will not be considered at this time.

1

It is unduly burdensome on the court to comb through such voluminous materials, whether

2

in paper or electronic format, simply because a party wishes to include as much documentation as

3

possible in support of its opposition. See Carmen v. San Francisco United Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d

4

1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001) ("The district court need not examine the entire file for evidence

5

establishing a genuine issue of fact, where the evidence is not set forth in the opposing papers

6

with adequate references so that it could conveniently be found."); Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275,

7

1279 (9th Cir. 1996) (It is not the court's task "to scour the record in search of a genuine issue of

8

triable fact. The courts rely on the nonmoving party to identify with reasonable particularity the

9

evidence that precludes summary judgment.").
Accordingly, the court hereby orders Plaintiffs to show cause why the above-mentioned

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

aspects of their Opposition should not be stricken. Plaintiffs shall file a written response to this

12

order no later than Tuesday, October 8, 2013 at 5:00 p.m.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 3, 2013

15

KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2