McGibney et al v. Retzlaff

Filing 78

ORDER re Motions: 72 MOTION Strike Plaintiffs' Opposition to Anti-SLAPP Motion is DENIED; 73 MOTION to Appear by Telephone is DENIED; 74 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply and For Additional Pages is GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN P ART; 76 Emergency MOTION to Seal Case is DENIED without prejudice. Page 26 of Plaintiffs' Opposition 69 is STRICKEN, preserving the signature. The deadline for Defendant's Reply is extended to 10/24/2014, no excess pages permitted. Signed by Hon. Beth Labson Freeman on 10/17/2014. (blflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

JAMES MCGIBNEY, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-01059-BLF

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER RE MOTIONS

9
10

THOMAS RETZLAFF, et al.,

[Re: ECF 72, 73, 74, 76]

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Before the Court are several administrative motions filed by pro se defendant Thomas

14

Retzlaff. ECF 72, 73, 74, 76. Plaintiffs oppose one of these motions. Pl.’s Opp., ECF 75.

15

Having considered the written submissions of all parties, the Court rules as follows:

16

Defendant’s “Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Anti-SLAPP Motion for Rules

17

Violations,” ECF 72, is DENIED. Any prejudice from Plaintiffs’ delay in filing their opposition

18

during a time when the electronic filing system was out of service can be remedied by an

19

extension of time for Defendant to file his reply. Plaintiffs’ 26-page “Opposition to Defendant

20

Thomas Retzlaff’s Special Motion to Strike,” ECF 69, exceeds the page limits set forth in the

21

Civil Local Rules. As such, the Court STRIKES page 26 of Plaintiffs’ brief, preserving the

22

signature.

23

Defendant’s “Request for Telephonic Appearance at Motion Hearing,” ECF 73, wherein

24

Defendant seeks to appear by telephone at the November 20, 2014 and January 22, 2015 hearings

25

on Defendant’s motions is DENIED.

26

Defendant’s “Administrative Motion to Extend Time to File Reply to Plaintiffs’ Anti-

27

SLAPP Response and Request for Increase in Page Length,” ECF 74, is GRANTED IN PART and

28

DENIED IN PART. Defendant’s request for an extension of time in which to file his reply is

1

GRANTED, and the reply shall be due on or by October 24, 2014. Defendant’s request for

2

excess pages is DENIED.

3

Defendant’s “Administrative Motion to Seal the Record from Public View,” ECF 76, is

4

DENIED without prejudice. Requests to seal court records must identify the specific documents

5

or portions of documents sought to be sealed, be accompanied by a declaration setting forth

6

compelling reasons for sealing, and be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.

7

See generally Civ. L.R. 79-5. This denial is without prejudice to Defendant re-filing an

8

administrative motion to seal that specifically identifies the portions of the record sought to be

9

sealed and otherwise complies with the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 17, 2014
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2