Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 146

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting in part and denying in part 143 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MATTHEW CAMPBELL, et al.,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 13-cv-5996-PJH

Plaintiffs,

8
v.

FACEBOOK INC.,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION

Defendant.

12
13
14

Before the court is defendant’s administrative motion to enlarge the page limit for

15

its opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, filed on January 4, 2016. See

16

Dkt. 143. Defendant requests an additional 15 pages (i.e., 40 total pages) for its

17

opposition brief, arguing the additional pages are needed to address plaintiffs’ arguments

18

regarding “new practices and functionalities that were not mentioned anywhere in the

19

operative complaint,” and to object to a report submitted by plaintiffs’ damages expert.

20
21
22

Plaintiffs oppose the motion, arguing that defendant has not adequately explained
why the above issues cannot be satisfactorily addressed within the page limit.
The court finds that defendant has not adequately supported its request for an

23

additional 15 pages, which represents a 60 percent increase in its page limit. However,

24

the court GRANTS defendant’s motion in part, and will increase the page limit for

25

defendant’s opposition by five pages (for a total of 30 pages), and will correspondingly

26

increase the page limit for plaintiffs’ reply by five pages (for a total of 20).

27
28

Finally, the court notes an issue with the readability of plaintiffs’ opposition to
defendant’s administrative motion (Dkt. 144). The font appears to be narrow and

1

compressed, and is notic
ceably diffe
erent than th font use in plaintif motion f class
he
ed
ffs’
for

2

cer
rtification (D 138). When filing their reply in support of class ce
Dkt.
W
ertification, plaintiffs

3

sha use the same font that was us in their motion for class certif
all
t
sed
fication.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: Janua 7, 2016
ary
__
__________
__________
__________
_______
PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
Un
nited States District Ju
s
udge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2