Free Order on Motion to Strike - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 223

Filed 11/08/2005

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Honorable Marcia S. Krieger Case No. 04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB (consolidated with Case No. 04-cv-01226-MSK-BNB) MALIK M. HASAN, M.D., an individual; and SEEME G. HASAN, an individual, Plaintiff, v. GOLDMAN SACH 1998 EXCHANGE PLACE FUND, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; GOLDMAN SACHS 1999 EXCHANGE PLACE FUND, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; GOLDMAN SACHS MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership; GOLDMAN SACHS MANAGEMENT, INC., a Delaware corporation; THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., a New York limited partnership; JOHN DOES 1-100, individual persons whose true identities are unknown; and LENDER PARTIES 1-100, business entities whose true identities are unknown, Defendants.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND FOR SANCTIONS (#221, #222)

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendants' motions (#221, #222) to strike the Plaintiffs'trial brief, for expedited consideration of the same, and for sanctions. The Court FINDS and CONCLUDES that: Expedited consideration is warranted as the two-day bench trial is scheduled to commence tomorrow. Yesterday, the Plaintiffs filed a trial brief. It fails to comply with the Court' order s regarding trial briefs, by providing superfluous information.

Case 1:04-cv-01225-MSK-BNB

Document 223

Filed 11/08/2005

Page 2 of 2

Today, the Defendants filed two motions (#221, #222) to strike the trial brief for noncompliance with the Court' order regarding trial briefs. They request, in the alternative, that s they be allowed to respond to the trial brief and that the Plaintiffs not be allowed to reply. They also ask for monetary sanctions based upon the Plaintiffs' noncompliance and because the Plaintiffs purportedly delayed preparation of the joint witness and exhibit lists. Both motions lack certification under Rule 7.1(A) and could be denied for this basis alone. However, there are several other reasons for denying the motions. The Plaintiffs have achieved no procedural or substantive advantage. The Defendants have not, in any way, been prejudiced by Plaintiffs' non-compliance. Because the Court will ignore everything that is superfluous, no remedy is warranted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Defendants'motions (#221, #222) are GRANTED to the extent that the Defendants request expedited consideration of the motions. In all other respects, the motions (#221, #222) are DENIED. Dated this 8th day of November, 2005 BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger United States District Judge

2