Cloudera, Inc. v. Databricks, Inc. et al

Filing 97

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS 94 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STRIKE NEW ARGUMENTS. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/3/2021)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CLOUDERA, INC., Plaintiff, 8 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STRIKE NEW ARGUMENTS v. 9 10 DATABRICKS, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 94 Defendants. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 21-cv-01217-HSG 12 13 On May 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed an Administrative Motion to Strike New Arguments in 14 Defendant’s Reply in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint or, 15 Alternatively, For Leave to File Sur-Reply. Dkt. No. 94 (“Mot.”); 96 (“Opp.”). The Court 16 GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion as follows: The alternative argument on 17 pages 5:15-7:2, and the subheading on page 5, of Defendant Databricks, Inc.’s Reply in Further 18 Support of its Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, see Dkt. No. 92, is stricken from the 19 Reply Brief and will not be considered by the Court.1 Given this ruling, Plaintiff’s alternative 20 request for leave to file a sur-reply is DENIED. 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6/3/2021 24 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to strike page 5:6-14 and the remainder of the parenthetical on line 15 and footnote four. 1

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?