Hatamian et al v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al

Filing 166

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFFS' REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF CLASS CERTIFICATION re 164 Reply to Opposition/Response filed by KBC Asset Management NV, Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 12/8/15. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2015)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6

BABAK HATAMIAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

7
8
9
10

Case No.: 14-cv-00226 YGR
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY BRIEF
IN SUPPORT OF CLASS CERTIFICATION

v.
Re: Dkt. No. 164
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12
13
14

On December 7, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification.
(Dkt. No. 164, “Reply.”) The Court finds Plaintiffs’ use of footnotes therein to be an obvious attempt
to circumvent the Local Civil Rules’ limitation that a reply brief may not exceed fifteen pages of text.

15

See Civ. L. R. 7.3(c); Civ. L. R. 3-4(c)(2) (written text must be double-spaced with no more than
16

twenty-eight lines per page).
17

Every page of the Reply contains between two and ten footnotes. Indeed, Plaintiffs congest a
18

single page with twenty-seven lines of single-spaced text – in addition to twelve double-spaced lines
19

of text in the body. (Reply at 5.) Far from constituting merely a “footnote,” defined as an “aside,
20

caveat, or afterthought,” every one of Plaintiffs’ seventy-four footnotes improperly includes a legal
21

citation, a citation to the evidentiary record, and/or legal argument. Footnote, BLACKS LAW
22

DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2009). The Court will not allow Plaintiffs to place all citations to textual
23

matter in footnotes, in flagrant disregard of the Civil Local Rules and standard practice in this District.
24

See THE BLUEBOOK: A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF CITATION R. B1.1, at 3 (Columbia Law Review Ass’n et
25

al. eds., 20th ed. 2015).
26

Unlike Plaintiffs, the Court will not bloviate. The Court STRIKES Plaintiff’s Reply in Support
27

of Motion for Class Certification and ORDERS Plaintiffs to file a reply that complies with the Civil
28

1

Local Rules by December 14, 2015 at noon. As a sanction for Plaintiffs’ unprofessional conduct and

2

the resulting waste of the Court’s resources, the new reply may not contain any footnotes and must

3

not exceed fifteen pages inclusive of the signature page.

4
5
6
7

Plaintiffs should not perceive this Order to encroach upon their advocacy. Rather, brevity
more often persuades.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 8, 2015

8
9
10

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

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

2