In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation

Filing 242

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying (213) Motion for Hearing; granting in part and denying in part (232) Motion ; granting (235) Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document in case 5:11-cv-02509-LHK (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

IN RE HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

13

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

14

ALL ACTIONS

15
16

)
) Master Docket No. 11-CV-2509-LHK
)
) ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

17
On October 1, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification. ECF No. 187. On
18
November 12, 2012, Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification
19
(“Opposition”). ECF No. 209. In addition to the Opposition, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike
20
the report of Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Edward E. Leamer (“Motion to Strike”). ECF No. 210.
21
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike is due
22
November 26, 2012.
23
On November 12, 2012, Defendants also filed an Administrative Motion seeking an
24
evidentiary hearing in connection with the Motion for Class Certification so that Dr. Leamer and
25
Defendants’ expert, Kevin Murphy, may testify and be cross-examined. ECF No. 213 (“Motion for
26
an Evidentiary Hearing”). Plaintiffs filed their response to Defendants’ Motion for an Evidentiary
27
Hearing on November 16, 2012. ECF No. 237.
28
1
Master Docket No.: 5:11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS

1

On November 15, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an Administrative Motion in which Plaintiffs argue

2

that Defendants’ Motion to Strike is improper and should not be considered. See Administrative

3

Motion for Order Compelling Defendants to Comply with Civil Local Rules 7-3(a) and 3-4(c)(2).

4

ECF No. 232 (“Administrative Motion”). Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants’ Opposition should

5

be rejected because Defendants used Garamond font instead of Times New Roman font. Id. at 1.

6

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants use of Garamond font allowed Defendants “to squeeze in over

7

one-and-a-half pages of argument beyond the 25-page limit.” Id. Defendants filed their response

8

to Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion on November 19, 2012. ECF No. 138.

9

On November 16, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an additional motion to remove the Declaration of

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Brendan P. Glackin in Support of Administrative Motion for Order Compelling Defendants to

11

Comply with Civil Local Rules 7-3(a) and 3-4(c)(2) (ECF No. 233) because the declaration

12

contained material designated as confidential pursuant to the parties’ protective order. See ECF

13

No. 235 (“Motion to Remove the Glackin Declaration”). Plaintiffs state that they inadvertently

14

filed the redacted version of the material. Id.

15
16

Having considered the parties submissions and the relevant case law, the Court hereby
ORDERS that:

17

(1)

Plaintiffs’ deadline to respond to Defendants’ Motion to Strike shall be December

18

10, 2012. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiffs have 25 pages in which to respond to the

19

Motion to Strike;

20

(2)

Defendants shall not be permitted to file a Reply in Support of their Motion to

(3)

All future briefs filed by the parties shall use size 12, Times New Roman font with

21
22
23

Strike;

the default character spacing settings;

24

(4)

Defendants’ Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing is DENIED; and

25

(5)

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remove the Glackin Declaration is GRANTED. However, the

26

Court is unable to remove the documents from the online docket. Instead, the Court ORDERS that

27
28
2
Master Docket No.: 5:11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS

1

the Clerk permanently lock ECF No. 233 (the Glackin Declaration) and its two attachments on the

2

online docket to prevent public access.1

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: November 21, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

These documents were provisionally locked on November 17, 2012.
3

Master Docket No.: 5:11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS