San Pedro-Salcedo v. The Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Company, Inc.
- Edward Davila
- 5:17-cv-03504
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In San Pedro-Salcedo v. The Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Company, Judge Davila denied extra reply pages and excluded noncompliant footnotes.
The defendant’s request to exceed the reply-page limit was denied. The plaintiff’s noncompliant footnotes in the opposition would not be considered.
What happened
In San Pedro-Salcedo v. The Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Company, the defendant asked to file a reply supporting its summary-judgment motion that exceeded the 15-page limit. The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s opposition used improper footnotes and relied on documents that had not previously been disclosed.
The court agreed that the plaintiff’s footnotes violated the court’s formatting rules and exceeded the opposition’s page limit. It said it would not consider those footnotes. But the court ruled that neither argument justified allowing the defendant to exceed the reply-page limit, so it denied the defendant’s administrative motion.
Judge Edward J. Davila issued the order on September 12, 2019. The order denied the request for additional reply pages and stated that the court would not consider footnotes that failed to comply with its standing order.
The detailed version
- San Pedro-Salcedo v. The Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Company, Inc. · No. 5:17-cv-03504
- Edward Davila
- Sept. 12, 2019
Background
The defendant filed an administrative motion asking for permission to submit a reply brief supporting its summary-judgment motion that exceeded the 15-page limit in Civil Local Rule 7-2(c). It argued that good cause existed because the plaintiff’s opposition contained numerous substantive footnotes that violated the court’s standing order and because the opposition relied on documents that had not previously been disclosed.
Court’s analysis
The court found that the plaintiff’s footnotes did not comply with the standing order, which required footnotes to use at least 12-point type and double spacing. The court also concluded that the noncompliant footnotes caused the plaintiff to violate the 25-page limit for opposition briefs. The court stated that it would not consider any footnotes in the plaintiff’s opposition that failed to comply with the standing order.
The court rejected the defendant’s request for extra reply pages. It explained that Civil Local Rule 7-2(c) requires evidentiary objections to the opposition to be included in the reply brief or memorandum, so neither of the defendant’s arguments justified exceeding the applicable page limit.
Disposition
Judge Edward J. Davila denied the defendant’s administrative motion to increase the page limit. The court also stated that it would not consider footnotes in the plaintiff’s opposition that failed to comply with the standing order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.