CES Group, LLC v. Energy Labs, Inc et al

Filing 255

ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 6/30/2016. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
NORTEK AIR SOLUTIONS, LLC,

7

Case No. 14-cv-02919-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS IN
LIMINE

9
DMG CORPORATION, et al.,

10

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Defendants’ chambers copies of their motions in limine, oppositions to Plaintiff’s motions

13
14

in limine, and corresponding exhibits do not comply with the Court’s standing order regarding

15

under seal documents. The Court’s standing order states:

16

If a filing contains documents that are sealed in whole or in part, the
chambers copy of the filing must include a complete set of documents in
unredacted form so that chambers staff does not have to reassemble the
whole brief or declaration. The chambers copy should indicate via
highlighting which portions of the documents are sealed.

17
18
19
20

Standing Order Re Civil Case 6, available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/filelibrary/1668/Stand
ing-Order-Re-Civil-Cases-FINAL-April-12-2.pdf.1

21
22
23

Accordingly, if Defendants would like the Court to review their exhibits, they shall
promptly submit one complete and unredacted set of their motions in limine, oppositions to
Plaintiff’s motions in limine, and corresponding exhibits. The set should be as follows: motion in

24
25
26
27
28

1

For example, Defendants did not submit one complete set of documents of the briefing and
exhibits but instead submitted different sets containing unredacted and redacted copies, requiring
chambers to re-assemble the documents. Furthermore, instead of including numbered tabs with
the exhibit numbers, Defendants included numbered tabs with the ECF docket numbers. The
Court is unable to consider Defendants’ exhibits because the motions reference exhibits submitted
with different exhibit numbers. The Court also notes that some exhibits did not print properly,
such as Exhibit 11 to Defendants’ motion in limine no. 1.

1

limine no. 1 along with its corresponding exhibits separated by tabs with exhibit numbers that

2

correspond to the exhibit numbers referenced in the motion; motion in limine no. 2 along with its

3

corresponding exhibits separated by tabs with exhibit numbers that correspond to the exhibit

4

numbers referenced in the motion and so on and so forth.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 30, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

9
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
2