Campbell v. PriceWaterhouse Coopers, LLP

Filing 543

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 04/09/12 ORDERING that the Clerk is directed to STRIKE defendants' 539 Notice of New Authority; plaintiffs may file a sur-reply in opposition to defendants' 515 de-certification motion within 14 days. The sur-reply shall be no longer than 25 pages. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12

JASON CAMPBELL and
SARAH SOBEK, individually,
and on behalf of all other
similarly situated current
and former employees of
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP,,
NO. CIV. S-06-2376 LKK/GGH

13
Plaintiffs,
14
v.
15
16

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP,
a Limited Liability Partnership;,
and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

O R D E R

17
Defendant.
/

18

On March 12, 2012, defendants filed a 25-page reply brief in

19
20

support of their motion to decertify the class.

21

However, this court’s Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference Order

22

of January 25, 2007, provides that “reply memoranda are limited to

23

fifteen (15) pages.” (Dkt. No. 26 (emphasis in text)). Defendants

24

have now filed a “Notice of New Authority” which includes yet

25

another brief, although only 2-pages in length.

26

////
1

(Dkt. No. 529.)

(Dkt. No. 539.)

1

Plaintiffs object to both briefs.

(Dkt. Nos. 533 & 540.)

2

Plaintiffs represent that no permission was granted to permit the

3

additional 10 pages of reply briefing.

4

this representation.

5

setting forth their theory about why –

6

extensions that were granted for other briefs, page extensions

7

granted in another case, plaintiffs’ request to file a sur-reply,

8

and the application of certain mathematical principles – they

9

believed that they were authorized to file a 25-page reply brief.

10

Defendants do not contest

Instead, they have filed a two-page letter
considering the page

(Dkt. No. 535.)

11

This court’s scheduling order, together with the Local Rules

12

of the Eastern District of California, do not contemplate the

13

filing of oversized briefs, nor the filing of briefs after the

14

reply brief has been filed (whether it is called a notice, sur-

15

reply, supplement or otherwise).

16

a party must first be granted leave of court, which defendants have

17

not sought or received. Prior extensions of page lengths have been

18

granted by the court, whether through written stipulation (see Dkt.

19

Nos. 46 & 285), or otherwise.

20

practice, as they have been parties to these stipulations and

21

agreements in the past.

In order to file such a brief,

Defendants are aware of this

22

In this case, there was no written or other stipulation to

23

permit defendants to file an over-sized reply brief, or to file a

24

brief accompanying their Notice of Authority. Both of defendants’

25

filings, made without leave of court, were therefore done in

26

////
2

1

violation of this court’s express, written order,1 and in apparent

2

defiance (or at best, casual disregard) of the briefing process

3

contemplated by Local Rule 230.

4

Plaintiffs

have

conduct

requested
by

that

ordering

the

defendants

court

defendants’

6

unauthorized briefs, and file a single, 15-page (maximum) reply

7

brief, or to grant plaintiffs an opportunity to file a sur-reply.

1.

both

The court therefore orders as follows:

9

withdraw

to

5

8

to

respond

10
11

The Clerk of the Court is directed to strike defendants’
Notice of New Authority (Dkt. 539); and

2.

Plaintiffs

may

file

a

sur-reply

13

fourteen (14) days from the date of this order.

14

sur-reply shall be no longer than twenty-five (25) pages

15

in length.

later

than
The

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

no

to

defendants’

17

motion

opposition

12

16

de-certification

in

April 9, 2012.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1

25
26

However, as to the reply brief, defendants assert that they
filed the over-sized brief in the good-faith belief that they were
authorized to do so, and the court takes them at their word, even
though they were mistaken.
3