Zendar Inc. v. Hanks
- Jeffrey White
- 4:20-cv-03391
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Zendar Inc. v. Hanks, Judge White declined to consider late filings, conditionally sealed them, and ordered a response on whether they should remain sealed.
Zendar Inc. and Christopher Hanks, particularly the handling of Hanks’s late submissions and the documents conditionally filed under seal.
What happened
In Zendar Inc. v. Hanks, Defendant Christopher Hanks submitted four documents after the deadline for opposing Zendar Inc.’s motion to enforce a settlement agreement. The Court treated one document, a request for damages, as a supplemental opposition brief despite its late filing.
The Court did not consider the remaining documents because they were filed after the briefing had closed and Hanks had not requested permission to file an additional brief. The Court conditionally filed the documents under seal and ordered Zendar Inc. to explain why they should remain sealed; Zendar could instead provide redacted versions.
Zendar Inc.’s response was due August 28, 2020. Judge Jeffrey White issued the order on August 14, 2020.
The detailed version
- Zendar Inc. v. Hanks · No. 4:20-cv-03391
- Jeffrey White
- Aug. 14, 2020
Background
The Court received four additional submissions from Defendant Christopher Hanks between July 29 and August 10, 2020. Hanks was representing himself. The Court considered his July 24 document titled “request for damages” as a supplemental opposition brief to Zendar Inc.’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement, even though it was filed one day after the opposition deadline.
The other submissions were filed after Hanks’s opposition was due and after Zendar Inc. filed its reply, so briefing on the motion to enforce had closed. Hanks did not seek permission to file an additional brief. The Court stated that, although Hanks was representing himself, he was still required to follow the same procedural rules as other litigants.
Rulings
The Court did not consider the remaining documents in connection with the pending motion to enforce the settlement agreement. It conditionally filed the documents under seal and ordered Zendar Inc. to show why they should remain sealed. If Zendar believed redacted versions should be filed, the Court directed it to provide those versions with its response.
Zendar Inc.’s response to the order concerning sealing was due August 28, 2020. Judge Jeffrey White signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.