O'Connor et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 205

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 202 Defendant's Motion to File Excess Pages. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 DOUGLAS O’CONNOR, et al., 9 Plaintiffs, v. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C-13-3826 EMC UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., 12 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO FILE EXCESS PAGES Defendants. ___________________________________/ (Docket No. 202) 13 14 15 Pending before the Court is Uber Technologies, Inc.’s motion to extend the page limit for its 16 memorandum of points and authorities in support of its motion for summary judgment and 17 Plaintiff’s memorandum in opposition thereof. Docket No. 202. The motion is GRANTED. 18 Uber’s memorandum of law in support of its summary judgment motion shall not exceed 30 pages. 19 Plaintiff’s memorandum of law in opposition shall not exceed 30 pages. Uber’s reply brief shall not 20 exceed 15 pages. These page limits are exclusive of title pages, table of authorities, table of 21 contents, any exhibits but include the summary of argument sections. Plaintiff’s request for leave to 22 file a sur-reply is DENIED. 23 The Court notes that even Uber’s routine request has become the latest example of 24 uncooperative behavior on the part of both parties, leading to needless filings, a clogging of the 25 Court’s docket, and obfuscation of the issues. Uber filed its motion for leave to file excess pages 26 and indicated that a stipulation could not be reached because Plaintiffs wanted to include a 27 “unilateral request . . . for leave to file a surreply, even though no good cause could possibly exist at 28 this time for such a request.” Docket No. 202, at 3. Plaintiffs then felt compelled to respond to this 1 statement, filing a response, declaration, and proposed order all for the purpose of making clear that 2 they did not oppose the request for leave to file excess pages, but simply wanted to request leave to 3 file a sur-reply. Docket No. 203, at 2. Uber then decided to file a reply in support of its original 4 motion for leave to file excess pages, which it entitled “Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s 5 Response to Plaintiffs’ Improper Request for leave to File a Surreply.” Docket No. 204. In 6 summary, what should have been a routine, undisputed stipulated request for expanded page limits 7 for both sides has turned into a petty dispute about how to present an unrelated, disputed request for 8 Plaintiffs to file a surreply. This is the type of issue that the Court expects professional attorneys to 9 work out amongst themselves without the need for unnecessary filings. This uncooperative behavior will stop. Counsel for both side are advised that the Court 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 requires all counsel that appear before it to conduct themselves with the upmost professionalism. 12 “Professionalism” includes the obligation that counsel (1) meet and confer on disputed issues in 13 good faith; (2) arrive at compromises where appropriate; and (3) extend normal courtesies and 14 civilities to his or her opponent. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1263 (9th 15 Cir. 2010) (“[U]ncompromising behavior is not only inconsistent with general professional conduct, 16 but also undermines the truth-seeking function of our adversarial system.”); see also Marcangelo v. 17 Boardwalk Regency, 47 F.3d 88, 90 (3d Cir. 1995) (“We do not approve of the ‘hardball’ tactics 18 unfortunately used by some law firms today. The extension of normal courtesies and exercise of 19 civility expedite litigation and are of substantial benefit to the administration of justice.”). 20 21 22 If, going forward, the Court determines that counsel in this action are not taking these obligations seriously, sanctions will be considered. This order disposes of Docket No. 202. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: November 25, 2014 27 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 28 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?