Petroliam Nasional Berhad v. GoDaddy.com, Inc.

Filing 137

ORDER re Appendices. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 11/22/2011. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2011) Modified on 11/22/2011 (vlkS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

PETROLIAM NASIONAL BERHAD,

8

Plaintiff,

9

v.

ORDER

GODADDY.COM, INC.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 09-5939 PJH

Defendant.
_______________________________/

12
13

The court has reviewed the documents submitted by plaintiff Petroliam Nasional

14

Berhad in support of its motion for partial summary judgment and in opposition to

15

defendant’s motion for summary judgment. In each instance, plaintiff includes a variety of

16

documents assembled into an “Appendix of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) materials.” Rule

17

56(c)(1)(A) sets forth the requirement that “[a] party asserting that a fact cannot be or is

18

genuinely disputed must support the assertion by” citing to “materials in the record.” The

19

Advisory Committee Notes to the 2010 amendments, to which plaintiff refers, state that an

20

assertion that a fact can or cannot be genuinely disputed may be supported by citation to

21

an appendix containing materials that “are in the record.”

22

A trial court can consider only admissible evidence in a ruling on a motion for

23

summary judgment; “unauthenticated documents cannot be considered in a motion for

24

summary judgment.” Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2002);

25

see also Las Vegas Sands, LLC v. Nehme, 632 F.3d 526, 532-33 (9th Cir. 2011). Here,

26

plaintiff has assembled a collection of materials, but has not identified them or provided any

27

authentication. Thus, the materials, which are not admissible in their present form, are not

28

“in the record.”

1

In addition, the materials are not presented in a form that is usable by the court. The

2

“Appendix” in support of plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment consists of more

3

than 200 pages of miscellaneous documents, and the “Appendix” in support of plaintiff’s

4

opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment consists of what appears to be

5

nearly 3500 pages of miscellaneous documents. These documents include deposition

6

excerpts, discovery responses, copies of web pages, e-mails, papers that were previously

7

filed in this case and related case 10-3052, and numerous other documents that the court

8

cannot even attempt to categorize.

materials as evidence in support of its motion or its opposition to defendant’s motion,

11
For the Northern District of California

The Appendices are STRICKEN. If plaintiff wishes the court to consider these

10

United States District Court

9

plaintiff must present them in a form that complies with the Federal Rules of Evidence. The

12

documents must also be presented in a form that is usable by the court, which means that

13

they must be attached to a supporting declaration, and must be separately tabbed. The

14

deadline for complying with this order is Friday, November 25, 2011.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated: November 22, 2011
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2