Wendell et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al

Filing 336

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Denying 332 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2014)

1
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

STEPHEN WENDELL, et al.,

6

No. C 09-4124 CW

Plaintiffs,

7

ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO EXCEED
PAGE LIMITS
(Docket No. 332)

v.

8

JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al.,

9

Defendants.
________________________________/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

On January 31, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to

12

exceed the page limit for their response to Defendants’ motion for

13

summary judgment.

14

This motion is denied.

The Court has already granted Plaintiffs leave to file an

15

overlong brief of thirty pages -- the same number of pages granted

16

to Defendants -- and explained why additional pages would not be

17

granted.

18

Exceed Page Limits (“[T]he Court will grant Defendants leave to

19

file an opening summary judgment brief of up to thirty pages.

20

Plaintiff may file a responsive brief of the same length.”).

21

Plaintiffs represented that they were struggling to meet this page

22

limit and requested an extension of time in order to do so, the

23

Court granted them an additional eight days to file their response

24

brief.

25

Time.

26

therefore denied.

27
28

See Docket No. 317, Order Granting in Part Motion to

When

See Docket No. 331, Order Granting Motion for Extension of
Their latest request for leave to the exceed page limit is

Plaintiffs shall re-file their summary judgment brief within
three days of this order.

The brief shall not exceed thirty pages

1

in length.

2

additional pages has delayed the submission of their response

3

brief by seven days, Defendants are granted an additional seven

4

days to file their reply brief.

5

shall not exceed fifteen pages in length, is now due on or before

6

February 20, 2014.

7

unchanged.

8
9

Furthermore, because Plaintiffs’ untimely request for

Defendants’ reply brief, which

The hearing date of March 13, 2014 remains

Finally, Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Defendants’ expert
declarations (Docket No. 334) is stricken pursuant to Civil Local

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Rule 7-3.

11

objections to any motion must be contained within the brief

12

opposing that motion.

13

objections to Defendants’ summary judgment evidence, they must

14

include those objections in their response brief.

15

That rule provides that any evidentiary or procedural

Thus, if Plaintiffs seek to raise any

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated:

2/4/2014

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2