Mata et al v. Manpower Inc. / California Peninsula et al

Filing 79

ORDER by Judge Lucy Koh denying #52 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; granting #71 Motion to Strike; and requiring Parties to File Renewed Opposition and Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment (lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/29/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

JUVENTINA MATA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16
17

Case No. 14-CV-03787-LHK
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR
ENLARGING PAGE LIMITATION,
GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO STRIKE, AND
REQUIRING PARTIES TO FILE
RENEWED OPPOSITION AND REPLY
TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

v.
MANPOWER INC. / CALIFORNIA
PENINSULA, et al.,
Defendants.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 52, 71

18
19

On September 10, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an application for an order enlarging the page

20

limits for Plaintiffs’ brief in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. See ECF

21

No. 52. In this application, Plaintiffs requested additional pages in order to provide the Court with

22

“detail [on] the discovery disputes [in the case]” and how these disputes relate to Defendants’

23

motion for summary judgment. Id. at 2. Without receiving prior approval of the Court, Plaintiffs

24

then proceeded to file, on the same day, a thirty-five page opposition to Defendants’ summary

25

judgment motion, in violation of Civil Local Rule 7-3. See Civ. L.R. 7-3(a) (“[S]uch brief or

26

memorandum may not exceed 25 pages of text.”). Plaintiffs’ opposition, moreover, refers to the

27
28

1
Case No. 14-CV-03787-LHK
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR ENLARGING PAGE LIMITATION, GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO STRIKE, AND REQUIRING PARTIES TO FILE RENEWED OPPOSITION AND REPLY TO
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

alleged discovery disputes only in passing: “Defendants’ motion [for summary judgment] must be

2

denied due to their deliberate efforts to frustrate discovery, as detailed in the concurrently filed

3

Rule 56(d) Request.” ECF No. 70 at 8 (emphasis added). Plaintiffs thus filed a separate seven-

4

page motion that addressed the alleged discovery disputes, in addition to Plaintiffs’ thirty-five

5

page opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. See ECF No. 65.

6

On September 10, 2015, Plaintiffs also filed objections to the Declarations of Mark Horne

7

and Sunny Ackerman. See ECF No. 53. These filings contravene Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), which

8

provides that “[a]ny evidentiary and procedural objections to the motion must be contained within

9

the brief or memorandum.” In order to comply with Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiffs should
have included any objections to the Horne and Ackerman Declarations in Plaintiffs’ opposition to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, not in a separately filed document.

12
13

On September 14, 2015, Defendants moved to oppose Plaintiffs’ application and moved to
strike Plaintiffs’ separately-filed objections. ECF No. 71.

14

In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ application and GRANTS

15

Defendants’ motion to strike. The Court also strikes Plaintiffs’ separate Rule 56(d) motion—any

16

arguments in this motion should have been included in Plaintiffs’ opposition. The Court hereby

17

ORDERS Plaintiffs to file a renewed opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment by

18

November 5, 2015. This opposition brief must comport with Civil Local Rule 7-3: Plaintiffs’

19

opposition shall not exceed 25 pages in length, and Plaintiffs shall not file any separate objections

20

or motions. Defendants shall file a renewed reply by November 12, 2015.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24
25

Dated: October 29, 2015
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

26
27
28

2
Case No. 14-CV-03787-LHK
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR ENLARGING PAGE LIMITATION, GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO STRIKE, AND REQUIRING PARTIES TO FILE RENEWED OPPOSITION AND REPLY TO
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT