Yphantides v. County of San Diego

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: February 7, 2023
• Docket: 3:21-cv-01575
• Status: Unknown

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