Courthouse News Service v. Michael Planet
Filing
76
REPLY in Support of Request for Judicial Notice filed by Plaintiff Courthouse News Service. (Matteo-Boehm, Rachel)
1 Rachel E. Matteo-Boehm (SBN 195492)
2 rachel;matteo-boehm@bryancave.com
Roger R. Myers (SBN 146164)
3 roger.myers@bryancave.com
4 Leila C. Knox (SBN 245999)
leila.knox@bryancave.com
5 BRYAN CAVE LLP
6 560 Mission Street, 25th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2994
7 Telephone: (415) 675-3400
8 Facsimile: (415) 675-3434
« ....
am
am
-'N
u..,
io
:1:0
a.>-~
--'''' ....
--,Nm
w ...: -c
~~<..>
0«
-
>- a
Z-z«00
",-z
"'«
"'«
iu..
9 Jonathan G. Fetterly (SBN 228612)
10 jon.fetterly@bryancave.com
BRYAN CAVE LLP
11 120 Broadway, Suite 300
12 Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386
Telephone: (310) 576-2100
13 Facsimile: (310) 576-2200
14
Attorneys for Plaintiff
15 COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE
oZ
",«
",-Z- If)
14 rather support his Motion to Dismiss. Defendant's Response then goes on to cite
",00
m-Z
-c
If)
If)",
~u.
15 and discuss numerous other authorities that he contends also support his Motion to
OZ
Wr:«
~~U
C> 0:
1-0
Zen"
« en
>-Z0:0"
ro-Z
en -c
en 0:
~u.
12
The problem, of course, is that Defendant could not have fit all of this
13 additional argument into his reply memorandum because it is already 25 pages long,
14 the maximum number of pages allowed for a memorandum of points and
15 authorities. Central District Local Rule 11-6. The argument in the Response thus
OZ
<0«
",en
16 constitutes argument in excess of that page limit and should be stricken for the
17 additional ground that it exceeds the page limit set forth in Local Rule 11-6.2
18
In ruling on Courthouse News' RJN, the Court need only consider whether
19 the statutes and rules referenced in the RJN are appropriate for judicial notice.
20
Because they indisputably are, the Court should grant CNS' s request for judicial
21
22
23
24
In addition, CNS disputes Defendant's arguments regarding his interpretation of
these statutes and rules, which alone is sufficient to deny any perceived request for
judicial notice. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) ("The Court may judicially notice a/act
25 that is not subject to reasonable dispute.") (emph. added).
26
1
Although L.R. 11-6 makes an exception to the 25-page limit for "exhibits,"
allowing a party to evade the page limit simply by putting argument into a document
27 characterized as an exhibit is contrary to the intent of the rule and should not be
permitted. See L.R. 11-7 ("Appendices shall not include any matters which
28 properly belong in the body of the memorandum of points and authorities").
3
2
PLAINTIFF'S
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Case No. CVII-08083 R (MANx)
1 notice and strike Defendant's entire Response except for page 1, lines 20 through
2
25.
3 Dated: August 8, 2014
BRYAN CAVB LLP
4
5
By:
6
/s/ Rachel E. Matteo-Boehm
Rachel E. Matteo-Boehm
Attorneys for Plaintiff
COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE
7
8
9
10
0:"
Om
Om
-'N
"-,
Io
o..O-~
'"
11
12
--,"'''
--,Nm
ur ~-z0:0<>
[!]-z
II) -c
(/) 0:
i"-
13
14
15
oz
(0«
",'"
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
PLAINTIFF'S
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Case No. CVII-08083 R (MANx)
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?