Tateyama v. AT&T, Inc. et al

Filing 40

ORDER denying Defendants' 29 Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/5/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8

BILLY Y. TATEYAMA,

9
10
11

2:11-CV-835 JCM (CWH)

Plaintiff,
v.
AT&T, INC., et al.,

12
13

Defendants.

14

ORDER

15

Presently, before the court is defendants AT&T Inc. and AT&T Savings and Security Plan’s

16

motion for summary judgment. (Doc. #29). Plaintiff Billy Y. Tateyama has filed an opposition (doc.

17

#35) to which defendants have replied (doc. #38).

18

Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the

19

nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to

20

judgment as a matter of law. Bagdadi v. Nazar, 84 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1996); FED. R. CIV.

21

P. 56©). The moving party bears the burden of presenting authenticated evidence to demonstrate

22

the absence of any genuine issue of material fact for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,

23

323 (1986); see Orr v. Bank of America, 285 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2002) (articulating the standard for

24

authentication of evidence on a motion for summary judgment).

25

Whereas the defendants have failed to authenticate any of the evidence provided to support

26

the motion for summary judgment under the standards set forth in Orr, the court declines to consider

27

the merits of the motion at this time.

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendants’ motion for

3
4

summary judgment (doc. #29) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without prejudice.
DATED March 5, 2012.

5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-