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)

Download PDF
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

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?