Free Order - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01006-RPM

Document 197

Filed 10/11/2006

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch Civil Action No. 04-cv-01006-RPM SPECIAL SITUATIONS FUND III, L.P.; SPECIAL SITUATIONS CAYMAN FUND, L.P.; SPECIAL SITUATIONS TECHNOLOGY FUND NEW, L.P.; and SPECIAL SITUATIONS TECHNOLOGY FUND II, L.P., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.

QUOVADX, INC., Defendant.

ORDER STRIKING LETTER BRIEF

On May 26, 2006, the Lead Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of the defendant' liability for alleged omissions in the Registration Statement which Quovadx filed s with the SEC in connection with the Rogue Wave exchange offer. The defendant responded to that motion on July 24, 2006, and the Lead Plaintiffs replied on August 17, 2006. On August 29, 2006, the defendant filed a notice of submission of the affidavit of Jeffrey M. Krauss, stating that the Krauss affidavit showed its ability to introduce evidence at trial disputing the Lead Plaintiffs' characterization of the findings of Quovadx' Audit Committee and Quovadx' business s s relationship with Infotech Network Group. A hearing on the motion for partial summary judgment will be held on October 23, 2006.

-1-

Case 1:04-cv-01006-RPM

Document 197

Filed 10/11/2006

Page 2 of 2

By a letter to the court dated September 21, 2006, counsel for the Lead Plaintiffs requested that the Krauss affidavit be stricken. The Lead Plaintiffs'counsel also argued in the letter that admissions in the Krauss affidavit support the entry of summary judgment in favor of the Lead Plaintiffs and that the Krauss affidavit does not create a genuine question of material fact. The letter, which was sent via electronic filing, concluded with a request that the court enter an order granting partial summary judgment in favor of the Lead Plaintiffs. The submission of a motion and brief in the form of a letter to the court is unauthorized and improper. Motions, responses, and replies must comply with D.C.Colo.LCivR 7.1. Papers presented for filing must be in the format set forth in D.C.Colo.LCiv.R 10.1. Legal arguments presented in a letter to the court will not be considered. A party wishing to supplement a response or reply should request leave of court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the letter dated September 21, 2006, from Lawrence M. Rolnick to the court [doc. 193] be stricken from the docket. Dated: October 11, 2006 BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

-2-