San Pedro-Salcedo v. The Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Company, Inc., et al

Filing 109

Order re 108 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/12/2019.(ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2019)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

MELANIE G. SAN PEDRO-SALCEDO,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE HAAGEN-DAZS SHOPPE
COMPANY, INC.,

Case No. 5:17-cv-03504-EJD
ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
INCREASE PAGE LIMIT
Re: Dkt. No. 108

Defendant.
Defendant has filed an administrative motion seeking leave to file a reply brief in support

16

of its summary judgment motion that exceeds the 15-page limit set by Civil Local Rule 7-2(c).

17

Defendant contends that good cause exists because (a) Plaintiff’s opposition brief (Dkt. No. 100)

18

contains numerous, substantive footnotes that do not comply with the court’s standing order for

19

civil cases, and (b) the opposition improperly relies on previously undisclosed documents. The

20

court’s standing order provides that “[f]ootnotes shall be in no less than 12-point type and shall be

21

double-spaced.” Standing Order § IV.A.4. Plaintiff plainly did not comply with the standing

22

order, and in doing so, Plaintiff also violated the 25-page limit set by Civil Local Rule 7-2(a). The

23
24
25
26
27
28

court will not consider any of the footnotes in plaintiff’s opposition. Cho v. UCBH Holdings Inc.,
2011 WL 3809903, at *18 (N.D. Cal. 2011). As to Defendants’ second argument, Civil Local
Rule 7-2(c) provides, “Any evidentiary . . . objections to the opposition must be contained within
the reply brief or memorandum.” Accordingly, neither argument justifies allowing Defendant to
file a reply brief that exceeds the page limit set by the Civil Local Rules.
Case No.: 5:17-cv-03504-EJD
ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO INCREASE PAGE LIMIT
1

1
2
3
4
5
6

Defendant’s administrative motion is denied, and the court will not consider any footnotes
that fail to comply with the court’s standing order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 12, 2019
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

7
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

Case No.: 5:17-cv-03504-EJD
ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO INCREASE PAGE LIMIT
2