Opinion
Case No. CV 13-01934 DDP (AJWx)
07-16-2015
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' VARIOUS REQUESTS
[Dkt. Nos. 212, 216, 217]
Plaintiffs have recently filed several documents with the Court. First, there is a "request" to withdraw a document that appears to have been filed in error - it is the signature page for a declaration, but the declaration itself is missing. (Dkt. No. 212 ("request to withdraw" Dkt. No. 207-2).) Apart from being procedurally irregular - a party wishing the Court to strike a document may file a noticed motion or an ex parte application - the request is unnecessary. As Plaintiffs' document notes, the entire declaration was subsequently (and timely) filed with the Court, (Dkt. No. 211), and 207-2 is not likely to cause confusion.
Plaintiffs have also filed notices of requests under Local Rule 7-8 for Defendants' declarants to appear to be examined at the hearings on the parties' motions for summary judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 216, 217.) The rule Plaintiffs invoke, however, applies only to "motions for and orders to show cause re preliminary injunctions, motions to be relieved from default and other motions where an issue of fact is to be determined." Id. (emphasis added). A motion for summary judgment, on the other hand, is a motion for judgment as to legal questions based on the portions of the factual record as to which there is no genuine dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Thus, Local Rule 7-8 does not apply. Gorski v. I.R.S. of U.S., No. SACV 13-00594-CJC, 2014 WL 4948625, at *1, n.2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2014); Coastal Delivery Corp. v. U.S. Customs Serv., 272 F. Supp. 2d 958, 961 (C.D. Cal. 2003).
The Court therefore DENIES the request to withdraw Dkt. No. 270-2 as moot and DENIES the requests to have declarants present for examination, because Local Rule 7-8 does not apply to summary judgment motions. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 16, 2015
/s/
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge