POR Vida Productions LLC et al v. Christopher Harrison et al

Filing 114

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS EX PARTE APPLICATIONS TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITIONS TO DEFENDANTS MOTIONS IN LIMINE 99 , 100 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson . (lc). Modified on 6/12/2013 (lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

POR VIDA PRODUCTIONS, LLC;
DFL RELEASING LLC; ALAN
JACOBS; SCOTT WILLIAM
ALVAREZ,

13
Plaintiffs,
14
v.
15
16

CHRISTOPHER HARRISON;
DARRICK ROBINSON; TRINA
CALDERON,

17
18

Defendants.
___________________________

19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 11-01944 DDP (JCx)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ EX
PARTE APPLICATIONS TO STRIKE
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITIONS TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Docket Nos. 99, 100

Defendants have filed an Ex Parte Application to Strike

20

Plaintiffs’ Oppositions to Defendants’ Motions in Limine and an

21

amended version of that Ex Parte Application (the “Applications”).

22

Docket Nos. 99, 100.

23

Oppositions to Defendants’ Motions in Limine were filed late, in

24

violation of Central District Local Rule 7-9, which requires an

25

opposition to be filed at least twenty-one days before the hearing.

26

Defendants ask for sanctions and for Plaintiffs’ Opposition to be

27

stricken.

28

///

The Applications argue that Plaintiffs’

1

There is a separate issue as to whether the Local Rules’

2

briefing deadlines apply to motions in limine.

3

not addressed this issue.

4

deadlines are frequently not applied to motions in limine.

5

The parties have

The Court notes that these briefing

Additionally, Defendants have not cited any cases in which a

6

court struck an opposition to a motion in limine for failure to

7

follow Local Rule 7-9.

8

few cases that have discussed the Local Rules’ briefing deadlines

9

in the motion in limine context have not strictly adhered to those

The Court’s own research indicates that the

10

deadlines.

11

2012 WL 1641712, at * 1 n.2 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2012) (“Plaintiff

12

objects to defendants’ motions in limine on the grounds that

13

defendants failed to . . . file their motions in a manner that

14

would afford plaintiff sufficient time to file her opposition as

15

required by Local Rule 7-9.

16

to follow all local rules, the Court does not believe that their

17

failure to do so requires denial of their motions in this

18

instance.”); Estate of Gonzales v. Hickman, 05-660 MMM (RCX), 2007

19

WL 3237727, at * 14 (C.D. Cal. May 30, 2007).

20

cite in favor of striking Plaintiff’s Opposition, Metzger v.

21

Hussman, 682 F. Supp. 1109 (D. Nev. 1988), concerned a motion to

22

dismiss, not a motions in limine.

23
24

See Allen v. City of Los Angeles, CV 10-4695 CAS RCX,

While the Court admonishes defendants

The case Defendants

For these reasons, the Applications are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated: June 12, 2013
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

27
28
2