Rose et al v. Stephens Institute

Filing 168

ORDER re chambers copies. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 3/1/2016. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SCOTT ROSE, et al.,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 09-cv-5966-PJH

Plaintiffs,

8
v.

ORDER RE CHAMBERS COPIES

STEPHENS INSTITUTE,
Defendant.

12
13
14
15

Civil Local Rule 5-1(e)(7) requires each party to “provide for chambers a paper

16

copy of each document that is electronically filed,” and that such copies “must conform to

17

the particular requirements of the assigned judge’s standing orders.”

18

The undersigned’s standing pretrial order provides that “[c]hambers copies of each

19

electronically-filed document must include on each page the running header created by

20

the ECF system and must be delivered to the Clerk’s Office by noon the day following its

21

filing. All documents must be stapled or bound by a two-pronged fastener, and all

22

exhibits to declarations or requests for judicial notice must be tabbed.”

23

Despite these rules, defendant has not provided chambers copies of its motion for

24

summary judgment and related exhibits (Dkt. 150) or its reply brief and related exhibits

25

(Dkt. 166). The court has received chambers copies only of defendant’s administrative

26

motion to file under seal (Dkt. 162) and related exhibits (including Dkt. 163-165).

27

Accordingly, defendant is ordered to provide chambers copies of Dkt. 150 and Dkt. 166,

28

including all related exhibits, in accordance with the above instructions, no later than

1
2
3
4
5

12:00 noon on Wednesd
o
day, March 2, 2016.
h
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
ated: March 1, 2016
h
Da
__
__________
__________
__________
_______
PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
Un
nited States District Ju
s
udge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2