Reyes v. San Francisco Unified School District
Filing
114
ORDER (1) REQUIRING JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND(2) STRIKING DEFENDANT'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT (Dkt. Nos. 95-3 to 112). Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 7/26/12. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2012)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
8
MARGARET REYES,
Plaintiff,
9
vs.
10
11
Northern District of California
United States District Court
12
SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Defendant.
13
Case No.: 11-cv-04628-YGR
ORDER (1) REQUIRING JOINT STIPULATION
REGARDING EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH
SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND
(2) STRIKING DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL
FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (DKT. NOS. 95-3 TO
112)
14
15
With respect to the pending summary judgment motions on the Counterclaim, the parties have
16
submitted a [Corrected] Joint Statement of Undisputed Material Facts Re Motion for Summary
17
Judgment With Supporting Evidence. (Dkt. No. 81 “Joint Separate Statement”).) All of the
18
underlying evidence cited in the Joint Separate Statement is attached en masse to the statement itself.
19
This violates Civ. L.R. 7-5(a), which requires that evidentiary matters, including deposition
20
transcripts, be appropriately authenticated by affidavit or declaration. The Court’s Standing Order
21
regarding summary judgment motions does not create an exception to Civ. L.R. 7-5(a), nor did the
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Court indicate at the pre-summary judgment motion conference that evidence should be attached in
this manner.
However, because the Joint Separate Statement was submitted jointly, the parties are directed
to submit a joint stipulation confirming that there is no dispute over the authenticity of the documents
attached and that the facts presented in the statement are supported by admissible evidence. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56. This joint stipulation shall be filed no later than Monday, July 30, 2012 at 12:00 p.m.
1
With respect to the pending summary judgment motion on the Complaint, Defendant has
2
improperly attached underlying evidence in support of its motion directly to its Separate Statement of
3
Undisputed Material Facts in Support of the Motion in violation of Civ. L.R.7-5(a). (Dkt. Nos. 95-3
4
to 112 (“Defendant’s Separate Statement”).) As noted above, evidentiary matters, including
5
deposition transcripts, must be appropriately authenticated by affidavit or declaration. Civ. L.R. 7-
6
5(a). In addition, Defendant filed the Separate Statement as eighteen different docket entries, with
7
certain entries containing merely one or two pages. Defendant should contact the ECF HelpDesk if it
8
is unclear how to upload or link documents on ECF in a more efficient manner, or the Courtroom
9
Deputy for other questions.
10
The Court hereby STRIKES Defendant’s Separate Statement and the underlying evidence
Northern District of California
attached en masse at Dkt. Nos. 95-3 to 112. Defendant must re-file its Separate Statement with a
12
United States District Court
11
declaration attaching underlying evidence, as exhibits, no later than Monday, July 30, 2012 at 12:00
13
p.m. Defendant’s Separate Statement must include both references to the declaration and
14
corresponding exhibit, in addition to the current citations it has included referencing the deponent’s
15
name—e.g., Maylin Decl., Ex. A (Sagastume Depo 45:18–19). Chambers copies of the corrected
16
items must be received by Chambers no later than Tuesday, July 31, 2012 at 12:00 p.m.
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
Dated: July 26, 2012
_________________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?