Nathalie Thuy Van v. Language Line Services, Inc. et al

Filing 226

ORDER Striking Objections to Evidence. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 4/15/2016. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2016)

Download PDF
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 NATHALIE THUY VAN, Plaintiff, 13 ORDER STRIKING OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE v. 14 15 Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK Re: Dkt. Nos. 220-16, 225-5 LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES, INC., et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 On March 24, 2016, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 211, 19 218. On April 7, 2016, Defendants Language Line, LLC and Language Line Services, Inc. 20 (collectively, “Defendants”) opposed Plaintiff Nathalie Thuy Van’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for summary 21 judgment. ECF No. 220. In support of Defendants’ twenty-one page opposition, Defendants filed 22 thirty pages of objections to the evidence presented by Plaintiff. ECF No. 220-16. Plaintiff has not 23 filed a reply in support of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and the deadline to do so has now 24 passed. 25 On April 7, 2014, Plaintiff opposed Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 221. 26 Defendants filed a fifteen page reply brief on April 14, 2016. ECF No. 225. In support of Defendants’ 27 reply, Defendants filed thirty-five pages of objections to the evidence presented with Plaintiff’s 28 1 Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK ORDER STRIKING OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE 1 opposition. ECF No. 225-5. 2 In sum, Defendants’ objections to Plaintiffs’ summary judgment evidence comprise 65 pages 3 in addition to Defendants’ briefs. These filings contravene Civil Local Rule 7-3, which provides that 4 “[a]ny evidentiary and procedural objections to the motion [or opposition] must be contained within 5 the brief or memorandum.” See Civ. L.R. 7-3(a), (c). Civil Local Rule 7-3 also provides that an 6 opposition brief “may not exceed 25 pages of text” while a reply brief “may not exceed 15 pages of 7 text.” See id. In order to comply with Civil Local Rule 7-3, Defendants should have included any 8 evidentiary objections in Defendants’ briefs, not in separately filed documents. 9 In light of the foregoing, the Court STRIKES Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s evidence, ECF Nos. 220-16 and 225-5. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: April 15, 2016 ______________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK ORDER STRIKING OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

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?