Vedachalam v. Tata America International Corporation et al

Filing 261

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFFS #254 MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/2/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2011)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

GOPI VEDACHALAM and KANGANA BERI,
on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

ORDER STRIKING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO STRIKE
DEFENDANTS’
EVIDENCE IN
SUPPORT OF
OPPOSITION TO
MOTION FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION
(Docket No. 254)

Plaintiffs,
v.
TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD,
an Indian Corporation; and TATA
SONS, LTD, an Indian Corporation,

10
11

No. C 06-0963 CW

Defendants.
________________________________/

12
13

On April 25, 2011, Plaintiffs Gopi Vedachalam and Kangani

14

Beri filed a Motion for Class Certification.

15

hearing schedule were continued twice following requests by the

16

parties.

17

additional pages for their opposition and Plaintiffs ten

18

additional pages for their reply.

19

Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for class

20

certification.

21

five page reply to Defendants’ opposition.

22

Plaintiffs also filed a separate twenty-five page motion to strike

23

certain pieces of evidence submitted by Defendants with their

24

opposition.

25

Plaintiffs have filed a total of fifty pages of text.

26

The briefing and

On September 12, 2011, the Court granted Defendants ten

On September 16, 2011,

On October 28, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a twentyOn the same day,

Between their reply brief and the motion to strike,

Plaintiffs’ motion to strike violated Local Rule 7-3(c),

27

which states,

28

opposition must be contained within the reply brief or

“Any evidentiary and procedural objections to the

1

memorandum.”

2

pages, the reply brief, including any evidentiary and procedural

3

objections, may not exceed twenty-five pages in total.

4

Rule 7-3(c) & 7-4(b) (reply briefs may not exceed fifteen pages of

5

text).

6

Because Plaintiffs have been granted ten additional

See Local

Accordingly, the Court STRIKES Plaintiffs’ motion to strike

7

(Docket No. 254).

8

refile their reply brief, incorporating any evidentiary objections

9

or responses to such objections.

Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend and

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Thursday, November 3, 2011.

11

Plaintiffs’ refiled reply is due

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

Dated: 11/2/2011

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

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