Kourepis et al v. Sony Europe Ltd et al

Filing 42

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James granting 34 Administrative Motion to strike appendix; denying 36 Administrative Motion to file appendix. (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DIMITRIOS KOUREPIS, et al.,

Case No. 16-cv-04438-MEJ

Plaintiffs,
8

ORDER STRIKING APPENDIX TO
DEFENDANT SONY EUROPE LTD.’S
REPLY MEMORANDUM

v.
9
10

SONY EUROPE LTD, et al.,

Dkt. Nos. 33, 34, 36

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

In the Northern District of California, “[a]ny evidentiary and procedural objections to the

14

opposition must be contained within the reply brief or memorandum. Pursuant Civil L.R. 7-4(b),

15

the reply brief memorandum may not exceed 15 pages of text.” Civil L.R. 7-3(c). Specially-

16

appearing Defendant Sony Europe Ltd. (“Defendant”) nonetheless filed a 15-page appendix of

17

evidentiary objections with its Reply brief in support of its Motion to Dismiss. See Reply at 16-31

18

(“Appendix”), Dkt. No. 33. Plaintiffs Dimitrios Kourepis and George Damigos (“Plaintiffs”)

19

move to strike the Appendix. See Mot. to Strike, Dkt. No. 34. Defendant opposed the Motion to

20

Strike, representing its counsel had obtained the Court’s permission. See Opp’n at 1, Dkt. No. 35

21

(“The Court’s clerk stated that the Court would accept the evidentiary objections in an appendix

22

and to make sure the appendix was included in the Court’s courtesy copy.”). On November 2,

23

2016, five days after filing the Reply, Defendant filed an Administrative Motion to File the

24

Appendix. Admin. Mot., Dkt. No. 36.

25

The Court appreciates Defendant’s position that the Appendix is provided for ease of

26

reference, but even if counsel accurately represents her understanding of the conversation with the

27

Court’s clerk, the Court’s Local Rules do not allow the parties to deviate from those rules

28

“[u]nless the Court expressly orders otherwise[.]” Civil L.R. 7-4(b) (emphasis added). A verbal

1

statement from the Court’s clerk does not constitute an express order of the Court. Similarly,

2

requesting leave to file the Appendix days after filing it does not constitute a request made prior to

3

the due date of the filing.

4

The Court accordingly GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike, DENIES Defendant’s

5

Administrative Motion to File the Appendix, and STRIKES the Appendix for failure to conform

6

with the Local Rules.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: November 15, 2016
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

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