Soto, et al. v. Castlerock Farming, et al.

Filing 105

ORDER DIRECTING Defendant to File Amended Supplemental Brief, Signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/27/2012. Defendant SHALL file an amended supplemental brief within fourteen days of the date of service of this order that complies with the page limit sets forth in the Courts order dated December 15, 2011 (Doc. 97 ). (Arellano, S.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

SILVESTRE SOTO and OLGA GALVAN,
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated individuals,

) Case No.: 1:09-cv-00701 AWI JLT
)
) ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE
) AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
CASTLEROCK FARMING AND
)
TRANSPORT, INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________ )
On December 15, 2011, the Court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefing addressing

19

(1) what effect, if any, Ms. Galvan’s changed status from class representative to putative class

20

member had on the motion to compel document production and the motion to quash, and (2)

21

whether, the requested discovery was likely to substantiate the class claims if Plaintiff was no longer

22

able to state a prima facie case for class certification. (Doc. 97). Further, the order set forth that the

23

supplemental briefing was to be “no longer than 15 pages (including exhibits). . .” (Id. at 2).

24

On January 18, 2011, Castlerock (“Defendant”) filed its supplemental brief, but failed to

25

comply with the Court’s order regarding length. (See Doc. 101). Defendant limited its argument to

26

15 pages, but the exhibits were approximately 150 pages. Plaintiff objected to the supplemental

27

brief, noting it violated the Court’s order, and requested the document be stricken. (Doc. 103 at 2).

28

In reply, Defendant asserted that “Castlerock misread the order, not recognizing the limitation on
1

1

submission of exhibits.” (Doc. 104 at 2). Further, Defendant asserted it “would not object to

2

plaintiff being allowed to file an amended supplemental brief, limited to 15 pages of briefing plus

3

any necessary exhibits . . . [to] put the parties’ submissions on even footing and allow the Court to

4

consider the issues in a full and complete context.” (Id.) While the Court agrees that the parties

5

should be on equal footing, ultimately, Defendant’s proposed remedy misses the point. The

6

proscribed 15-page limit promotes judicial economy and ensures the Court’s scarce judicial

7

resources will not be expended unnecessarily. In light of the extensive briefing already filed related

8

to the motion to compel and the companion motion to quash, 15 pages is sufficient to analyze the

9

current situation. Concision, of course, will be required.

10

Accordingly, Defendant SHALL file an amended supplemental brief within fourteen days of

11

the date of service of this order that complies with the page limit sets forth in the Court’s order dated

12

December 15, 2011 (Doc. 97).

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: January 27, 2012
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2