Pickard v. Department of Justice

Filing 255

ORDER TERMINATING MOTION, VACATING HEARING, DIRECTING FILING OF NEW BRIEFS, AND SETTING NEW HEARING DATE. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 7/29/2016. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

WILLIAM LEONARD PICKARD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 06-cv-00185-CRB
ORDER TERMINATING MOTION,
VACATING HEARING, DIRECTING
FILING OF NEW BRIEFS, AND
SETTING NEW HEARING DATE

v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Defendant.

/

16
17

Defendant has filed a motion for De Novo Determination of Dispositive Matter

18

Referred to Magistrate Judge. D Mot. (dkt. 244). The parties’ briefing of that motion

19

presupposes that the Court is familiar with all of the materials that were before Magistrate

20

Judge Cousins. This is a problem. In letters submitted to Judge Cousins, both parties

21

incorporated their fourth motions for summary judgment. See Letter from Plaintiff (dkt. 223)

22

at 1–2; Response re Letter (dkt. 255) at 1. After Judge Cousins issued his Tentative Order,

23

the parties submitted additional briefs. See Briefs (dkt. 233; dkt. 237; dkt. 239; dkt. 242; dkt.

24

244; dkt. 246; dkt. 247; dkt. 247; dkt 248-1). Throughout these documents, the parties

25

referenced and incorporated prior briefs, including their third motions for summary

26

judgment. See, e.g., P Opp’n (dkt 246); D MSJ (dkt. 184); P MSJ Reply (dkt. 191); D Reply

27

re Tentative (dkt. 239). One such statement serves as an example: “Defendant hereby fully

28

incorporates by reference into its Fourth Motion for Summary Judgment all arguments made

1

in its Third Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #140) and its reply brief thereto (Doc.

2

#161). . . For the sake of nonrepetition and efficiency, Defendant does not repeat herein

3

every argument it previously made, but rather summarizes some of the main arguments

4

previously made and also adds some additional argument. Any argument previously made

5

but not summarized herein (with the exemption of argument regarding whether a Vaughn

6

index needed to be filed) is still fully incorporated herein by reference.” D MSJ at 4.
Endless references to past briefs require the Court to scour the docket to determine

7

what the parties are actually arguing. “Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in

9

briefs.” Dynetix Design Solutions, Inc. v. Synopsys Inc., No. CV 11-05973 PSG, 2013 WL

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

3490938, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court does

11

not think it unreasonable to ask that the parties serve their truffles on a single platter.

12

Moreover, endless references to other filings subvert the purpose of the page limitations set

13

forth in Civil Local Rules 7-2(b), 7-3(a), and 7-3(c). The parties must be clear and succinct.
Therefore, in an effort to ensure that the Court see and consider all pertinent

14
15

arguments, the Court hereby (1) TERMINATES the pending motion; (2) VACATES the

16

motion hearing now set for August 5, 2016; and (3) DIRECTS the parties to submit a new,

17

stand-alone set of briefs—i.e., a set of briefs that contain all of the party’s arguments without

18

incorporating previous briefs.1 Defendant’s motion, not to exceed twenty-five pages, shall be

19

due on or before August 12, 2016. Plaintiff’s opposition, not to exceed twenty-five pages,

20

shall be due on or before August 26, 2016. Defendant’s reply, not to exceed fifteen pages,

21

shall be due on or before September 2, 2016. The Court shall hold a hearing on the revised

22

//

23

//

24
25
26
27
28

1

Of course, descriptions of the case’s procedural history and references to the orders of either
this Court or of Judge Cousins are appropriate.
2

1
2
3

motion on September 16, 2016, at 10:00 A.M.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: July 29, 2016
CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

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