Newport et al v. Burger King Corporation

Filing 394

ORDER ON DEFENDANT BURGER KING'S REQUEST AT DOCKET NUMBER 373 FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS re #373 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by Burger King Corporation, #361 Objection filed by Roy D. Newport, #350 Reply to Opposition/Response, filed by Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Company II, LLC, SRAC Holdings I, Inc., Jerry M. Comstock. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 5, 2011. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ROY D. NEWPORT, et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants,
v.

16

Defendant/Counter-Claimant,
v.
ANTELOPE VALLEY RESTAURANTS, INC, et al.

17

Counter-Defendants.
/

18
19

ORDER ON DEFENDANT
BURGER KING’S REQUEST AT
DOCKET NUMBER 373 FOR
LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION TO
STRIKE EVIDENTIARY
OBJECTIONS

BURGER KING CORPORATION,

14
15

No. C 10-04511 WHA

Defendant Burger King Corporation has submitted a “request for leave to file a motion to

20

strike evidentiary objections [Dkt. Nos. 350-1 and 361], or, in the alternative, request that the

21

court overrule the evidentiary objections or grant [BKC] leave to respond to the same” (Dkt. No.

22

373). Plaintiffs/counter-defendants oppose (Dkt. No. 386). Strategic Restaurants Acquisition

23

Company II, LLC, SRAC Holdings, I, Inc., and Jerry M. Comstock (“Strategic”) have not filed a

24

response.

25

The request is deemed to be the motion. Rule 7-3(c) states, “[a]ny evidentiary and

26

procedural objections to the opposition must be contained within the reply brief or

27

memorandum.” Counter-defendants and Strategic each filed reply briefs in support of their

28

respective motions for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 350 and 367). Likewise, they each filed

1

objections to evidence submitted by BKC in opposition to their respective motions for summary

2

judgment (Dkt. Nos. 350-1 and 361).

3

Evidentiary objections “must be contained within the reply brief or memorandum,” not

4

filed as a separate submission, or even contained in an attachment to the reply, as is the case with

5

Strategic’s evidentiary objection. Thus, the submissions at docket numbers 350-1 and 361 are

6

hereby STRICKEN. As is required, the Court will independently consider the admissibility of any

7

evidence relied on in ruling on the motions for summary judgment.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Dated: December 5, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2