Filed: Apr. 24, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 24, 2017
Summary: ORDER STRIKING BRIEFS OR PORTIONS THEREOF FOR VIOLATIONS OF LOCAL RULE 7-3(D) RE: SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Re: Dkt. Nos. 90, 92 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . On April 4, 2017, defendants filed "Objections to and Motion to Strike `Rebuttal' Expert Declarations . . ." (Dkt. No. 90) in violation of multiple Local Rules and this Court's briefing schedule and without any supplemental authorization (or even request for authorization) from the Court. ( See Dkt. No. 91, Exs. A and B, sch
Summary: ORDER STRIKING BRIEFS OR PORTIONS THEREOF FOR VIOLATIONS OF LOCAL RULE 7-3(D) RE: SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Re: Dkt. Nos. 90, 92 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . On April 4, 2017, defendants filed "Objections to and Motion to Strike `Rebuttal' Expert Declarations . . ." (Dkt. No. 90) in violation of multiple Local Rules and this Court's briefing schedule and without any supplemental authorization (or even request for authorization) from the Court. ( See Dkt. No. 91, Exs. A and B, sche..
More
ORDER STRIKING BRIEFS OR PORTIONS THEREOF FOR VIOLATIONS OF LOCAL RULE 7-3(D) RE: SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 90, 92
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.
On April 4, 2017, defendants filed "Objections to and Motion to Strike `Rebuttal' Expert Declarations . . ." (Dkt. No. 90) in violation of multiple Local Rules and this Court's briefing schedule and without any supplemental authorization (or even request for authorization) from the Court. (See Dkt. No. 91, Exs. A and B, scheduling conferences with the Court; Local Rule 7-2(a), 7-3(d)(1), (2).) Accordingly, Docket No. 90 is STRICKEN.
On April 21, 2017, plaintiffs filed a "Statement of Recent Decision . . . ." (Dkt. No. 92.) The Court hereby STRIKES all but the introductory paragraph, signature, and the attachments. This filing also violated Local Civil Rules' limitations.
Civil Local Rule 7-3(d) provides:
(d) Supplementary Material. Once a reply is filed, no additional memoranda, papers or letters may be filed without prior Court approval, except as follows:
(1) Objection to Reply Evidence. If new evidence has been submitted in the reply, the opposing party may file within 7 days after the reply is filed, and serve an Objection to Reply Evidence, which may not exceed 5 pages of text, stating its objections to the new evidence, which may not include further argument on the motion. The Objection to Reply Evidence must be filed and served not more than 7 days after the reply was filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), which extends deadlines that are tied to service (as opposed to filing), does not apply and thus does not extend this deadline.
(2) Before the noticed hearing date, counsel may bring to the Court's attention a relevant judicial opinion published after the date the opposition or reply was filed by filing and serving a Statement of Recent Decision, containing a citation to and providing a copy of the new opinion—without argument.
Here, plaintiffs' filing included their own summaries of the cases at issue. Such is more than the "citation to" and provision of "copy of the new opinion."
Parties are warned that any further failure to comply with the Court's rules will likely result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions, which may include monetary and evidentiary sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
