Mccullough et al v. Xerox Corporation

Filing 78

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 10/15/2015. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 10/9/2015. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SAKEENAH MCCULLOUGH, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-04596-HSG

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

9
10

XEROX CORPORATION,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 27, 67, 75, 76

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On April 11, 2014, Judge White issued an order denying Defendant’s motion to sever

13

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. Dkt. No. 27. That motion was fully and substantively

14

briefed by the parties. Dkt. Nos. 16, 21, 24. In his order, Judge White found that Plaintiffs had

15

satisfied the prerequisites for permissive joinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, and

16

that Defendant would “not be prejudiced by having Plaintiffs’ claims tried together.” Order at 3.

17

On February 13, 2015, the case was reassigned to this Court. On April 30, 2015, the Court held a

18

hearing on Defendant’s motions for summary judgment and conducted its first case management

19

conference with the parties at the same time. Dkt. No. 67. At that hearing, defense counsel said

20

she planned to file a motion to sever, but did not reference Judge White’s earlier ruling, and

21

neither party has acknowledged that ruling in their subsequent filings regarding the timing of the

22

proposed severance briefing.

23

Having reviewed the docket, Judge White’s order, and the parties’ briefing, it appears to

24

the Court that Defendant essentially plans to seek reconsideration of the April 2014 order. If that

25

is the case, Defendant must follow the procedures outlined in Civil Local Rule 7-9, including

26

establishing good cause for the Court to grant leave to file the motion. Defendant is advised that

27

the Court will look with substantial disfavor on any effort to file a duplicative motion relitigating

28

the already-decided severance issues. Moreover, based on the Court’s ruling on the summary

1

judgment motions, Plaintiffs’ claims have even more in common than they did when the April

2

2014 order issued. All that remains to be decided at trial are Plaintiffs’ racial discrimination

3

claims, which are based on the same statutes, rely on similar facts, and will involve a number of

4

the same witnesses.

5

Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday,

6

October 15, 2015 why any proposed renewed motion to sever is not a motion for reconsideration

7

of Judge White’s April 11, 2014 Order subject to the requirements of Civil Local Rule 7-9.

8

Defendant’s filing may not exceed three pages in length.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 10/9/2015

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

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