Amy Roth et al v. CHA Hollywood Medical Center, L.P. et al

Filing 43

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REMAND 38 . Plaintiffs Reply appears to be either a scanned document or a nonsearchable PDF. In either case, the document does not comport with Local Rule 5-4.3.1. by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (lc). Modified on 8/27/2013 .(lc). Modified on 8/27/2013 (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

AMY ROTH, SHANA EKIN, as
individuals and on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated,
v.

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 2:12-cv-07559-ODW (SHx)
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFFS’
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO REMAND [38]

CHA HOLLYWOOD MEDICAL
CENTER, L.P., d/b/a CHA Hollywood
Presbyterian Medical Center and
Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center,
and CHS HEALTHCARE
MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.,
Defendants.

18
19
20

On August 26, 2013, Plaintiffs Amy Roth and Shana Ekin filed their Reply in

21

Support of Plaintiff’s [sic] Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 38.) The Reply swells to

22

some 24 pages—double this Court’s reply page limit.

23

Procedures

24

http://court.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/JudgeReq.nsf/2fb080863c88ab47882567c9007f

25

a070/d7596199bbd33e87882579f5006b0828?OpenDocument ¶ VII.A.3 (“Replies

26

shall not exceed 12 pages.”)

and

Schedules

¶

FAQs about Judges’

VII(A)(1),

available

27

Plaintiffs further violate Local Rule 5-4.3.1, which provides,

28

Documents filed electronically must be submitted in PDF. Except as

at

1

provided elsewhere in this L.R. 5-4, the document filed with the Court

2

must be created using word-processing software, then published to PDF

3

from the original word-processing file (to permit the electronic version of

4

the document to be searched).

5

SCANNING PAPER DOCUMENTS ARE PROHIBITED . . . .

PDF IMAGES CREATED BY

6

Plaintiffs’ Reply appears to be either a scanned document or a nonsearchable PDF. In

7

either case, the document does not comport with Local Rule 5-4.3.1.

8
9

Considering both of these rule violations, the Court STRIKES Plaintiffs’ Reply
(ECF No. 38) and all supporting documents (ECF Nos. 38-1–38-7). See L.R. 83-7(c).

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

August 26, 2013

14
15
16

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2