Our Children's Earth Foundation et al v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency et al

Filing 76

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore denying 71 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 OUR CHILDREN'S EARTH FOUNDATION, et al., Plaintiffs, 8 v. 9 10 11 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al., Case No. 13-cv-02857-JSW (KAW) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Re: Dkt. No. 71 United States District Court Northern District of California Defendants. 12 13 On June 5, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file a motion for reconsideration 14 and/or clarification of the Court’s May 20, 2015 order striking the reply declaration of Christopher 15 Sproul. (Pl.’s Mot., Dkt. No. 71.) Specifically, Plaintiffs seek reconsideration or clarification 16 regarding three aspects of the Court’s order: 17 1. The Plaintiffs did not comply with Local Rule 54-5(b)(2) and (3) because Plaintiffs' February 26, 2015 Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Dkt. 59) "did not include a statement of services rendered by each person nor a description of qualifications and experience to support the hourly rate sought" as required by Civil Local Rule 54(b)(2) and (3). Plaintiffs sought "to rectify this oversight in filing their reply." 18 19 20 21 2. Since Defendants did not have the benefit of opposing the motion that complied with Civil Local Rule 54-5 they are permitted to file as surreply, not to exceed 10 pages. 22 23 3. The Reply Declaration of Christopher Sproul ("Sproul Reply Declaration") is argumentative in nature and thus is stricken in its entirety. 24 25 (Dkt. No. 71 at 1-2.) Upon review of Plaintiffs’ motion, and for the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ motion is 26 27 DENIED. 28 /// I. 1 DISCUSSION 2 The Court will individually address each request below. 3 A. 4 Civil Local Rule 54-5(b) requires that motions for attorneys’ fees include a statement of Compliance with Civil Local Rule 54-5(b) 5 services rendered by each person, as well as a description of qualifications and experience to support 6 the hourly rates sought. See Civil L.R. 54-5(b)(2),(3). While Plaintiffs’ initial motion provided a 7 substantial amount of information, in light of the considerable amount of attorneys’ fees sought, it did 8 not provide information sufficient to meet these requirements. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for 9 leave to file a motion for reconsideration is denied. B. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Sua sponte granting of a surreply The Court granted Defendants a surreply to respond to new information provided in 12 Plaintiffs’ reply. The Court has the discretion to provide an opportunity for further briefing 13 without a formal request, and did so because it was in the interests of justice. Accordingly, 14 Plaintiffs’ request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is denied. 15 C. Striking of Reply Declaration of Christopher Spoul 16 Plaintiffs filed the Reply Declaration of Christopher Sproul (Dkt. No. 69-1), which the 17 Court stuck as argumentative. Plaintiffs filed an amended reply declaration in compliance with 18 the Court’s Order, so any request for reconsideration or clarification is denied as moot. II. 19 20 21 22 23 CONCLUSION In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration and/or clarification of the Court’s May 20, 2015 order is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 3, 2015 __________________________________ KANDIS A. WESTMORE United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 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?