Joanne Siegel et al v. Warner Bros Entertainment Inc et al
Filing
714
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-REPL by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. Plaintiff is therefore granted leave to file a sur-reply no longer than 5 pages in length to respond to any arguments addressed in Defendants' Reply. Should she choose to file a sur-reply, Plaintiff must do so no later than Monday, March 18, 2013., (bp)
O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
LAURA SIEGEL LARSON, individually
and as personal representative of the
ESTATE OF JOANNE SIEGEL,
13
14
15
v.
Plaintiff,
WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT
INC., DC COMICS, and DOES 1–10,
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
LAURA SIEGEL LARSON, individually
and as personal representative of the
ESTATE OF JOANNE SIEGEL,
20
21
22
23
24
v.
Plaintiffs,
TIME WARNER INC., WARNER
COMMUNICATIONS INC., WARNER
BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.,
WARNER BROS. TELEVISION
PRODUCTION INC., DC COMICS, and
DOES 1–10,
Defendants.
25
26
///
27
///
28
///
Case No. 2:04-cv-08400-ODW(RZx)
Case No. 2:04-cv-08776-ODW(RZx)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS
LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-REPLY
The Court has received Defendants’ Reply in support of their February 7
1
2
Motion for Summary Judgment. While the Reply technically and formalistically
3
complies with the Local Rules’ formatting and length guidelines, the Court notes that
4
DC has buried the equivalent of at least three full pages of argument into footnotes.
5
This is an improper proper use of footnotes,1 and the Court does not condone such a
6
blatant attempt to subvert the Local Rules’ page-length dictates. Plaintiff is therefore
7
granted leave to file a sur-reply no longer than 5 pages in length to respond to any
8
arguments addressed in Defendants’ Reply. Should she choose to file a sur-reply,
9
Plaintiff must do so no later than Monday, March 18, 2013.
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
12
March 12, 2013
13
14
____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
E.g., First Advantage Servs. Corp. v. Private Eyes, Inc., 569 F. Supp. 2d 929, 935 n.1 (N.D. Cal.
2008) (“A footnote is the wrong place for substantive arguments on the merits of a motion . . . . The
Court can only assume that the parties placed the arguments in question in footnotes because they
lacked space in the main text of their briefs. . . . The use of footnotes to circumvent [the Local Rules’
page-length and formatting] rules is improper.”).
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?