D.T., an individual v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Thomas J. Whelan (author)
Analysis
The court considered the defendant's motion for summary judgment but found that the parties failed to file the exhibits referenced in their briefs to the docket. The court denied the motion without prejudice and extended the pre-trial motion deadline to allow the defendant to refile the motion with proper exhibits.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied without prejudice.“Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that exhibits must be filed on the docket to be considered by the court, as per local rules and administrative policies. Denying the motion without prejudice is the appropriate procedural remedy when the record is incomplete due to a technical filing error, allowing the party to cure the defect. |
Pre-trial motion deadline is extended to July 7, 2026 for the purpose of refiling the summary judgment motion.“The pre-trial motion deadline is extended to July 7, 2026 for the sole purpose of refiling the summary judgment motion.” | agree with court Extending the deadline to allow for the correction of a procedural defect (missing exhibits) is within the court's discretion to manage the docket and ensure a fair opportunity for the parties to present their arguments. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies local rules requiring exhibits to be filed on the docket. The denial without prejudice is a standard and appropriate response to a failure to provide the necessary evidentiary record for summary judgment. The citation to Kamakana is relevant to the footnote regarding redactions, though the primary basis for the denial is the complete absence of exhibits on the docket.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 D.T., an individual, Case No.: 24cv0304-W-VET 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: (1) DENYING 13 v. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; and DOES 1 PREJUDICE [DOC. 32]; AND (2) through 25, inclusive, 15 CONTINUING PRE-TRIAL Defendant. MOTION DEADLINE 16 17 18 Before the Court is Defendant County of San Diego’s motion for summary judgment 19 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (MSJ [Doc. 32].) Plaintiff filed an 20 opposition (Opp’n [Doc. 33]) and Defendant filed a reply (Reply [Doc. 35].) The filings 21 do not include any of the exhibits referenced in the briefs. The parties only reference a 22 notice of lodgment in their papers. Exhibits must be filed on the docket. See Admin 23 Policies & Procedures Manual, § 2(g),(k),(p); Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(2), 7.1(f)(3). 24 Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 25 The pre-trial motion deadline is extended to July 7, 2026 for the sole purpose of refiling 26 the summary judgment motion. The opposition shall be filed no later than July 14, 2026 27 and the reply no later than July 21, 2026. 28 1 All exhibits referenced in the parties’ papers must be filed to the docket. To the extent 2 || the parties wish to redact specific information in their exhibits, they must file a motion to 3 and address the compelling reason standard. See Kamakana v. City and County of 4 || Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). Protective orders entered in a case are 5 || insufficient for granting a motion to seal filed in connection with a summary judgment 6 || motion. IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: June 23, 2026 \ ° 11 Hn, 7 omas J. Whelan Unted States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28