Free Range Content, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 102

ORDER STRIKING 99 PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 11/16/2015. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 FREE RANGE CONTENT, INC., et al., Case No. 14-cv-02329-BLF Plaintiffs, 8 v. 9 10 GOOGLE INC., Defendant. [Re: ECF 99, 100] 11 United States District Court Northern District of California ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 12 13 On November 10, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. 14 ECF 99. Defendant objects to the Opposition on the grounds that it violates the Court’s Standing 15 Order Re Civil Cases with respect to the use of footnotes. ECF 100. Plaintiffs filed a brief in 16 response to Defendant’s objection. ECF 101. 17 The Standing Order provides that footnotes “are to be used sparingly and citations to 18 textual matter shall not be contained in footnotes.” Standing Order at 4. Every page of the 19 Opposition contains at least two—and, on one page, eight—footnotes. See Opp. at 3. The lines 20 consumed by single-spaced footnotes outnumber the lines of double-spaced text on nearly half of 21 the brief’s pages. See Opp., see also Def.’s Obj. at 1. Defendant notes that, through this use of 22 footnotes, Plaintiffs included 451 lines of single-spaced text—the equivalent of more than 16 23 pages had Plaintiffs complied with the Local Civil Rules’ requirement that text in the body of the 24 brief be double-spaced with no more than 28 lines per page, see Civ. L. R. 3-4(c)(2). 25 The Court has previously remarked on Plaintiffs’ use of “copious (and frankly excessive) 26 footnotes.” See Order Granting Mot. for Recon., ECF 91 at 6, n. 2. Plaintiffs’ use of footnotes in 27 its Opposition clearly violates the Court’s Standing Order. 28 Accordingly, the Court STRIKES Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 1 the Third Amended Complaint. The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to file an opposition that complies 2 with the Standing Order and Local Civil Rules, contains no footnotes, and does not exceed 25 3 pages inclusive of the signature page by no later than November 25, 2015. Pursuant to the parties’ 4 stipulated briefing schedule, Defendant’s Reply shall be due no later than December 16, 2015. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 8 Dated: November 16, 2015 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 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

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?