John Muldoon v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al

Filing 77

ORDER RE BRIEFING IRREGULARITIES. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 4/30/2024. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2024)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JOHN MULDOON,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Case No. 15-cv-02723-PJH

Plaintiff,

8
v.

ORDER RE BRIEFING
IRREGULARITIES

10

DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., et al.,

11

Defendants.

Re: Dkt. No. 66

12
13
14

Before the court is DePuy, Inc., Johnson & Johnson International, Inc., Johnson &

15

Johnson Services, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson and Medical Device Business Services,

16

Inc. f/k/a DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.’s (together, “DePuy” or the “DePuy defendants”)

17

motion to dismiss. Dkt. 53. The court has received plaintiff’s opposition to the motion.

18

Dkt. 66. Plaintiff has opposed DePuy’s motion, but plaintiff’s opposition fails to comply

19

with this court’s rules governing filings. Civil Local Rules 7-3(a) and 7-4(b) limit

20

oppositions to 25 pages. Civ. L.R. 7-3(a) & 7-4(b). If a party desires additional pages, it

21

must file a motion for administrative relief pursuant to Local Rule 7-11 requesting leave of

22

court to exceed the page limits.

23

Plaintiff has repeatedly violated this court’s established page limits. See Dkts. 64

24

& 66. The violation reflected by plaintiff’s 32-page brief found at docket 64, was excused

25

by the court because that defendant did not object and in view of the much more serious

26

violation found in the current briefing. Plaintiff’s opposition is 59 total pages with 52

27
28

1

pages of substantive text—more than double the permitted length.1 See Dkt. 66. The

2

excessively-long filing at over double the page limit is truly egregious, and the court

3

cannot countenance such a flagrant rules violation, especially when unaccompanied by

4

a request to exceed the page limit or even an acknowledgment that a violation has been

5

committed. See, e.g., Lemoon v. California Forensic Med. Grp., Inc., 575 F. Supp. 3d

6

1212, 1229 (N.D. Cal. 2021). Allowing such a lengthy opposition while DePuy’s motion

7

and reply briefs conform with the court’s well-established page limits is prejudicial to

8

DePuy, and plaintiff has not even attempted to offer a justification for such prejudice.
In view of the page limit violation, the court will read the first 25 pages of the

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9
10

opposition and strike the remaining 27 pages of substantive text. In the alternative, the

11

court will offer plaintiff the opportunity to rewrite the opposition brief to conform to

12

established page limits. Because the latter option may visit upon the defendants an

13

unnecessary burden, should plaintiff choose to rewrite his opposition plaintiff will be

14

assessed the costs of defendants’ revision of their reply should that become

15

necessary. Defendants may, however, choose to stand on their compliant reply brief and

16

are not required to file a revised brief.
Plaintiff must notify the court of his election on or before Friday, May 3. He shall

17
18

file his revised opposition brief, should he choose to do so, on or before May 10. DePuy

19

shall file a new reply, if it so chooses, on or before May 17, or notify the court that it

20

stands on its original brief.
For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby VACATES the May 9, 2024, hearing

21
22

and will decide the motion on the papers.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: April 30, 2024
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s opposition was also filed late, which is another ground to strike the filing. See
Goings v. Elliot, No. 08-cv-2544-PJH, 2010 WL 9474665 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2010).
2
1