Yphantides v. County of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a motion for summary judgment where the parties failed to cite specific exhibit numbers for the evidence referenced in their briefs and statements of facts. The court directed both parties to file amended documents with proper citations and rescheduled the hearing date.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendant is directed to file an amended motion for summary judgment and amended statement of undisputed material facts with proper exhibit citations.“Defendant is DIRECTED to file an AMENDED motion for summary judgment, (Dkt. No. 46), and an AMENDED statement of undisputed material facts, (Dkt. No. 46-2)... to include the exhibit numbers to each evidence cited no later than February 13, 2023.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the parties failed to comply with local chambers rules and general federal practice regarding the citation of evidence in summary judgment papers. By directing the filing of amended documents rather than denying the motion on procedural grounds, the court allowed the parties to cure the deficiency, which is a reasonable exercise of judicial management authority. |
Plaintiff is directed to file an amended opposition to the summary judgment motion, amended opposition to the statement of undisputed material facts, and amended additional material facts with proper exhibit citations.“Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file an AMENDED opposition to the summary judgment motion (Dkt. No. 48), AMENDED opposition to the statement of undisputed material facts, (Dkt. No. 49-6), and AMENDED additional material facts and supportive evidence, (Dkt. No. 49-5), to include the exhibit numbers to each evidence cited no later than February 13, 2023.” | agree with court Similar to the ruling against the Defendant, the court is enforcing the requirement that parties pinpoint their evidence. This ensures the court can efficiently review the record. The order is a procedural directive to cure a deficiency in the existing filings. |
The hearing on the summary judgment motion is rescheduled from February 17, 2023, to February 24, 2023.“As such, the Court reschedules the hearing on summary judgment from February 17, 2023 to February 24, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2D.” | agree with court Rescheduling the hearing is a logical consequence of requiring the parties to file amended documents by February 13, 2023. It provides the court time to review the corrected filings before the hearing. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a procedural directive based on the parties' failure to comply with local chambers rules and general federal practice regarding the citation of evidence. The court cites appropriate authority for the proposition that parties must pinpoint their evidence. The decision to order amended filings rather than ruling on the motion is a reasonable exercise of the court's management authority. The reasoning is sound and directly addresses the deficiency in the filings.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NICHOLAS YPHANTIDES, an Case No.: 21cv1575-GPC(BLM) individual, 12 ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO Plaintiff, 13 FILE AMENDED DOCUMENTS v. AND RESCHEDULING HEARING 14 DATE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, a public 15 entity and DOES 1-10 inclusive, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment where the 19 parties have wholly failed to cite to any exhibit numbers for each evidence that is cited in 20 their briefs, and most importantly in Defendant’s statement of undisputed material facts, 21 Plaintiff’s opposition to the statement of undisputed material facts, and Plaintiff’s 22 additional material facts and supporting evidence. 23 The undersigned civil chambers rules states, “[e]ach of the material fact shall be 24 followed by a reference to the supporting evidence. . . Separate statements assist the 25 Court in identification of the material facts as well as pinpointing the evidence that 26 proves those facts.” Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel’s Civil Chambers Rule; see also Orr v. 27 Bank of America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 775 (9th Cir. 2002) (“The efficient 28 1 management of judicial business mandates that parties submit evidence responsibly”) 2 (citing Huey v. UPS, Inc., 165 F.3d 1084, 1085 (7th Cir. 1999) ( “[J]udges need not paw 3 over the files without assistance from the parties.”); Nissho–Iwai Am. Corp. v. Kline, 845 4 F.2d 1300, 1307 (5th Cir. 1988) (parties must designate specific facts and their location 5 in the record when relying on deposition testimony)). 6 Here, the parties have failed to identify and pinpoint the evidence to the Court by 7 failing to cite to the exhibit numbers. See Sealing Techs. Mgmt., Inc. v. Tekon Univ. 8 Sciences, Inc., No. EDCV 06–465–VAP (OPx), 2006 WL 5878139, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 9 31, 2006) (“the parties' omissions are all the more regrettable, because the parties often 10 do not even cite to the relevant exhibit number or declarant when asserting facts”). With 11 a voluminous record,1 the Court declines to comb through over 1700 pages of motion 12 papers in search of the evidence referenced.2 13 As such, Defendant is DIRECTED to file an AMENDED motion for summary 14 judgment, (Dkt. No. 46), and an AMENDED statement of undisputed material facts, 15 (Dkt. No. 46-2), and Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file an AMENDED opposition to the 16 summary judgment motion (Dkt. No. 48), AMENDED opposition to the statement of 17 undisputed material facts, (Dkt. No. 49-6), and AMENDED additional material facts and 18 supportive evidence, (Dkt. No. 49-5), to include the exhibit numbers to each evidence 19 cited no later than February 13, 2023. As such, the Court reschedules the hearing on 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 25 26 1 In fact, on January 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice regarding docket entries nos. 48-54 indicating that due to many exhibits, it was unable to upload them on a single entry and filed them all separately. (Dkt. 27 No. 55.) 2 The Court recognizes that there are a few exhibits cited in Defendant’s reply but also many citations to 28 1 ||summary judgment from February 17, 2023 to February 24, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. in 2 Courtroom 2D. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: February 7, 2023 □□ 5 Cdr athe Cade □ 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