Synnex Corporation v. Wattles

Filing 125

ORDER REQUIRING COUNSEL TO COMPLY WITH STANDING ORDER AND LOCAL RULES REGARDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT re 107 , 124 ; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment is continued to October 16, 2012. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 10/3/2012. (cp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2012) Modified on 10/3/2012 (cp, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

SYNNEX CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9
10

vs.

Case No.: C-11-01496-YGR
ORDER REQUIRING COUNSEL TO COMPLY
WITH STANDING ORDER AND LOCAL RULES
REGARDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

MARK J. WATTLES,
Defendant.

11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on August 20, 2012. (Dkt. No. 107.) The
Motion contained a “Statement of Undisputed Facts” but not in a form compliant with the Court’s
Standing Order in Civil Cases at section 9(c). The Court later received a Chambers copy of a
corrected version of the Motion for Summary Judgment with a Supporting Separate Statement that
complies with the Standing Order. This document was not filed on ECF until October 2, 2012, after

16

the Court sought clarification from Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 124.)
17

In Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, it argues that the Motion
18

should be granted because Defendant has failed to dispute any material facts set forth in Plaintiff’s
19

Separate Statement. While Defendant was required under the Standing Order to respond to Plaintiff’s
20

separate statement, it is not clear to the Court that the corrected Motion (with the compliant
21

Supporting Separate Statement) was ever served on Defendant, nor provided in electronic format to
22

Defendant to allow for response.
23

Defendant is hereby ORDERED to provide a response to Plaintiff’s Separate Statement by no
24

later than Monday, October 8, 2012. Plaintiff is ORDERED to immediately send Defendant an
25

electronic copy of the Supporting Separate Statement. The hearing on the Motion for Summary
26

Judgment is CONTINUED to October 16, 2012.
27
28

1

In addition, both parties have attached their underlying evidence en masse as exhibits to their

2

briefs. This violates Civ. L.R. 7-5(a), which requires that evidentiary matters, including deposition

3

transcripts, be appropriately authenticated by affidavit or declaration. The Court’s Standing Order

4

regarding summary judgment motions does not create an exception to Civ. L.R. 7-5, nor has the Court

5

otherwise waived this requirement. The parties are directed to file declarations authenticating any

6

evidence submitted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Civ. L.R. 7-5. The declarations need not re-attach all of

7

the evidence, but shall identify with specificity the documents being authenticated. If it is unclear to

8

the Court what evidence is being authenticated, that evidence will be disregarded. Counsels’

9

declarations shall be filed no later than October 8, 2012.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

Dated: October 3, 2012

Northern District of California

United States District Court

_______________________________________
13

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

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

2