Filed: Apr. 09, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 09, 2012
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge. On March 12, 2012, defendants filed a 25-page reply brief in support of their motion to decertify the class. (Dkt. No. 529.) However, this court's Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference Order of January 25, 2007, provides that " reply memoranda are limited to fifteen (15) pages. " (Dkt. No. 26 (emphasis in text)). Defendants have now filed a "Notice of New Authority" which includes yet another brief, although only 2-pages in length. (Dkt. No. 539.)
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge. On March 12, 2012, defendants filed a 25-page reply brief in support of their motion to decertify the class. (Dkt. No. 529.) However, this court's Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference Order of January 25, 2007, provides that " reply memoranda are limited to fifteen (15) pages. " (Dkt. No. 26 (emphasis in text)). Defendants have now filed a "Notice of New Authority" which includes yet another brief, although only 2-pages in length. (Dkt. No. 539.) ..
More
ORDER
LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge.
On March 12, 2012, defendants filed a 25-page reply brief in support of their motion to decertify the class. (Dkt. No. 529.) However, this court's Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference Order of January 25, 2007, provides that "reply memoranda are limited to fifteen (15) pages." (Dkt. No. 26 (emphasis in text)). Defendants have now filed a "Notice of New Authority" which includes yet another brief, although only 2-pages in length. (Dkt. No. 539.)
Plaintiffs object to both briefs. (Dkt. Nos. 533 & 540.) Plaintiffs represent that no permission was granted to permit the additional 10 pages of reply briefing. Defendants do not contest this representation. Instead, they have filed a two-page letter setting forth their theory about why — considering the page extensions that were granted for other briefs, page extensions granted in another case, plaintiffs' request to file a sur-reply, and the application of certain mathematical principles — they believed that they were authorized to file a 25-page reply brief. (Dkt. No. 535.)
This court's scheduling order, together with the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, do not contemplate the filing of oversized briefs, nor the filing of briefs after the reply brief has been filed (whether it is called a notice, surreply, supplement or otherwise). In order to file such a brief, a party must first be granted leave of court, which defendants have not sought or received. Prior extensions of page lengths have been granted by the court, whether through written stipulation (see Dkt. Nos. 46 & 285), or otherwise. Defendants are aware of this practice, as they have been parties to these stipulations and agreements in the past.
In this case, there was no written or other stipulation to permit defendants to file an over-sized reply brief, or to file a brief accompanying their Notice of Authority. Both of defendants' filings, made without leave of court, were therefore done in violation of this court's express, written order,1 and in apparent defiance (or at best, casual disregard) of the briefing process contemplated by Local Rule 230.
Plaintiffs have requested that the court respond to defendants' conduct by ordering defendants to withdraw both unauthorized briefs, and file a single, 15-page (maximum) reply brief, or to grant plaintiffs an opportunity to file a sur-reply.
The court therefore orders as follows:
1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to strike defendants' Notice of New Authority (Dkt. 539); and
2. Plaintiffs may file a sur-reply in opposition to defendants' de-certification motion no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this order. The sur-reply shall be no longer than twenty-five (25) pages in length.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
