Finisar Corporation v. Nistica, Inc.

Filing 336

ORDER DENYING 331 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 11/24/2015. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/24/2015)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
FINISAR CORPORATION,

7

Case No. 13-cv-03345-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
NISTICA, INC.,

10

Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[Re: ECF 331]

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to strike portions of Defendant’s motion for

14

summary judgment. ECF 331. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment

15

violates the Court’s Standing Order by incorporating by reference arguments contained in the

16

Goossen Declaration. Pl.’s Mot. at 2, 4-5, ECF 331-3. Plaintiff also claims that Defendant

17

violated Civil L.R. 7-4(a)(5) by failing to cite legal authority regarding the legal standard to

18

support several of its grounds for summary judgment. Id. at 5. Defendant counters that it did not

19

incorporate by reference any legal arguments into its brief and that it complied with Civil L.R. 7-

20

4(a)(5).1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) allows a party to move for summary judgment or partial summary

21
22

judgment and to identify each claim on which summary judgment is sought. Under Fed. R. Civ.

23

P. 56(c)(1)(A), a party may supports its factual positions by “citing to particular parts of materials

24

in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or

25

declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions,

26
1

27
28

Plaintiff also argued that Defendant’s separate statement of facts violated the Court’s standing
order. On November 23, 2015, Defendant submitted an amended separate statement of facts.
ECF 334. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff’s argument with respect to Defendant’s separate
statement of facts MOOT.

1

interrogatory answers, or other materials.” Civil L.R. 7-5(a) further provides that “[f]actual

2

contentions made in support of or in opposition to any motion must be supported by an affidavit or

3

declaration and by appropriate references to the record.”

4

Plaintiff has not shown Defendant improperly incorporated by reference legal arguments

5

into its motion for summary judgment. While Plaintiff notes that Defendant’s motion for

6

summary judgment included citations to the record that span sixty nine pages, Plaintiff has not

7

explained how the cited material contains legal arguments as opposed to evidence in support of

8

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(a). When moving for

9

summary judgment, a party is allowed to support its position by citing to declarations and other
evidence in the record and accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to strike portions of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment for allegedly incorporating by reference legal

12

arguments.

13

Although the Court is not striking Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the Court

14

notes that the purpose of a summary judgment motion is to identify and argue issues that have a

15

real potential to streamline litigation. Parties should not take a “kitchen sink” approach to

16

summary judgment motions where every conceivable ground for summary judgment is included in

17

the motion. To the extent parties do not strategically plan their summary judgment motions and

18

instead make sparse arguments, fail to explain their position, or cite to voluminous portions of the

19

record, this may be reason to deny the summary judgment motion. See Albrechtsen v. Bd. Of

20

Regents of Univ. of Wisconsin Sys., 309 F.3d 433, 436 (7th Cir. 2002) (“Courts are entitled to

21

assistance from counsel, and an invitation to search without guidance is no more useful than a

22

litigant’s request to a district court at the summary judgment stage to paw through the assembled

23

discovery material. Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in the record.”).

24

With respect to Defendant’s alleged violation of Civil L.R. 7-4(a)(5), the rule provides

25

that a party must cite “pertinent authorities” in support of arguments made in briefing. Plaintiff,

26

relying on Martinez v. County of Sonoma, 15-CV-01953-JST, 2015 WL 5354071, at *7 (N.D. Cal.

27

Sept. 14, 2015), contends that Defendant failed to set forth its legal position in its motion for

28

summary judgment. In Martinez, the Court denied one ground of a motion to dismiss because
2

1

“[d]efendants neither provide[d] legal authority nor advance[d] any argument for this request.” As

2

in Martinez, the Court finds that to the extent Defendant’s legal authority is insufficient, that may

3

be grounds for denying, not striking, the summary judgment motion. Accordingly, the Court

4

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to strike portions of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment for

5

allegedly violating Civil L.R. 7-4(a)(5).

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

Dated: November 24, 2015
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3