Tuttle et al v. Sky Bell Asset Management LLC et al

Filing 266

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARTION OF JOEL M. WOLOSKY by Hon. William Alsup granting 260 Motion for Leave to File.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

EDGAR W. TUTTLE, ERIC BRAUN,
THE BRAUN FAMILY TRUST, and
WENDY MEG SIEGEL, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated,

14
15
16

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO STRIKE SUPPLEMENTAL
DECLARATION OF JOEL M.
WOLOSKY

Plaintiffs,

13

No. C 10-03588 WHA

v.
SKY BELL ASSET MANAGEMENT,
LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
/

17
18

Plaintiffs’ filed a précis requesting leave of court to file a motion to strike the

19

supplemental declaration of Attorney Joel M. Wolosky in support of the auditor defendants’

20

opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for class certification dated October 20, 2011 (Dkt. No. 259). The

21

auditor defendants did not respond. The précis request was deemed the motion to strike and

22

defendants were ordered to show cause why the supplemental declaration should not be stricken

23

(Dkt. No. 263). Attorney Wolosky submitted a declaration in response to the order to show cause

24

(Dkt. No. 265).

25

Plaintiffs’ contend in their motion that at the October 19, 2011, class certification motion

26

hearing, the Court directed plaintiffs to submit appropriately highlighted offering memoranda for

27

the partnerships but did not authorize defendants to make any other filings in connection with the

28

class certification motion (Br. 1). This is true. In a declaration in response to the order to show
cause, Attorney Wolosky states that he submitted the supplemental declaration “because [he] was

1

unsure whether Plaintiffs’ counsel would highlight and/or underline key language that supported

2

the argument that [he] had made at oral argument” (Dkt. No. 265 at ¶ 4). He further stated that he

3

wanted to assist the Court in focusing on the pertinent language of the offering memoranda (id. at

4

¶ 5).

5

Attorney Wolosky’s supplemental declaration dated October 20, was filed without leave

6

of court. Attorney Wolosky should have submitted all of the information he wanted the Court to

7

consider for the class certification motion in his briefing, at the appropriate time, as defined by

8

the Civil Local Rules. The supplemental declaration dated October 20, was untimely and

9

improper.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Thus, Attorney Wolosky’s supplemental declaration dated October 20, is hereby
STRICKEN.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: October 31, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2