Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ncmd;;1:16-cv-01368_de81> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 9 of
9
with 100 items per page.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01368_de81 RegisterActionDate "2018-04-20" @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01368_de81 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER denying without prejudice 62 Motion to Strike. As an initial matter, Plaintiffs did not file a brief in support of 62 Motion, as required by Local Rule 7.3(a). That fact alone warrants denial of 62 Motion under Local Rule 7.3(k). Further, the rationale offered in 62 Motion for the striking of certain exhibits to 53 Declaration, i.e., Plaintiffs' prior marking of such documents as "confidential" pursuant to an agreement between the parties, does not control whether or not documents should remain part of the public record. Defendants submitted 53 Declaration in support of 52 Response to 44 Second Motion for Summary Judgment; moreover, 52 Response appears to rely on the information contained in the exhibits at issue. Striking the exhibits thus would appear to necessitate alteration of 52 Response. At a minimum, the Court cannot sort out the implications of the requested striking based on the filings made to date in 62 Motion and 63 Response. Issued by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 04/20/2019. (AULD, L.) (Entered: 04/20/2018)" @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01368_de81 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01368_de81 hasJudgeReference SJ004076 @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01368_de81 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ncmd;;1:16-cv-01368_de57 @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01368_de81 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ncmd;;1:16-cv-01368_de67 @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01368_de81 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ncmd;;1:16-cv-01368_de68 @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01368_de81 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ncmd;;1:16-cv-01368_de78 @default.
- ncmd;;1:16-cv-01368_de81 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ncmd;;1:16-cv-01368_de79 @default.