Corcoran et al v. CVS Health Corporation

Filing 319

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO CERTAIN DEFENSE REPLY FILINGS re 317 Objection, filed by Onnolee Samuelson, Robert Jenks, Robert Garber, Carl Washington, Debbie Barrett, Zulema Avis, Tyler Clark. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 7/7/2017. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

CHRISTOPHER CORCORAN, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

7
8

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO
CERTAIN DEFENSE REPLY FILINGS

vs.

9

CVS HEALTH, ET AL.,

10

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

CASE NO. 15-cv-03504-YGR

Re: Dkt. No. 317

On July 5, 2017, plaintiffs filed objections to certain documents defendants filed in

12

connection with their reply in support of their motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 317.)

13

Specifically, plaintiffs object to the following: (i) defendants’ reply to plaintiffs’ responsive

14

statement of facts as not allowed under this Court’s Standing Order in Civil Cases; (ii) defense

15

Exhibit 524, on the grounds that it is a misleading and incomplete compilation of deposition

16

testimony; and (iii) defense Exhibit 536, on the grounds that it constitutes improper legal argument

17

that should have been contained in defendants’ reply brief.

18

The Court ORDERS as follows:

19

1) With respect to defendants’ reply to plaintiffs’ responsive statement of facts at Docket

20

Number 315-1, the Court SUSTAINS plaintiffs’ objection in part and STRIKES Docket Number 315-

21

1 from the bottom of page 2 starting with the chart to the bottom of page 32 where plaintiffs’

22

“Additional Facts and Supporting Evidence” begins. The Court’s Standing Order in Civil Cases

23

provides that parties moving for summary judgment must include a separate, short, and concise

24

statement of the material facts, and allows for the party opposing such motion one responsive

25

separate statement, not to exceed five additional pages beyond the number of pages in the opening

26

statement. See Standing Order in Civil Cases § 9(c). No permission was granted for a reply to the

27

same. However, a response to plaintiffs’ additional facts is appropriate.

28

1

2) With respect to defense Exhibit 524 at Docket Number 315-6, the Court OVERRULES

2

plaintiffs’ objection. Such a compilation of deposition testimony was submitted in response to

3

plaintiffs’ assertions and designation of deposition transcripts purporting to demonstrate the

4

importance of pricing in their purchasing decisions. However, in the interest of judicial economy

5

and the accuracy of the record, the Court will entertain a request to counter-designate additional

6

portions of plaintiffs’ deposition testimony without further argument to cure what plaintiffs argue

7

are misleading and incomplete excerpts in Exhibit 524. Plaintiffs must file such counter-

8

designations no later than July 11, 2017.
3) With respect to defense Exhibit 536 at Docket Number 315-18, the Court SUSTAINS

10

plaintiffs’ objections and STRIKES defense Exhibit 536 from the record. Such constitutes legal

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

argument in response to plaintiffs’ objections to evidence submitted in defendants’ motion for

12

summary judgment. As such, the arguments should be contained within the brief itself pursuant to

13

Civil Local Rule 7-3.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: July 7, 2017
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2