Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland et al

Filing 723

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE by Hon. William Alsup re 722 Motion to Strike 720 Supplemental Brief, 722 MOTION to Strike 720 Supplemental Brief, 721 Declaration in Support, , 721 Declaration in Support,.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

RAHINAH IBRAHIM,

9

Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

No. C 06-00545 WHA

v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, et al.,

ORDER REGARDING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
STRIKE

Defendants.

13

/

14
15

Our Supreme Court has cautioned against satellite litigation over attorney’s fees,

16

expenses, and costs. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). Nevertheless, after the

17

undersigned judge permitted plaintiff to file an itemized, detailed spreadsheet showing excluded

18

fees, and plaintiff filed: a three-page response, a two-page declaration, and 47-pages of

19

spreadsheets, defendants filed a motion to strike plaintiff’s submissions because plaintiff only

20

had leave to file a “spreadsheet regarding excluded fees” (Dkt. Nos. 720–22). FRCP

21

54(d)(2)(C) states that: “the court must, on a party’s request, give an opportunity for adversary

22

submissions on the motion.” Defendants have until 5:00 P.M. ON MARCH 17 to file any

23

response.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated: March 14, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE