Williams et al v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TALIB WILLIAMS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF COR-
RECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et
al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 21-cv-09586-JST (AGT)
ORDER RE: MOTION TO STRIKE
Re: Dkt. No. 345
The Court won’t strike Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions. Plaintiffs filed that motion
on September 18, 2026. Dkt. 342. Rather than file an opposition, Defendants moved to
strike the motion on October 2, 2026. Dkt. 345. In support, they argue that Plaintiffs’ mo-
tion is untimely, both because the matter wasn’t raised “as soon as practicable” under Lo-
cal Rule 7-8(c) and because it was filed after a court-imposed deadline that applies to this
issue. Id. at 2.
Defendants don’t cite any authority for striking a spoliation motion, without further
briefing, on this basis. Each of the cases they cite on timeliness was decided after full brief-
ing. Id. at 4-6. And, as Plaintiffs note, the Local Rules require that “any evidentiary and
procedural objections to [a] motion … be contained within [a] brief or memorandum” filed
in opposition.” Civil L.R. 7-3(a).
Case 4:21-cv-09586-JST Document 354 Filed 10/16/26 Page 1 of 2

2
The undersigned concludes that the specific relief Defendants request – striking the
motion for sanctions – is unwarranted and therefore the motion to strike is denied. Instead,
Defendants should file an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion by October 30, 2026. Plaintiffs’
reply, if any, will be due seven days thereafter on November 6, 2026.
The Court also vacates the hearing currently set for October 30, 2026, on Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions. See dkts. 339 & 342. The Court will notify
the parties if it determines that a hearing on those motions is required.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 16, 2026
______________________________
Alex G. Tse
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:21-cv-09586-JST Document 354 Filed 10/16/26 Page 2 of 2