Filed: Mar. 05, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 05, 2020
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , Chief District Judge . Plaintiff Advanced Steel Recovery ("ASR") moves the court for leave to file supplemental briefing of up to ten additional pages following the court's hearing on multiple motions held on January 21, 2020. Mot., ECF No. 125. Defendants Oppose. Opp'n, ECF No. 127. ASR's motion attaches its proposed supplemental brief and summarizes its contents briefly in the motion. The supplemental brief attaches no new evidence to support ASR's motion for
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , Chief District Judge . Plaintiff Advanced Steel Recovery ("ASR") moves the court for leave to file supplemental briefing of up to ten additional pages following the court's hearing on multiple motions held on January 21, 2020. Mot., ECF No. 125. Defendants Oppose. Opp'n, ECF No. 127. ASR's motion attaches its proposed supplemental brief and summarizes its contents briefly in the motion. The supplemental brief attaches no new evidence to support ASR's motion for ..
More
ORDER
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, Chief District Judge.
Plaintiff Advanced Steel Recovery ("ASR") moves the court for leave to file supplemental briefing of up to ten additional pages following the court's hearing on multiple motions held on January 21, 2020. Mot., ECF No. 125. Defendants Oppose. Opp'n, ECF No. 127.
ASR's motion attaches its proposed supplemental brief and summarizes its contents briefly in the motion. The supplemental brief attaches no new evidence to support ASR's motion for summary judgment or oppose defendants' renewed motion. It consists solely of arguments of law pertaining to the characterization and legal significance of cases discussed at the motion hearing.
ASR cites several cases in which a district court granted leave to file supplemental briefing either before or after a hearing on a motion for summary judgment. Mem. P. & A. at 2 (citing Carroll v. Yates, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *5 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2013); Duhn Oil Tool, Inc. v. Cooper Cameron Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96368 at *6 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010); Fahy v. Tarbox, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74841 at *1, 9-10 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2011); Hall v. Apt. Inv.& Mgmt. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156888 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2011)). The court sees no need to distinguish these cases from the one at bar in detail. In brief, the cited cases were situations in which supplemental briefing would either address newly-introduced evidence or legal arguments left undeveloped. This situation is distinct because it appears ASR's proposed briefing is merely a continuation of arguments made in earlier briefs, as well as at hearing. The court reminds the parties of its earlier statement that the court's enlargement of brief size was "on the condition that the parties not abuse the court's trust[.]" Order, ECF No. 43 at 2. The same principle applies here.
While the court recognizes ASR's interest in developing a robust record for review on appeal, the arguments raised in the proposed supplemental brief were sufficiently explored at hearing and in prior briefs. Accordingly, the court DENIES ASR's motion to file supplemental briefing. This order resolves ECF No. 125.
IT IS SO ORDERED
