Seagate Technology LLC et al v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA et al

Filing 103

ORDER Striking Plaintiffs' 102 Objection to Defendants' Evidence in Support of Motion for partial Summary Judgment, and Motion to Strike or Alternatively Seal Confidential Exhibits. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/20/2010. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/20/2010)

Seagate Technology LLC et al v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA et al

Doc. 103

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On November 18, 2010, Defendants moved for partial summary judgment. Docket No. 85. On December 10, 2010, Plaintiffs filed v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, a Pennsylvania corporation; INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendants. / SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, a Cayman Island corporation; SEAGATE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS PTE LTD, a Singapore corporation, Plaintiffs, No. C 09-04120 CW ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND MOTION TO STRIKE OR ALTERNATIVELY SEAL CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBITS FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

an eighteen page motion objecting to Defendants' evidence cited in support of its motion for partial summary judgment. Docket No. 92.

Plaintiffs' motion violated Local Rule 7-3(a) and this Court's standing order which states regarding motions for summary judgment, "Evidentiary and procedural objections shall be contained within the motion, opposition or reply; separate motions to strike will not be considered by the Court." Accordingly, the Court strikes Plaintiffs' motion to strike evidence, Docket No. 92, as well as Defendants' opposition to the

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

motion, Docket No. 102.

The Court grants both parties leave to

amend and refile their briefing, incorporating any any evidentiary objections or responses to such objections. Plaintiffs' refiled

opposition to Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment is due December 23, 2010. December 30, 2010. Defendants' refiled reply is due by

If the parties find it necessary, they may

stipulate to a new hearing date, and file their briefing in accordance with the requirements set forth in Local Rule 7-3. To the extent that Plaintiffs' motion seeks to strike confidential material filed on the public docket by Defendants in support of their motion for partial summary judgment, Plaintiffs' motion is granted with respect to the following exhibits filed at Docket No. 86: Exhibits 22-28, 53, 63, 67, 83, 85-86, 90, 92-94, 96-97, 100-103, 106, 108-111, 115, 117, 120, 122 and 124. The

clerk shall remove these items from the public docket and file them under seal. Plaintiffs seek to strike Exhibit 63 from the public docket. However, that exhibit was not included on the public docket. addition, Exhibit 63 was not served on Plaintiffs. In

Defendants are

to serve Exhibit 63 to Plaintiffs, and submit it for filing under seal with the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:12/20/2010 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

2