Gonzalez-Lopez et al v. Municipality of San Juan et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
Monica E. González-Lopez, et al
Plaintiffs,
v.
Municipality of San Juan, et al
Defendants.
CIVIL NO. 23-1278 (RAM)
OPINION & ORDER
Pending 	before 	the 	Court 	are 	four 	filings 	by 	Defendants
Alberto 	Robles-Concepcion 	(“Robles”), 	Emmanuel 	Ramos-Pabón
(“Ramos”), 	the 	Municipality 	of 	San 	Juan 	(the 	“Municipality”),
Mayor 	Miguel 	Romero, 	and 	former 	Commissioner 	Juan 	J. 	García
(collectively, the “Defendants”), all arguing that various motions
should 	be 	stricken 	and 	that 	the 	Court 	ought 	to 	deem 	Defendants’
summary 	judgment 	filings 	“unopposed.” 	More 	specifically, 	all
Defendants filed a Motion to Strike at Docket No. 306 and a second
Motion to Strike at Docket No. 314. Moreover, Ramos filed a Motion
Opposing 	Amendment 	of 	Complaint 	combined 	with 	a 	Motion 	to 	Strike
at 	Docket 	No. 	330. 	Lastly, 	Robles 	filed 	yet 	another 	Motion 	to
Strike at Docket No. 340.
The 	Court 	DENIES 	in 	their 	entirety 	Defendants’ 	Motions 	to
Strike at Docket Nos. 306, 314, and 340. The Court DENIES IN PART
Case 3:23-cv-01278-RAM Document 387 Filed 04/08/26 Page 1 of 10

Civil No. 23-1278 (RAM) 	2
and 	GRANTS 	IN 	PART 	Ramos’ 	Motion 	to 	Strike 	at 	Docket 	No. 	330 	and
RESERVES 	its 	amendment-through-argument 	issues 	for 	later
adjudication.
I. 	THE PROCEDURAL IMPASSE
The suit arises from the tragic death of Plaintiffs Monica E.
González-Lopez 	and 	José 	L. 	Rodríguez-Sanchez 	(collectively,
“Plaintiffs”)’s 	son, 	Christian 	José 	Rodríguez-González, 	who 	was
shot 	and 	killed 	during 	a 	police 	chase 	carried 	out 	by 	Robles 	and
Ramos 	on 	July 	15, 	2022. 	(Docket 	No. 	52 	¶ 	15). 	Plaintiffs 	filed
suit 	on 	May 	30, 	2023, 	and 	then 	filed 	an 	Amended 	Complaint 	on
September 	18, 	2024. 	(Docket 	Nos. 	1 	and 	52). 	However, 	the 	present
dispute 	has 	nothing 	to 	do 	with 	the 	merits 	of 	the 	case 	and
everything 	to 	do 	with 	a 	head-spinning 	filing 	dispute. 	In 	brief,
the current docket impasse stems from Defendants having chosen to
file Replies to Plaintiffs’ Responses before some of the material
relevant 	to 	the 	Responses 	was 	actually 	refiled. 	See 	(Docket 	Nos.
200, 201, 202, 204, 272).
On 	November 	24, 	2025, 	Defendants 	moved 	for 	summary 	judgment
in three separate filings. (Docket Nos. 209, 224, 226). On December
7, 	2025, 	Plaintiffs 	filed 	sealed 	versions 	of 	three 	Responses 	to
Defendants’ 	three 	Motions 	for 	Summary 	Judgment, 	as 	well 	as 	two
additional docket entries purporting to contain exhibits. (Docket
Nos. 255, 256, 257, 258, 259).
Case 3:23-cv-01278-RAM Document 387 Filed 04/08/26 Page 2 of 10

Civil No. 23-1278 (RAM) 	3
On 	the 	same 	day, 	Plaintiffs 	sent 	Defendants 	an 	email 	that
included 	many, 	but 	not 	all, 	of 	the 	documents 	filed 	under 	seal.
(Docket 	No. 	369). 	While 	Plaintiffs 	submitted 	their 	briefing 	and
Statement 	of 	Facts 	to 	Defendants, 	they 	acknowledge 	now 	that 	they
inadvertently 	did 	not 	attach 	the 	exhibits. 	Id. 	at 	2 	(“[h]owever,
we mistakenly did not send copy to the codefendants of the exhibits
filed with restrictions at DE258, which supported our Statement of
Facts 	in 	opposition 	to 	codefendants’ 	summary 	judgment 	motions”).
Moreover, Plaintiffs apparently failed to precisely identify which
docket 	entry 	each 	email 	attachment 	corresponded 	to. 	See 	(Docket
No. 306 at 1-2).
The 	Court 	does 	not 	condone 	Plaintiffs’ 	counsel’s 	piecemeal
and 	imprecise 	filing 	practices, 	which 	certainly 	bear 	some
responsibility 	for 	complicating 	an 	already 	dense 	procedural
posture. 	Nevertheless, 	given 	the 	attachments’ 	file 	names 	and
contents, 	identifying 	the 	corresponding 	docket 	entry 	should 	have
been a largely intuitive exercise. See (Docket No. 311 at 2) (“each
document contains a self-explanatory title”). As a matter of fact,
Defendants 	did 	successfully 	discern 	the 	appropriate 	docket
referent of each document for which an entry existed, as outlined
in 	their 	first 	Motion 	to 	Strike. 	Id. 	at 	1-3. 	Moreover, 	while
Plaintiffs failed to email the exhibits to Defendants, Defendants
would have been able to infer from the exhibit names on PACER that
they were largely a duplication of the attachments to Plaintiffs’
Case 3:23-cv-01278-RAM Document 387 Filed 04/08/26 Page 3 of 10

Civil No. 23-1278 (RAM) 	4
summary 	judgment 	filing 	at 	Docket 	No. 	216. 	That 	Defendants 	could
derive this information via PACER is evident, for example, in the
Municipality’s 	explanation 	of 	how 	it 	set 	about 	replying 	to
Plaintiffs’ incomplete Opposition. (Docket No. 293 at 2-4).
At 	this 	point, 	Plaintiffs’ 	faulty 	filing 	sequence 	produced
the 	present 	procedural 	logjam. 	Plaintiffs 	advised 	the 	Court 	in 	a
same-day filing that two of their sealed submissions, including of
the 	exhibits 	relevant 	to 	all 	three 	of 	their 	responses, 	need 	not
have 	been 	filed 	under 	seal. 	(Docket 	No. 	260). 	The 	Court 	granted
them leave to refile these documents by December 19, 2025. (Docket
No. 	272). 	Unfortunately, 	this 	new 	deadline 	of 	December 	19
conflicted 	with 	Defendants’ 	obligation 	to 	file 	their 	Replies 	to
the Responses by December 17. See (Docket Nos. 200, 201, 202, 204).
Defendants 	chose 	not 	to 	bring 	this 	timing 	conflict 	to 	the
Court’s attention. Defendants did not seek a short extension that
would 	have 	allowed 	them 	to 	review 	the 	refiled 	Statement 	of 	Facts
and 	Plaintiffs’ 	version 	of 	the 	exhibits--which 	were 	largely 	a
duplication of their summary judgment exhibits anyway.
Instead, 	Defendants 	simply 	filed 	their 	Replies 	on 	December
17, 	2025. 	(Docket 	Nos. 	287, 	289, 	290, 	291, 	293, 	294). 	Therein,
they 	occasionally 	argue 	that 	Plaintiffs’ 	sealed 	filings 	and
incomplete 	service 	deprive 	them 	of 	the 	benefit 	of 	clearly 	being
able to tell which exhibits are referred to. Id. That difficulty,
while real in a limited way, did not arise from a total ignorance
Case 3:23-cv-01278-RAM Document 387 Filed 04/08/26 Page 4 of 10

Civil No. 23-1278 (RAM) 	5
of 	the 	filings 	that 	Defendants 	now 	feign. 	It 	emerged 	from
Defendants’ 	conscious 	choice 	to 	proceed 	with 	their 	Replies 	while
aware that the Court had afforded their adversaries a new refiling
deadline.
II. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	The Motion to Strike at Docket No. 306
Defendants 	request 	that 	“this 	Honorable 	Court 	should 	not
consider 	the 	documents 	filed 	in 	Docket 	No. 	301 	in 	its 	evaluation
of Codefendant’s [sic] Replies since, at the moment those replies
were 	drafted 	and 	due, 	the 	codefendants 	had 	not 	been 	notified 	of
said documents.” (Docket No. 306 at 4) (emphasis in original).
The Court approaches Defendants’ requests with an eye toward
resolving 	the 	procedural 	impasse 	in 	an 	efficient 	and 	just 	manner
and 	in 	the 	exercise 	of 	its 	broad 	docket 	management 	authority.
“[D]istrict 	courts 	have 	the 	inherent 	authority 	to 	manage 	their
dockets 	and 	courtrooms 	with 	a 	view 	toward 	the 	efficient 	and
expedient resolution of cases.” Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 47
(2016). The Court has reviewed the exhibits submitted by Plaintiffs
in 	compliance 	with 	the 	December 	19 	deadline 	for 	the 	refiling 	of
Docket 	No. 	258. 	(Docket 	No. 	301). 	They 	are 	largely 	identical 	to
documents already a part of the record of the case. For instance,
the 	deposition 	of 	Commissioner 	García 	at 	Docket 	No. 	301-1 	is
available 	in 	a 	substantially 	similar 	form 	as 	an 	attachment 	to
Plaintiffs’ 	summary 	judgment 	filing 	at 	Docket 	No. 	216-1. 	The
Case 3:23-cv-01278-RAM Document 387 Filed 04/08/26 Page 5 of 10

Civil No. 23-1278 (RAM) 	6
deposition of Captain Juan Jesús Torres-Sánchez at Docket No. 301-
2 	is 	available 	as 	an 	attachment 	to 	Plaintiffs’ 	summary 	judgment
filing 	at 	Docket 	No. 	216-2. 	The 	Division 	of 	Public 	Integrity 	and
Office of the Comptroller’s Affairs (“DIPAC”) report at Docket No.
301-17 is merely a shortened version of the DIPAC report submitted
by 	Defendant 	Ramos 	himself 	at 	Docket 	No. 	210-8. 	The 	same 	applies
to the thirteen other exhibits tacked onto Docket No. 301--each is
almost 	identical 	to 	(and 	often 	a 	copy 	of) 	an 	exhibit 	from
Plaintiffs’ summary judgment filing at Docket No. 216.
In sum, the exhibits Defendants claim they did not see before
filing 	their 	Replies 	were 	largely 	retrievable 	from 	an 	earlier
summary 	judgment 	filing. 	Any 	differences 	between 	the 	attached
documents 	are 	minor 	and 	not 	so 	grave 	as 	to 	require 	the 	wholesale
striking of Plaintiffs’ oppositions. Thus, Defendants’ claim that
they “had to draft and file [their Replies] without being able to
review said documents” is overblown. (Docket No. 306 at 4).
Defendants 	did 	not 	suffer 	material 	prejudice. 	Moreover,
having 	elected 	to 	press 	ahead 	and 	file 	Replies 	without 	seeking 	a
brief extension, they must now live with their choices. The Court
DENIES 	Defendants’ 	Motion 	to 	Strike 	at 	Docket 	No. 	306 	in 	its
entirety.
B. 	The Motions to Strike at Docket Nos. 314, 340
Defendants 	have 	filed 	multiple 	motions 	requesting 	that
Plaintiffs’ 	Statement 	of 	Facts, 	uploaded 	at 	Docket 	No. 	310, 	be
Case 3:23-cv-01278-RAM Document 387 Filed 04/08/26 Page 6 of 10

Civil No. 23-1278 (RAM) 	7
stricken. 	(Docket 	Nos. 	314 	at 	2-5; 	340 	at 	1-4). 	According 	to
Plaintiffs, 	this 	document 	was 	mistakenly 	excluded 	from 	their
filing 	at 	Docket 	No. 	258. 	(Docket 	No. 	311 	at 	2). 	Nevertheless,
Plaintiffs 	sent 	it 	by 	email 	to 	Defendants 	on 	December 	7, 	well 	in
advance of their December 17 deadline to file Replies. (Docket No.
306 at 1-2). Moreover, Plaintiffs aver that the Statement of Facts
is, 	with 	the 	exception 	of 	five 	statements 	(out 	of 	116), 	the 	same
as the Statement of Facts submitted in Plaintiffs’ summary judgment
filing. (Docket No. 369 at 3-4).
Plaintiffs’ 	counsel 	was 	clearly 	careless 	in 	the 	course 	of
uploading documents to the docket and providing them to Defendants.
However, given that no prejudice resulted to Defendants, and given
the 	apparent 	inadvertence 	of 	Plaintiffs’ 	filing 	error, 	the 	Court
finds 	that 	striking 	Docket 	No. 	310 	would 	be 	a 	disproportionate
remedy. 	Because 	Docket 	No. 	310 	did 	not 	inject 	wholly 	unknown 	or
surprising 	material 	into 	the 	record, 	but 	rather 	belatedly
formalized 	a 	document 	that 	had 	been 	received 	by 	Defendants, 	the
Court DENIES Defendants’ Motions to Strike at Docket Nos. 314 and
340 in their entirety.
C. 	The Motion to Strike portion of Docket No. 330
Defendant Ramos requests that various of Plaintiffs’ filings
be 	stricken 	and 	that 	he 	be 	allowed 	to 	join 	some 	of 	his 	co-
defendants’ motions. (Docket No. 330). Ramos also appends a Motion
Opposing 	Amendment 	of 	Complaint 	to 	this 	filing, 	which 	contains
Case 3:23-cv-01278-RAM Document 387 Filed 04/08/26 Page 7 of 10

Civil No. 23-1278 (RAM) 	8
merits-based 	arguments 	that 	accuse 	Plaintiffs 	of 	improperly
seeking to alter their Amended Complaint through summary judgment
oppositions. 	Id. 	at 	1-2. 	The 	Court 	need 	not 	resolve 	the 	merits
argument 	at 	this 	juncture, 	as 	it 	is 	better 	addressed 	in 	the
upcoming 	disposition 	of 	Ramos 	and 	Plaintiffs’ 	cross-motions 	for
summary 	judgment. 	The 	Court 	RESERVES 	the 	amendment-through-
argument issues for later adjudication.
Now to Ramos’ procedural objections. As ruled on above, given
that 	no 	prejudice 	resulted 	to 	Ramos, 	and 	given 	the 	apparent
inadvertence 	of 	Plaintiffs’ 	filing 	error, 	the 	Court 	finds 	that
striking Docket No. 310 would be a disproportionate remedy.
Ramos’ requests for: (a) a paragraph in Docket No. 311 to be
stricken, 	and 	(b) 	him 	to 	be 	allowed 	to 	join 	portions 	of 	other
Defendants’ 	Reply 	at 	Docket 	No. 	300, 	are 	both 	merely 	additional
forms of his amendment-through-argument grievance, so they will be
addressed 	in 	the 	upcoming 	disposition 	of 	Ramos 	and 	Plaintiffs’
cross-motions for summary judgment.
As for the request to strike Docket No. 316, Ramos is correct
to point out that it was filed late and “without requesting leave
from the Honorable Court and in a clear abuse of Court processes.”
(Docket No. 330 at 4). The Court’s scheduling order at Docket No.
200 established a defined briefing sequence, with posted deadlines
for 	replies 	and 	surreplies. 	It 	did 	not 	authorize 	parties 	to
contrive a “Supplement to Surreply” filing opportunity out of thin
Case 3:23-cv-01278-RAM Document 387 Filed 04/08/26 Page 8 of 10

Civil No. 23-1278 (RAM) 	9
air. 	Since 	Plaintiffs 	did 	not 	seek 	leave 	of 	court 	for 	its 	filing
and 	since 	it 	appears 	to 	do 	little 	more 	than 	duplicate 	arguments
that 	Plaintiffs 	acknowledge 	they 	have 	made 	elsewhere, 	striking
Docket No. 316 is appropriate and proportional.
Hence, 	the 	Court 	DENIES 	IN 	PART 	and 	GRANTS 	IN 	PART 	Ramos’
Motion 	to 	Strike 	at 	Docket 	No. 	330. 	The 	request 	to 	strike 	Docket
No. 310 is denied; the request to strike Docket No. 316 is granted.
The Court RESERVES the amendment-through-argument issues for later
adjudication. Ramos’ request to join the Motion to Strike at Docket
No. 314 is DENIED AS MOOT.
D. 	CONCLUSION
“[D]istrict 	courts 	have 	the 	inherent 	authority 	to 	manage
their dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the efficient and
expedient 	resolution 	of 	cases.” 	Dietz, 	579 	U.S. 	at 	47. 	In
exercising this broad authority, the Court DENIES in their entirety
Defendants’ 	Motions 	to 	Strike 	at 	Docket 	Nos. 	306, 	314, 	and 	340.
The Court DENIES IN PART and GRANTS IN PART Ramos’ Motion to Strike
at 	Docket 	No. 	330: 	Ramos’ 	request 	to 	strike 	Docket 	No. 	310 	is
denied; 	Plaintiffs’ 	motion 	at 	Docket 	No. 	316 	is 	hereby 	STRICKEN
from the record; the Court RESERVES the amendment-through-argument
issues 	for 	later 	adjudication; 	and 	Ramos’ 	request 	to 	join 	the
Motion to Strike at Docket No. 314 is DENIED AS MOOT.
While 	the 	Court 	has 	denied 	Defendants’ 	bids 	to 	strike 	some
filings, 	it 	is 	nevertheless 	troubled 	that 	Plaintiffs’ 	counsel’s
Case 3:23-cv-01278-RAM Document 387 Filed 04/08/26 Page 9 of 10

Civil No. 23-1278 (RAM) 	10
disorderly 	presentation 	required 	both 	opposing 	counsel 	and 	the
Court to reconstruct what should have been a straightforward filing
sequence. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall take considerably greater care
in all future submissions in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 8 th day of April 2026.
S/ RAÚL M. ARIAS-MARXUACH
United States District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-01278-RAM Document 387 Filed 04/08/26 Page 10 of 10