Estrada et al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al
ORDER Requiring Plaintiffs to File an Amended Supplemental Brief. Plaintiffs' counsel is to file this amended supplemental brief by the end of the day on Wednesday, October 4, 2017. Plaintiffs' counsel is to make no additional arguments and to only cite to the documents already on the record. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 10/2/2017.(lrf) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/2/2017: # 1 Stricken Document (Supplemental Briefing), # 2 Stricken Document - Declaration, # 3 Stricken Document - Exhibits 1-57 (Part 1 of 2), # 4 Stricken Document - Exhibits 1-57 (Part 2 of 2)) (lrf).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: 14-cv-1875-AJB-AGS
ANN MARIE ESTRADA, and JOSE
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS
TO FILE AN AMENDED
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
INC., TEVA WOMEN’S HEALTH, INC.,
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
On September 11, 2017, the Court requested that Plaintiffs’ counsel file a
supplemental brief pointing to the specific allegations that were made during the motion
hearing on September 8, 2017. (Doc. No. 91 at 1.) The Court specifically asked that
Plaintiffs’ counsel “list the CM/ECF document number and bates number” for each of the
contentions. (Id.) On September 13, 2017, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed their supplemental brief
and on the following day, Defendants’ counsel rightfully objected. (Doc. Nos. 94, 95.) The
Court notes that instead of following the Court’s clear directions to cite to the documents
on the record, Plaintiffs’ counsel attached their evidence as a new lodgment, totaling over
300 pages in length. (Doc. No. 98.)
In the interests of judicial economy and in deciding this case on the merits, the Court
declines to parse through this new lodgment and then search for its corresponding
counterpart on the record. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs’ counsel to file an
amended supplemental brief citing, without argument, to the CM/ECF document number
and bates number for the same two representations:
(1) Each of the twenty alleged complaints about embedment of the ParaGard IUD
and its subsequent arm breakage upon removal; and
(2) That there were 1000 reports of breakage of the ParaGard IUD every two years.
Plaintiffs’ counsel is to file this amended supplemental brief by the end of the day on
Wednesday, October 4, 2017. Plaintiffs’ counsel is to make no additional arguments and
to only cite to the documents already on the record. The Clerk of Court is directed to
STRIKE Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief and the attached lodgments, document numbers
94, 94-1, 98, and 98-1. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)(1) (a court may act on a motion to strike
“on its own”); see also Sliger v. Prospect Mortg., LLC, 789 F. Supp. 2d 1212, 1216 (E.D.
Cal. 2011) (“The court, however, may make appropriate orders to strike under the rule at
any time on its own initiative.”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 2, 2017
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?