Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

DCD Partners, LLC v. Transamerica Life Insurance Co.

United States District Court, C.D. California

July 11, 2017

DCD PARTNERS, LLC
v.
TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Portions to be Sealed

          Present: Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER Judge

          CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

         Proceedings:(IN CHAMBERS) - DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDMENT (Filed January 27, 2017, Dkt. 145)

         (IN CHAMBERS) - PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION TO FILE NOTICE OF ERRATA UNDER SEAL (Filed July 7, 2017, Dkt. 234)

         (IN CHAMBERS) - PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION TO FILE SECOND NOTIVE OF ERRATA UNDER SEAL (Filed July 10, 2017, Dkt. 239)

         The Court is in receipt of plaintiffs' application to file a notice of errata under seal, dkt. 234 (the "Application"), and the redacted notice of errata, dkt. 236. The Court is also in receipt of plaintiffs' application to file a supplemental notice of errata under seal, dkt. 239 (the "Second Application"), and the redacted second notice of errata, dkt. 241.

         Upon review of the Application and the supporting Declaration of Maxwell D. Herman, the Court hereby finds compelling reason to grant the Application. The Application is hereby GRANTED. The following shall be filed under seal:

Document

Portions to be Sealed

Exhibit 2

Pages 23-24, 26-28, 91-93, 119-120, 182

Exhibit 3

Pages 28 and 123

Exhibit 4

Pages 57-61: 70-71; 83; 127-129

Exhibit 45

" Page 169

Exhibit 48

Entire document.

Exhibit 49

I Pages 29, 37, 62-63, 66

Exhibit 52

J Entire document.

         Upon review of the Second Application and the supporting Declaration of Maxwell D. Herman, the Court hereby finds compelling reason to grant the Second Application. The Second Application is hereby GRANTED. The following shall be filed under seal:

Document

Portions to be Sealed

Exhibit 2

Rough: pages 23-24, 26-28, 51, 91-93, 119-120, 182, 191- 192 Final: pages 27-29, 30-34, 56-57, 97-100, 126-128, 192- 193, 201-203

Exhibit 3

Rough: pages 28 and 123 Final: pages 30-31 and 128-129

Exhibit 4

Pages 57-61: 70-71: 83: 127-129

Exhibit 45

Page 169

Exhibit 49

Pages 29, 37, 62-63, 66

Exhibit 52

Entire document.

         On January 27, 2017, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 145. On June 17, 2017, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 210. Defendant has already filed its reply, dkt. 230, and the matter is scheduled for oral argument on July 17, 2017.

         The Court has reviewed plaintiffs' notice of errata and plaintiffs' second notice of errata. Plaintiffs' first notice of errata is directed at errors resulting from a computer malfunction the day before plaintiffs' opposition to the motion for summary judgment was due to be filed. Defendant objects to consideration of plaintiffs' notice of errata because defendant has already filed its reply in support of the summary judgment motion and the notice of errata was filed nearly three weeks after plaintiffs' opposition. Dkt. 237. Plaintiffs appear to acknowledge that the first notice of errata was filed in order to correct omissions in plaintiffs' opposition pointed out by defendants in their reply. Plaintiffs' second notice of errata appears to be directed at errors and omissions pointed out in defendant's objection to the first notice of errata.

         Defendant argues that the Court should not consider plaintiffs first errata because it is an improper attempt to circumvent the prohibition upon filing a sur-reply without leave. Although the second notice of errata was only just filed yesterday, the Court anticipates a similar objection to plaintiffs' second notice of errata. At bottom, plaintiffs have repeatedly supplemented and altered the substance of their opposition to summary judgment and exhibits thereto each time that defendant points out deficiencies that may affect the merits of its motion for summary judgment. The corrections are minor, but should not have required two notice of errata three weeks after plaintiffs' original opposition was filed. To help ensure that the merits of defendant's summary judgment motion are decided based upon the evidence notwithstanding plaintiffs' counsel's errors, the Court will consider the filings in relation to both errata; however, plaintiffs will not be permitted to file additional briefing or errata to their opposition. Defendant requests an opportunity to file further briefing in response to the information, exhibits, and argument contained in the errata because defendant was unable to do so in its reply brief. The Court finds this alternative proposal to be appropriate.

         The July 17, 2017 hearing on defendant's motion for summary judgment is hereby continued to July 31, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. Defendant shall file any further briefing, not to exceed 10 pages, regarding evidence, information, or arguments raised in plaintiffs' two errata no later than July 18, 2017. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.