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)

Download PDF
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?