Oseguera v. Zhu, 17-cv-03252-PJH. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20191206b33
Visitors: 4
Filed: Dec. 04, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 04, 2019
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS Re: Dkt. No. 81. PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON , District Judge . Plaintiff Alfonso Oseguera and Joaquin Ibarra's ("plaintiffs") motion for evidentiary sanctions came on for hearing before this court on November 27, 2019. Plaintiffs appeared through their counsel, Natalia Ramirez Lee and Hector R. Martinez. Defendants Longhua Zhu and Fusan Corporation ("defendants") appeared through their counsel, Danning Jiang. Having read the papers filed
Summary: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS Re: Dkt. No. 81. PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON , District Judge . Plaintiff Alfonso Oseguera and Joaquin Ibarra's ("plaintiffs") motion for evidentiary sanctions came on for hearing before this court on November 27, 2019. Plaintiffs appeared through their counsel, Natalia Ramirez Lee and Hector R. Martinez. Defendants Longhua Zhu and Fusan Corporation ("defendants") appeared through their counsel, Danning Jiang. Having read the papers filed ..
More
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS
Re: Dkt. No. 81.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, District Judge.
Plaintiff Alfonso Oseguera and Joaquin Ibarra's ("plaintiffs") motion for evidentiary sanctions came on for hearing before this court on November 27, 2019. Plaintiffs appeared through their counsel, Natalia Ramirez Lee and Hector R. Martinez. Defendants Longhua Zhu and Fusan Corporation ("defendants") appeared through their counsel, Danning Jiang. Having read the papers filed by the parties and carefully considering their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS plaintiffs' motion as stated on the record and specified in this order. Pursuant to the court's inherent authority, defendants are precluded from offering any documents reflecting rounded time entries for purpose of any litigation proceeding, including summary judgment and trial. Defendants may still offer non-documentary evidence concerning the actual time worked, including written declarations on summary judgment and oral testimony at trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
