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)
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?