In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation

Filing 612

Order Expediting Briefing on #601 Administrative Motion to Enforce December 18, 2013 Case Management Order and Local Rule 7-11. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 02/10/2014. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2014)

Download PDF
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 IN RE: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION 12 13 14 THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: 15 ALL ACTIONS 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK ORDER EXPEDITING BRIEFING ON MOTION TO ENFORCE ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs have filed an Administrative Motion to Enforce this Court’s Case Management 18 Order. See ECF No. 601. In their motion, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants exceeded the 25-page 19 limit for Daubert motions by filing a Motion to Exclude Dr. Leamer (15 pages), a Motion to Strike 20 Improper Rebuttal Testimony in Dr. Leamer’s Expert Report (10 pages), and a Motion to Exclude 21 Expert Testimony of Dr. Marx (10 pages). See id. at 2. The critical issue is whether the Motion to 22 Strike should be counted as part of the page limits for the Daubert briefing. 23 The Court ORDERS Defendants to file a two-page response to Plaintiffs’ motion by 24 February 14, 2014, at 5 p.m. No reply shall be entertained. The Court will resolve this motion at 25 the case management conference set for February 19, 2014, at 2 p.m. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Dated: February 10, 2014 _________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 28 1 Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK ORDER EXPEDITING BRIEFING ON MOTION TO ENFORCE

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?