Heldt v. Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd

Filing 708

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STRIKE TCS's RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' COST OBJECTIONS by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers; granting 704 Administrative Motion to Strike Response to Plaintiff's Cost Objections . Accordingly the Court Grants Plaintiffs' motion and hereby STRIKES TCS's filing at Dkt. no. 703. The Court STRIKES portion of plaintiffs' objection as filed in violation of FRCP 54(d)(1) and Local Rule 54-2. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2019)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

CHRISTOPHER SLAIGHT, ET AL.,

7

Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

vs.
TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD,
Defendant.

CASE NO. 15-cv-01696-YGR
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STRIKE
TCS’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ COST
OBJECTIONS
Re: Dkt. No. 704

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The Court has reviewed the papers submitted by the parties in connection with plaintiffs’

13

administrative motion to strike TCS’s response to plaintiffs’ cost objections. (Dkt. Nos. 705, 706.)

14

Unfortunately, the bickering that has infected this litigation persists.

15

First, the Court is unpersuaded by TCS’s current argument that it viewed plaintiffs’

16

objections filed January 28, 2019 as “a motion to deny TCS its costs in total” improperly styled as

17

an objection. TCS did not so characterize plaintiffs’ objections in its actual response, which is

18

now the subject of the instant administrative motion. (Compare Dkt. No. 706 at 1 with Dkt. No.

19

703 at 1 (TCS notes therein “[p]ursuant to stipulation, plaintiffs filed an objection on January 28,

20

2019” to which “TCS hereby files its response”) (emphasis supplied). The Court will not entertain

21

such revisionist explanations for violations of the local rules. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS

22

plaintiffs’ motion and hereby STRIKES TCS’s filing at Docket Number 703.

23

Next, the Court agrees with TCS that plaintiffs’ argument that “the Court should exercise

24

its discretion to decline to tax costs, as an award of costs would be inequitable” (see Dkt. No. 698

25

at 2:18-10:5) is not properly characterized as “specific objections to any item of cost claimed in

26

[TCS’s] bill, succinctly setting forth the grounds of each objection.” See L.R. 54-2(a). Moreover,

27

plaintiffs’ argument attempts to circumvent the procedure for filing a proper motion for review of

28

the clerk’s cost determination. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). Therefore, the

1

Court STRIKES this portion of plaintiffs’ objection as filed in violation of Federal Rule of Civil

2

Procedure 54(d)(1) and Local Rule 54-2. To the extent there is an objection to the clerk’s cost

3

determination, plaintiffs shall comply with Rule 54(d)(1).

4

The Court considered issuing monetary sanctions against both parties for violations of the

5

rules but has already spent more than enough time on this squabble. Further rule violations will be

6

viewed as intentional and flagrant. Parties are hereby warned.

7

This Order terminates Docket Number 704.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated: February 12, 2019
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2