Minor v. Baker Mills, Inc.
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:20-cv-02901
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Minor v. Baker Mills, Inc., Judge Seeborg denied defendants leave to file an overlong amended opposition and allowed separate responses to expert challenges.
The ruling affected plaintiff Sherris Minor and the defendants by controlling how the parties could brief and respond to the expert challenges.
What happened
In Minor v. Baker Mills, Inc., defendants had separately challenged the reports and opinions of four experts while opposing plaintiff’s request to certify a class. Plaintiff argued that the separate filings violated a local rule requiring evidentiary and procedural objections to appear in the brief.
Defendants agreed with plaintiff’s reading of the rule and asked to file an amended opposition that included the challenges, but the amended brief would have exceeded the page limit by seven pages. The court denied that request, explaining that requiring an overlong amended brief would not promote efficient case management.
Judge Seeborg allowed plaintiff to file separate responses to the two expert challenges with her reply and, if necessary, a separate response to the objection concerning Robert Wolfe’s declaration. The court barred defendants from filing replies supporting those expert challenges.
The detailed version
- Minor v. Baker Mills, Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-02901
- Richard Seeborg
- Sept. 23, 2021
Background
The order concerns filings made in connection with defendants’ opposition to plaintiff’s motion for class certification. Defendants filed two separate motions seeking to exclude the reports and opinions of three of plaintiff’s experts. They also filed a separate objection to a fourth expert’s declaration. The two motions expressly relied on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which addresses the reliability and admissibility of expert opinions. The separate objection did not cite Daubert but likewise challenged the reliability of an expert’s opinions.
Plaintiff argued that the separate motions and objection violated Civil Local Rule 7-3, which states that evidentiary and procedural objections to a motion must be included in the supporting brief or memorandum. Defendants agreed with plaintiff’s interpretation and sought leave to file an amended opposition brief incorporating the substance of the motions and objection. The amended opposition would have exceeded the ordinary page limit by seven pages.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that Local Rule 7-3 is primarily intended to prevent separately filed lists of objections that distract from important evidentiary issues. The court stated that the rule does not unambiguously prohibit appropriate Daubert motions. It also noted that separately filed motions ordinarily require a briefing schedule because the rules do not expressly permit motions on fewer than 35 days’ notice.
Ruling
Judge Richard Seeborg denied defendants’ motion for leave to file an amended opposition brief. The court reasoned that requiring an amended opposition that exceeded the page limit would not promote judicial efficiency. The court did not decide whether the expert opinions should be excluded or whether the separate objection was valid.
The court permitted plaintiff to file separate oppositions to the two Daubert motions with her reply. No reply supporting those motions would be permitted. The court also stated that plaintiff could file a separate response to the objection to Robert Wolfe, Ph.D.’s declaration if she considered one necessary.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.