Thompson et al v. C & H Sugar Company, Inc et al

Filing 77

ORDER by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins regarding 71 Motion to Amend/Correct ; (nclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 12 13 JEMAR THOMPSON, and others, Plaintiffs, 14 15 16 17 Case No. 12-cv-00391 NC ORDER REGARDING PAGE LIMITATIONS v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 71, 76 C&H SUGAR CO., and others, Defendants. 18 19 On July 24, 2013, the Court granted a stipulation among the parties to allow 20 defendants to file a separate motion for summary judgment as to each plaintiff in this 21 employment discrimination action. Dkt. No. 44. The Court limited the page allowance for 22 the briefing, stating that “the cumulative pages of defendants‟ opening and reply briefs in 23 support of summary judgment must not exceed 75 pages. Plaintiffs‟ opposition brief to 24 summary judgment must not exceed 60 pages.” Id. On September 24, 2013, defendants 25 sought clarification from the Court that the prior order‟s 75 page limitation “does not apply 26 to declarations and exhibits filed in support of the opening and reply briefs.” Dkt. No. 51. 27 The Court confirmed that the limitation did not include declarations or exhibits. Dkt. No. 28 52. However, on November 20, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend or correct the Case No. 12-cv-00391 NC ORDER REGARDING PAGE LIMITATIONS 1 order of clarification, because in their letter seeking clarification defendants described the 2 Court‟s July 24, 2013 order as limiting “the „cumulative pages‟ of Defendants‟ opening and 3 reply briefs in support of each summary judgment motion to not more than 75 pages….” 4 Dkt. No. 51 (emphasis added). Defendants apparently misunderstood the Court‟s July 24, 5 2013 order as allowing 75 pages of summary judgment briefing for each plaintiff, which 6 would have amounted to well over one thousand pages of total briefing. 7 Following a call with the Court on November 20, 2013, in which the Court explained 8 that its July 24, 2013 order indeed sought to limit total briefing across all plaintiffs to 75 9 pages for defendants and 60 pages for plaintiffs, the parties met and conferred regarding 10 page limitations. The parties submitted a joint letter brief on November 21, 2013, outlining 11 their respective proposals for adequate page length for summary judgment briefing. Dkt. 12 No. 76. 13 The Court rules as follows: defendants will be permitted 90 pages of total summary 14 judgment briefing, for both motion and reply, for all nine remaining plaintiffs. The 15 defendants‟ already-filed motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff Crystal Coleman 16 does not count towards the 90 pages. See Dkt. No. 54. This amounts to 10 total pages per 17 remaining plaintiff, though defendants may use additional or fewer pages for each plaintiff 18 as they see fit, as long as they remain within their 90 page total limit. Plaintiffs will be 19 permitted 75 total pages to oppose all motions. Exhibits and declarations do not count 20 towards the parties‟ total page limitations. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Date: November 21, 2013 23 _________________________ Nathanael M. Cousins United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 12-cv-00391 NC ORDER REGARDING PAGE LIMITATIONS 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?