Kerr v. The City & County of San Francisco et al

Filing 71

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFFS 70 OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/1/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

DEREK KERR,

5
6
7

No. C 10-5733 CW

Plaintiff,
v.

8

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO; MITCHELL H. KATZ;
MIVIC HIROSE; and COLLEEN RILEY,

9

Defendants.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

ORDER STRIKING
PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS TO
DEFENDANTS’
EVIDENCE IN
SUPPORT OF THEIR
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (Docket
No. 70)

11

________________________________/
On May 31, 2012, Defendants City and County of San

12

Francisco, Mitchell H. Katz, Mivic Hirose, and Colleen Riley filed

13

a motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff Derek Kerr’s claims

14

against them.

15

among other items, the declarations of Katz, Riley and Hirose in

16

support of their motion.

17

Docket No. 40.

At that time, Defendants submitted,

Docket Nos. 41-43.

On June 13, 2012, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation

18

to extend the briefing and hearing schedule on Defendants’ motion.

19

Docket No. 51.

20

July 19, 2012 to file his opposition to Defendants’ motion for

21

summary judgment.

22

Pursuant to the Court’s Order, Plaintiff had until

On July 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed his thirty-page opposition

23

to Defendants’ motion.

24

improperly docketed the brief as a new motion, Plaintiff re-filed

25

his opposition the following day.

26
27
28

Docket No. 60.

Because he initially

Docket No. 65.

On July 26, 2012, Defendants filed their reply in support of
their motion for summary judgment.

Docket No. 67.

1

On July 31, 2012, Plaintiff filed a new four page document

2

containing evidentiary objections to the declarations of Katz,

3

Riley and Hirose.

4

evidence in support of his objections, including excerpts from

5

depositions of Riley apparently taken on June 6, 2011 and April 2,

6

2012.

7

Docket No. 70.

Plaintiff also attached

Plaintiff’s new filing violates Civil Local Rule 7-3(a),
which concerns the requirements for opposition briefs and

9

memoranda and states, “Any evidentiary and procedural objections

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

to the motion must be contained within the brief or memorandum.”

11

Because the declarations of Katz, Riley and Hirose were submitted

12

with Defendants’ motion and not with their reply, Plaintiff’s

13

filing also was not authorized by Civil Local Rule 7-3(d)(1),

14

which allows a party to file an objection to new evidence that the

15

opposing party has submitted with its reply brief.

16

Court notes that it granted Plaintiff leave to file excess pages

17

in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which

18

Plaintiff has already utilized.

19

Further, the

See Docket Nos. 52, 53, 65.

Accordingly, the Court STRIKES Plaintiff’s newly-filed

20

evidentiary objections to the declarations of Katz, Riley and

21

Hirose, including the evidence that Plaintiff has submitted in

22

support of these objections (Docket No. 70).

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26

Dated:

8/1/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

27
28
2