In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation

Filing 242

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying (213) Motion for Hearing; granting in part and denying in part (232) Motion ; granting (235) Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document in case 5:11-cv-02509-LHK (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2012)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN JOSE DIVISION United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 IN RE HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION 13 THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: 14 ALL ACTIONS 15 16 ) ) Master Docket No. 11-CV-2509-LHK ) ) ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 17 On October 1, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification. ECF No. 187. On 18 November 12, 2012, Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification 19 (“Opposition”). ECF No. 209. In addition to the Opposition, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike 20 the report of Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Edward E. Leamer (“Motion to Strike”). ECF No. 210. 21 Pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike is due 22 November 26, 2012. 23 On November 12, 2012, Defendants also filed an Administrative Motion seeking an 24 evidentiary hearing in connection with the Motion for Class Certification so that Dr. Leamer and 25 Defendants’ expert, Kevin Murphy, may testify and be cross-examined. ECF No. 213 (“Motion for 26 an Evidentiary Hearing”). Plaintiffs filed their response to Defendants’ Motion for an Evidentiary 27 Hearing on November 16, 2012. ECF No. 237. 28 1 Master Docket No.: 5:11-CV-02509-LHK ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS 1 On November 15, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an Administrative Motion in which Plaintiffs argue 2 that Defendants’ Motion to Strike is improper and should not be considered. See Administrative 3 Motion for Order Compelling Defendants to Comply with Civil Local Rules 7-3(a) and 3-4(c)(2). 4 ECF No. 232 (“Administrative Motion”). Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants’ Opposition should 5 be rejected because Defendants used Garamond font instead of Times New Roman font. Id. at 1. 6 Plaintiffs contend that Defendants use of Garamond font allowed Defendants “to squeeze in over 7 one-and-a-half pages of argument beyond the 25-page limit.” Id. Defendants filed their response 8 to Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion on November 19, 2012. ECF No. 138. 9 On November 16, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an additional motion to remove the Declaration of United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Brendan P. Glackin in Support of Administrative Motion for Order Compelling Defendants to 11 Comply with Civil Local Rules 7-3(a) and 3-4(c)(2) (ECF No. 233) because the declaration 12 contained material designated as confidential pursuant to the parties’ protective order. See ECF 13 No. 235 (“Motion to Remove the Glackin Declaration”). Plaintiffs state that they inadvertently 14 filed the redacted version of the material. Id. 15 16 Having considered the parties submissions and the relevant case law, the Court hereby ORDERS that: 17 (1) Plaintiffs’ deadline to respond to Defendants’ Motion to Strike shall be December 18 10, 2012. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiffs have 25 pages in which to respond to the 19 Motion to Strike; 20 (2) Defendants shall not be permitted to file a Reply in Support of their Motion to (3) All future briefs filed by the parties shall use size 12, Times New Roman font with 21 22 23 Strike; the default character spacing settings; 24 (4) Defendants’ Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing is DENIED; and 25 (5) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remove the Glackin Declaration is GRANTED. However, the 26 Court is unable to remove the documents from the online docket. Instead, the Court ORDERS that 27 28 2 Master Docket No.: 5:11-CV-02509-LHK ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS 1 the Clerk permanently lock ECF No. 233 (the Glackin Declaration) and its two attachments on the 2 online docket to prevent public access.1 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: November 21, 2012 _________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 These documents were provisionally locked on November 17, 2012. 3 Master Docket No.: 5:11-CV-02509-LHK ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS