Briggs v. Blomkamp et al

Filing 73

ORDER re 63 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Steve Kenyatta Wilson Briggs. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 8/4/2014. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

STEVE WILSON BRIGGS,
Plaintiff,

8
9

v.

ORDER

NEILL BLOMKAMP, et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 13-4679 PJH

Defendants.
_______________________________/

12
13

Plaintiff Steve Wilson Briggs filed a motion for summary judgment on July 30, 2014.

14

The court previously advised plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, of the requirements of

15

summary judgment motions. See First Notice of Filing of Motion for Summary Judgment

16

(Doc. 38) filed April 17, 2014. Of particular relevance here, the Notice advised that motions

17

for summary judgment must be properly supported by specific facts set forth in

18

declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents. See

19

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). If a party fails to comply with this requirement, the court may "provide

20

the party an opportunity to properly support or address the fact." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).

21
22

Plaintiff's motion consists of a memorandum of points and authorities, to which is

23

attached fifteen exhibits. One of the exhibits consists of four declarations, which can stand

24

on their own. However, the remaining exhibits do not constitute admissible evidence either

25

because they are not authenticated or because they are not attached to a proper request

26

for judicial notice. "A trial court can only consider admissible evidence in ruling on a motion

27

for summary judgment." Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir.

28

2002). "Authentication is a 'condition precedent to admissibility." Id. "To satisfy the

1

requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must

2

produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it

3

is." Fed. R. Evid. 901(a).

4

In a summary judgment motion, documents and other evidence may be

5

authenticated through personal knowledge, if they are attached to an affidavit or declaration

6

that meets the requirements of Rule 56(c) (affidavit or declaration made on personal

7

knowledge, setting out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and showing that the

8

affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated). That is, the declaration

9

must identify the document or other evidence, and must state that the declarant has
personal knowledge of the document.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Alternatively, for matters that are subject to judicial notice – those "generally known

12

within the trial court's jurisdiction," and those that "can accurately and readily be

13

determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned" – the

14

documents may be attached to a separate request for judicial notice. See Fed. R. Evid.

15

201.

16

No later than August 6, 2014, plaintiff must file a declaration under penalty of perjury

17

authenticating the documents attached to the complaint, or as to any that are subject to

18

judicial notice, a request for judicial notice.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated: August 4, 2014
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2