H. Keith Henson P.O. Box 60012 Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 423-4040 (pager) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a ) Case No. C-96-20271RM ) California non-profit corporation, ) Plaintiff, ) EX-PARTE MOTION TO ) SHORTEN TIME AND v. ) TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S ) OPPOSITION TO EX-PARTE H. KEITH HENSON, an individual, ) REQUEST . . . AND ) REQUEST TO STRIKE ) (DEFENDANT'S) EXHIBITS Defendant. ) . . . . ___________________________________) In the guise of a "request to strike" RTC has violated the procedural rules by filing a impermissible Sur-Reply to a previous motion as part of an Ex-Parte reply. Alternately, the second paragraph could be construed as a motion to strike. In that case proper notice was not given which is also a violation of the rules. Indeed, "rather than burden the Court with yet another separate filing," RTC has elected to burden a pro se defendant with a motion which is improper and, since it lacks a briefing schedule, cannot properly be opposed (1). ----------------------- FN 1 Defendant certainly could opposed the motion to strike--using reasons contained within RTC's filing--but believes that to do so here would improper under the rules. ------------------------ Defendant therefore requests the court strike and disregard the entire RTC Ex-Parte reply due to violation of the rules. Whatever remedy the court shapes for this violation of the rules, defendant request that it be considered co-terminal in time with decision of the court on the Rule 60(b) motion. Respectfully submitted, H. Keith Henson, pro se, May 7, 2000