SANTOMENNO et al v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY et al

Filing 348

ORDER RE PARTIES EXTRANEOUS SUBMISSIONS 335 , 338 , 341 , 347 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: What all of these filings have in common is that they are neither noticed motions, nor ex parte applications (which, themselves, should be used sparingly1) , nor briefing requested by the Court. The parties have used the Courts docket which is to say, the Courts resources to argue minutiae ex parte without providing fair notice or procedure to their opponents. The Court also notes that, because this c ase involves confidential information, each filing also involves a cumbersome sealing process, which also requires court resources. Because Defendants submit that they have made an error in their supplemental briefing, the Court treats the request to file an amended briefing (Dkt. No. 338) as an ex parte application and grants it, in order to avoid working from erroneous filings. Apart from allowing that change, however, the Court does not consider any arguments or statements made in that filing . The three other filings are stricken in their entirety, and the Court does not consider any arguments made within them. In the future, the parties will either (1) follow the Local Rules regarding noticed motions or (2) submit clearly marked ex parte applicatons requesting specific relief and clearly showing that the conditions for ex parte relief under Ninth Circuit law are satisfied. (lc) .Modified on 3/24/2015 (lc).. Modified on 3/24/2015 (lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JACLYN SANTOMENNO; KAREN
POLEY; BARBARA POLEY,

12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15
16

TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY; TRANSAMERICA
INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC;
TRANSAMERICA ASSET
MANAGEMENT INC.,

17
18

Defendants.
___________________________

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

Case No. CV 12-02782 DDP (MANx)
ORDER RE PARTIES’ EXTRANEOUS
SUBMISSIONS
[Dkt. Nos. 335, 338, 341, 346]

19
20

On January 16, 2015, the Court ordered supplemental briefing

21

to aid it in coming to a ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for class

22

certification.

23

February 6, 2015, and Defendants filed their supplemental briefing

24

on February 20, 2015.

25

with the original motion and related papers, under submission.

26

Plaintiffs submitted their supplemental briefing on

The Court has taken these briefings, along

In the meantime, Plaintiff has filed a “second supplemental

27

submission” questioning Defendants’ citation to a particular

28

investment vehicle as an example in their brief (Dkt. No. 335);

1

Defendants have filed a “request” for leave to file a corrected

2

brief removing the complained-of reference and replacing it with a

3

reference to a different investment vehicle (Dkt. No. 338);

4

Plaintiffs have filed a “third supplemental submission” objecting

5

to the proposed substitution (Dkt. No. 341); and Defendants have

6

filed a “request” to strike Plaintiffs’ “third supplemental

7

submission.”

8
9

(Dkt. No. 347.)

What all of these filings have in common is that they are
neither noticed motions, nor ex parte applications (which,

10

themselves, should be used sparingly1), nor briefing requested by

11

the Court.

12

say, the Court’s resources – to argue minutiae ex parte without

13

providing fair notice or procedure to their opponents.

14

also notes that, because this case involves confidential

15

information, each filing also involves a cumbersome sealing

16

process, which also requires court resources.

The parties have used the Court’s docket – which is to

The Court

17

Because Defendants submit that they have made an error in

18

their supplemental briefing, the Court treats the “request” to file

19

an amended briefing (Dkt. No. 338) as an ex parte application and

20

grants it, in order to avoid working from erroneous filings.

21

from allowing that change, however, the Court does not consider any

22

arguments or statements made in that filing.

23

filings are stricken in their entirety, and the Court does not

24

consider any arguments made within them.

25

parties will either (1) follow the Local Rules regarding noticed

26

motions or (2) submit clearly marked ex parte applications

Apart

The three other

In the future, the

27
1

28

See generally Mission Power Eng'g Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 883
F. Supp. 488 (C.D. Cal. 1995).
2

1

requesting specific relief and clearly showing that the conditions

2

for ex parte relief under Ninth Circuit law are satisfied.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: March 24, 2015
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3