National Federation of the Blind et al v. Target Corporation

Filing 53

Reply Memorandum Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Surreply to Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed byNational Federation of the Blind, Bruce Frank Sexton, the National Federation of the Blind of California. (Attachments: # 1)(Paradis, Laurence) (Filed on 7/20/2006)

National Federation of the Blind et al v. Target Corporation

Doc. 53

Case 3:06-cv-01802-MHP

Document 53

Filed 07/20/2006

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, THIRD FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204 [phone]

LAURENCE W. PARADIS (California Bar No. 122336) [e-mail] MAZEN M. BASRAWI (California Bar No. 235475) [e-mail] DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 Center Street, Third Floor Berkeley, California 94704 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] TTY: [phone] TODD M. SCHNEIDER (California Bar No. 158253) [e-mail] JOSHUA KONECKY (California Bar No. 182897) [e-mail] SCHNEIDER & WALLACE 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone] TTY: [phone] DANIEL F. GOLDSTEIN (pro hac vice) [e-mail] BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY, LLP 120 E. Baltimore St., Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, the NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, on behalf of their members, and Bruce F. Sexton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant. Case No.: C 06-01802 MHP CLASS ACTION PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY Hearing Date: July 24, 2006 Time: 2:00 p.m. Judge: The Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel

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

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:06-cv-01802-MHP

Document 53

Filed 07/20/2006

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, THIRD FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204 [phone]

Plaintiffs National Federation of the Blind ("NFB"), NFB of California and Bruce Sexton move the Court to deny defendant Target's motion for leave to file a surreply. Civ. L.R. 7-3(d), states: "Before the noticed hearing date, counsel may bring to the Court's attention a relevant judicial opinion published after the date the opposition or reply was filed by serving and filing a Statement of Recent Decision, containing a citation to and providing a copy of the new opinion - without argument. Otherwise, once a reply is filed, no additional memoranda, papers or letters may be filed without prior Court approval." Filing of surreply may be "arguably justified by plaintiffs' mention of a new [argument]... in their Reply." Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Netcom On-Line Communication Servs., Inc., 923 F. Supp. 1231, 1241-42 (N.D. Cal. 1995). However, a surreply is unwarranted in this case. There has been no new development in the law. The arguments presented in Defendant's surreply are merely repetitive and are unnecessary to the extent that the briefs add nothing new. The Court has already requested copies of all depositions, so all of Target's cavils are extraneous. Defendant's arguments should have been made in the original opposition to the motion, or alternatively, be brought up during oral arguments. If parties continually reply to the assertions by the opposing party, the result would be endless applications to the court. As noted by a court in this very district, "[t]he proper response to such new arguments, however, would be to object to the new arguments, not to endlessly continue the arguments back and forth." Religious Tech. at 1265 n. 41. Defendant's surreply serves no purpose other than acting as an avenue for Target to further argue the merits of its opposition. In the alternative, Plaintiff moves the Court, to grant Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a surrebuttal, which is attached as Exhibit A to this motion. Plaintiff is conscious of the fact that these briefs are burdensome on the court and thus offers a abridged

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

National Federation of the Blind, et al. v. Target Corporation Case No.: C 06-01802 MHP

Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Surreply

2

Case 3:06-cv-01802-MHP

Document 53

Filed 07/20/2006

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, THIRD FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204 [phone]

rebuttle consisting mostly of a chart to aid the court which contains the citations for the relevant testimony. Plaintiff has attempted to procure a conditional stipulation from Defendant; however Target has refused to stipulate to a surrebuttal if the court grants its motion for leave to submit its surreply. Respectfully submitted, Dated: July 20, 2006 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES LAURENCE W. PARADIS MAZEN M. BASRAWI SCHNEIDER & WALLACE TODD M. SCHNEIDER JOSHUA KONECKY BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY, LLP DANIEL F. GOLDSTEIN (pro hac vice) By: /s/ Laurence W. Paradis . Laurence W. Paradis Attorneys for Plaintiffs

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

National Federation of the Blind, et al. v. Target Corporation Case No.: C 06-01802 MHP

Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Surreply

3