Morris v. Merck & Co., Inc.

Full title: WINIFRED MORRIS, Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC., et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, S.D. California

Date published: Dec 21, 2006

Civil 06CV2159-L(NLS) (S.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2006)

Opinion

WINIFRED MORRIS, Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC., et al., Defendants. Civil No. 06CV2159-L(NLS) United States District Court, S.D. California. December 21, 2006

          ORDER STRIKING DOCUMENT FROM THE RECORD

          M. JAMES LORENZ, District Judge

         On December 19, 2006, Defendant Merck & Co., Inc. ("Merck") e-filed its Notice of Motion and Motion to Stay All Proceedings Pending a Decision on Transfer by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. ( See docket no. 7.) This document is rejected and stricken from the record because it violates Civil Local Rule 7.1 and Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual ("E-Filing Manual") Sec. 2(g). Merck notices January 16, 2007 as the hearing date for its motion to stay. Although Plaintiff obtained this hearing date for a motion to remand, which was subsequently filed, Merck has not obtained any hearing date for its motion to stay, as required by Civil Local Rule 7.1(b) and E-Filing Manual Sec. 2(g). The Clerk of the Court is instructed to STRIKE FROM THE RECORD Defendant Merck & Co., Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Motion to Stay All Proceedings Pending a Decision on Transfer by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, filed December 19, 2006 (docket no. 8). Any further failure to comply with the Civil Local Riles or the E-Filing Manual may result in sanctions.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.