Lindell et al v. Synthes USA et al
Filing
111
ORDER STRIKING Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 102) MODIFYING Briefing Schedule on Class Certification. (1) Defendants Request to file an overlength brief (Doc. 106, 108) is DENIED;(2) Defendants Opposition TO Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 102) is STRICKEN; (3) Defendants Request to Seal Documents (Doc. 104) is DENIED as moot. Concerning the briefing and hearing schedule on Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification, the Court FURTHER ORDERS the following: (1) Defendants opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification shall be filed on or before November 5, 2013. Defendants Opposition shall not exceed thirty (30) pages. (2)Plaintiffs Reply shall be file d on or before November 25, 2013. Plaintiffs Reply shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages. (3)The December 20, 2013 hearing on Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification is VACATED and CONTINUED to January 17, 2014, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 8, before United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. Failure to strictly comply with the terms of this Order will result in the imposition of sanctions. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/31/2013. (Herman, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
TROY M. LINDELL, ON BEHALF OF
Case No.: No. 11-cv-02053-LJO-BAM
HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANTS’
SITUATED,
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (DOC. 102)
Plaintiff,
MODIFYING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON
CLASS CERTIFICATION
vs.
9
10
11
12
13
14
SYNTHES USA, SYNTHES USA SALES
LLC, SYNTHES SPINE COMPANY, LP,
Defendants.
15
16
Currently before the Court is Defendants’ request for an order, nunc pro tunc, allowing
17
Defendants to file an overlength opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class certification. (Doc.
18
108.) Defendants filed a 44-page opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification on
19
October 29, 2013, and filed the instant request shortly thereafter. (Doc. 102, 106.) Plaintiff filed
20
an opposition to Defendants’ request to file an overlength opposition on October 30, 2013.
21
Defendants acknowledge their filing of an overlength brief was procedurally improper as
22
leave of Court was required to file a brief exceeding twenty-five pages.
23
Nonetheless, Defendants request an order granting leave to file an overlength brief, nunc pro
24
tunc, due to the complexity of the issues and the rigorous analysis required at the class
25
certification stage.
(Doc. 106.)
26
Plaintiff responds that, in addition to failing to comply with the Court’s requirement to
27
seek leave before filing an overlength brief, Defendants have not shown good cause to justify a
28
need for excess pages.
Specifically, Plaintiff argues a “20-page factual background” is
1
unnecessary in light of the legal and factual issues implicated by Plaintiff’s Motion and unduly
2
burdens the Court. Plaintiff also argues he would be prejudiced by having to respond to a 44-
3
page brief with a 10-page reply.
4
As the parties are aware, “Judges in the Eastern District of California carry the heaviest
5
caseload in the nation . . . .” Aguilar v. Gen. Motors, LLC, No. 1:13-CV-00437-LJO-GSA, 2013
6
WL 3872502, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 25, 2013). This Court is unable to devote inordinate time and
7
limited resources to individual cases and matters. Nor can the Court address every argument and
8
matter raised by a party. Rather, the Court addresses only the arguments, evidence and matters
9
necessary to reach a decision. Accordingly, the Court expects the parties to present a distilled,
10
succinct presentation of the facts and law necessary to reach a decision.
11
Due in no small part to this Court’s overburdened docket, unless leave of Court is
12
obtained in advance, moving and opposition briefs or legal memorandum in civil cases are
13
limited to twenty-five pages. (Standing Order of Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe ¶8.)
14
Defendants failed to comply with this Court’s page limitations or timely seek leave to file an
15
overlength opposition.
16
Moreover, Defendants have not articulated good cause to obtain relief from this
17
limitation. Defendants’ general and unsupported assertion that this case is complex is not
18
persuasive. Having briefly reviewed the parties’ papers, the relevant factual and legal issues can
19
be articulated within the standard page limitations. The rigorous analysis required under Fed. R.
20
Civ. P. 23 does not justify an overlength brief, as this Court routinely decides complex motions
21
for class certification which are briefed within the standard page limitations. Nonetheless, the
22
Court will grant a small expansion of the length of the brief.
23
Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
24
1.
Defendants’ Request to file an overlength brief (Doc. 106, 108) is DENIED;
25
2.
Defendants’ Opposition TO Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 102)
26
27
28
is STRICKEN;
3.
Defendants’ Request to Seal Documents (Doc. 104) is DENIED as moot.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Concerning the briefing and hearing schedule on Plaintiff’s Motion for Class
Certification, the Court FURTHER ORDERS the following:
1.
Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification shall be filed
on or before November 5, 2013. Defendants’ Opposition shall not exceed thirty (30) pages.
2.
Plaintiff’s Reply shall be filed on or before November 25, 2013. Plaintiff’s Reply
shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages.
3.
The December 20, 2013 hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification is
8
VACATED and CONTINUED to January 17, 2014, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 8, before United
9
States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe.
10
11
Failure to strictly comply with the terms of this Order will result in the imposition of
sanctions.
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated:
October 31, 2013
/s/ Barbara
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?