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
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?