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)
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?